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.
Source Description
This file contains statements by Representative Gerald Ford and Senator Everett Dirksen.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525506
label
Joint Press Releases Senate-House Republican Leadership, 1965-1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525506
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Joint Press Releases Senate-House Republican Leadership, 1965-1966
description
This file contains statements by Representative Gerald Ford and Senator Everett Dirksen.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Chronological Files
subjects
Republican National Committee (U.S.)
U.S. House of Representatives. 3/4/1789-
U.S. Senate. 3/4/1789-
Republican Party (U.S. : 1854- )
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525506
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-10-31
month
10
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-01-01
month
1
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
b292b9683ae56fa5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D5, folder "Joint Press Releases Senate-House
Republican Leadership, 1965-1966" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D5 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
Gerald R. Ford, Jr.,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
John W. Byrnes, Chr.
of the Conference
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
Melvin R. Laird,
Chr. Republican
Chr. of the Conference
Senatorial Committee
Issued following a
Clarence J. Brown,
Leadership Meeting
Ranking Member
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Rules Committee
The Republican
January 11, 1965
Bob Wilson,
National Chairman
Chr. Republican
Dean Burch
Congressional Committee
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
When defeat comes to a major political party in this country in-
variably there are outcries for revolutionary changes in party struc-
ture, party leadership and party policies. The Republican defeat of
1964 has produced these manifestations of uncertainty, unrest and un-
easiness. Many suggestions, both formal and informal, for action pour
from numerous sources.
We, the members of the Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership,
are fully cognizant of the situation. There is no doubt in our minds
that action is indicated and We are taking it. In our conversations
since the November defeat we have discussed, among ourselves and with
other recognized party leaders, numerous paths that might be followed.
Always, certain basic facts have emerged:
First, that the only elected Republican officials of the Federal
Establishment are the 32 Republican members of the United States Sen-
ate and the 140 members of the House of Representatives. Obviously
and beyond dispute, they will guide Republican Party policy at the
national level, in the absence of a Republican President and Vice
President, by the record they write in the Congress. It is their
responsibility.
Second, that an additional repository of advice and counsel on
party policy exists in former Presidents and nominees for President,
in our present elected Governors, in the members of the Republican
National Committee and the State Chairmen of our several states, and,
of course, in active Republican advocates at all other levels of the
party structure. Their wisdom must be channeled into party policy
formulation.
In the conviction that the Republican Party for a century has
been and is an essential element in this nation's forward progress,
and with the firm belief that all Republicans must join the effort,
we, the members of the Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership, have
on this day initiated a proposed mechanism to achieve a broad consen-
sus on vital objectives for our country and our party. It is an honor
to introduce my colleague, the new Republican Leader of the House,
Jerry Ford, to provide the details of the proposal.
(Ford statement - page 2)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
STATEMENT BY REP. FORD:
-2-
January 11, 1965
We propose to give the Republican Party a unified leadership.
As a chart we are making public will show, we are inviting the five
living Republican nominees for President -- one of whom, Dwight D.
Eisenhower, served two terms in that office -- and representatives
of the Republican Governors Association to join with us in the esta-
blishment of a Republican Coordinating Committee to continuously
examine party policy and party operations.
We have asked the Presiding Officer of the Joint Senate-House
Republican Leadership, the Republican National Chairman, Mr. Dean
Burch, to serve as Presiding and Administrative Officer of the new
Republican Coordinating Committee, and through the Republican Nation-
al Committee to provide such staff assistance and funds as may be
necessary. As Mr. Burch, himself, suggested, we regard this role an
implicit responsibility for him or whoever may occupy his office in
the future.
It will be the function of the Republican Coordinating Committee,
composed of the eleven members of the Joint Senate-House Republican
Leadership, the five living Republican nominees for President, and
five representatives of the Republican Governors Association to
facilitate the broadest party representation and the establishment of
task forces for the study and examination of major national problems
and issues. The recruiting sources for these task forces, which would
report to the Joint Leadership, are clearly delineated on the organi-
zation chart which we are making public.
For the Joint Leadership, I have been asked to add these two
pertinent points: First, the Republican National Chairman has been
requested to immediately invite the other participants to join us in
forming the Republican Coordinating Committee. Second, we are con-
vinced that the Republican Party is not only a great force in the
American way of life, but it is the only living political instrument
which can make the American Dream a reality, not a mere collection
of words and promises. Our only goal is results and we intend to
achieve them.
REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
For The
For The
Senate
House
The Leader
The Leader
NATIONAL PARTY
The Whip
The Whip
REPUBLICAN
LEADERS
Chairman, Policy Committee
Chairman, Policy Committee
GOVERNORS
Chairman, Conference
Chairman, Conference
ASSOCIATION
(Presidential Nominees)
Ranking Rules Committee Member
Chairman, Senatorial Campaign
Chairman, Congressional Campaign
Committee
Committee
Presiding Officer
Chairman, Republican National Committee
CONTRIBUTING SOURCES FOR STAFF PERSONNEL
CONTRIBUTING SOURCES FOR TASK FORCE PERSONNEL
RNC
MEMBERS
Joint
Senate and House
Senate
RNC
&
GOVERNORS
Leadership
Staff Members
Members
STATE
CHAIRMEN
House
STAFF COORDINATING
Policy
TASK FORCES
COMMITTEE
Committee
House
Members
FORMER
OFFICE
Senate
House
Senate
HOLDERS
Academic and
Policy
Campaign
Campaign
Professional
Committee
Committee
Committee
Consultants
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON GOP COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Q. Does the establishment of the Republican Coordinating Committee
mean that the Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership is surrend-
ering its role as a policy-making body?
A. No, policy formulation, when the Party does not occupy the White
House, still resides in Republican members of the United States
Senate and House of Representatives and their elected leaders,
but the Coordinating Committee will provide a communications cen-
ter for the exchange of ideas on policy with other important
party leaders and elected officials; also the establishment of
task forces will be an implementing feature.
Q. Who will appoint the task forces?
A. The Republican National Chairman as the Presiding Officer of the
Coordinating Committee will appoint the task forces with the ad-
vice of the Joint Leadership and, when appropriate, in consulta-
tion with the former Presidential nominees and representatives of
the Governors Association. In all cases the Presiding Officer
will circulate his lists of task force appointees in advance to
all the participating members of the Coordinating Committee.
Q. Who will direct the staff operation which will assist both the Co-
ordinating Committee and the task forces?
A. The Presiding Officer will designate a Staff Coordinator, presum-
ably from the staff of the Republican National Committee. It
will be the Staff Coordinator's responsibility to assemble volun-
teer research help from the sources indicated on the chart.
Q. What about representation on the task forces for organized groups
representing agriculture, labor, veterans, etc., etc.?
A. It is the hope of the Coordinating Committee the task forces will
have help from all the major organizations in our society and such
help will be sought.
Q. How often will the Coordinating Committee meet and when will the
first meeting be?
A. The date of the first meeting will be fixed to suit the conven-
ience of the maximum number of the Committee's members. This will
be explored by the Presiding Officer. The continuity of Committee
meetings will be established at the first session.
Q. How will the Coordinating Committee be financed?
A. By the Republican National Committee.
Q. Has this type of committee ever been set up before?
A. As near as can be determined neither major political party has
ever attempted to establish a coordinating body such as the Rep-
ublican Coordinating Committee. It is an innovation.
1/11/65
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 17, 1965
STATEMENT BY THE
JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Senator Dirksen
Representative Ford
Senator Kuchel
Representative Arends
Senator Hickenlooper
Representative Byrnes
Senator Saltonstall
Representative Laird
Senator Morton
Representative Brown
Representative Wilson
It is undoubtedly difficult for the Communist capitals of Mos-
COW, Peking and Hanoi -- where disagrement is not tolerated -- to
understand that because Americans may differ on means to assure the
complete independence of South Vietnam, there is no difference among
us on the objective.
We, the members of the Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership,
want to make it clear we support President Johnson's recent order for
strikes against Communist supply bases in North Vietnam. If we have
any difference with the President in this respect, it 1S the belief
these measure might have been used more frequently since the Bay of
Tonkin decision last August and an even stronger policy formulated
in the meantime.
These Communist-proclaimed "wars of liberation" are nothing more
than a verbal cover for naked aggression. The Communists unmask this
aggression when they "stage" mob demonstrations against American em-
bassies as Free World resistance to their terrorist tactics in an
independent nation is stepped up.
We suggest that so long as there is Communist-promoted infiltra-
tion of South Vietnam in violation of the 1954 and 1962 Geneva agree-
ments, there can be no negotiations on the Vietnamese question, and
we urge the President to make this unmistakably clear to the world.
Agreements can only fail when the Communists negotiate only for domi-
nation and we negotiate only for peace.
#####
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
SENATOR DIRKSEN - REPRESENTATIVE FORD
March 4, 1965
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSNN: Well, Good morning every-
body! We're glad to see you.
In days past, the members of the Joint Senate-House
Republican Leadership have expressed support for a stiffened American
military position in South Vietnam. At the very time we spoke, the
Soviet and Red Chinese regimes were warning the United States against
such action and premising the North Vietnamese increased military
assistance. In many nations throughout the world, Communist agents
were organising riots and demonstrations against American diplomatic
establishments in an all-out propaganda drive against the United States.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk has stated, as American policy,
that there can be no negotiations on the Vietnamese issue 80 long as
the Communist nations promote aggression against South Vietnam. We
believe this is wrthy policy. And in fact, we advocated it.
We suggest that legic would have the United States carry
this policy one step farther.
The Soviet Union has been espousing a policy of "peaceful
00-existence." This policy was welcomed by the Kennedy and Johnson
QERALD FORD LIBRARY
2
Administrations and numerous moves were made to demonstrate American
readiness to respond, particularly in the field of trade, communications,
and diplomatic relations.
Yet the fact remains that the Soviet Union and other Communist
nations have not diminished, but in fact have stepped up their promotion
of subversion in the neutral and free-world countries. South Vietnam
is only the most glaring example. The continued supplying of Cuba, the
subversion of South America, notably Venesuela, and in Africa, notably the
Congo, and the conseless agitation throughout Southeast Asia, are quite
typical.
The only thing peaceful about "peaceful co-existence" is the
title. In any relaxed relations, it is the United States that is supposed
to do the relaxing. The Communist nations continuously outrage the
rights of other nationsl Too long, have we heard the trumpet of retreat
from those who seem to favor another Munich.
If we are not going to negotiate the Vietnamese question
until the aggression against Vietnam ceases, an equally necessary step
would be to stop entertaining the overtures of Communist nations for
broader trade and diplomatic relations and also to intensify our efforts
to persuade our friends abroad to do the same, until the Communists have
demonstrated their good faith in areas where not only freedom but life
and death are at stake.
3
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD: First, let me say
it's wonderful to see you back here and to see you in such good fighting
trim this morning, and I'm sure for the months ahead.
During the past three years the Soviet Union and other
Communist nations have, under the sc-called "peaceful co-sxistence"
policy, made measurable gains in trade and diplomatic concessions from
the United States while offering little in return. Let me cite some
examples:
An agreement has been initialed for the establishment of a
New York-Moscow air route which the Soviet Union long sought.
An American-Soviet treaty has been negotiated, which now
Senate
awaits Certes approval, that would give the Soviets consular offices they
want in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, in exchange for similar
American consulates in Russia which would avail us very little and only
give the Communists more targets for mob violence.
Having purchased $140 million worth of badly-needed U.S.
wheat on which the American taxpayer paid $44 million in subsidies so the
Soviet Union could buy it far below our domestic price, Russia has now
bought $11 million in soybeans which the New York Times speculated might
be going to Cuba.
In response to Communist bloc overtures for expanded trade,
President Johnson has named a committee to explore stepped-up trade, and
the Commerce Department's issuance of export licenses for sales to
Communist nations has been increasing steadily.
Even more significant, our government last month backed down
completely on its widely-publicised call for the Soviet Union to pay up
4
its assessments to the United Nations, and then compounded this loss of
face by lifting a three-month freeze on voluntary contributions to the
U.M. out of the U.S. Treasury.
From & standpoint of bargaining, we constantly give much and
get little or nothing in deals with the Communist national We, the
members of the Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership, urge a "no
concession-no deal" policy, meaning that the Communists must be ready
to make concessions as the price of agreements with the United States.
Until we and our allies arrive at such a policy, we can only expect
more
more Koreas and/Vietnams and an ever-videning circle of Communist sub-
version around the earth.
LIBRARY
5
QUESTION: Congressmen Ford, do you think it would be wise
and fruitful for Prevident Johnson to confer with the Premier (1) of the
Seviet Union?
MR. FORD: At this point, I do not. I think that until the
United States strengthens its position in South Vietnam and other places
throughout the world, it would be unvise at this time.
QUESTION: Congressman, what form (?)... would be agreeable
to you?
MR. FORD: Well, I think you have to take them on an individual,
case by case, basis. Certainly in the instance of the United Nations, we
got nothing by making these contributions which were voluntary on our
part. we got no agreement whatsoever from the Soviet Union that they would
pay up any part under any circumstances their overdue assessment to the
United Nations.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, France is in arrears, too. What would
you do about France?
MR. FORD: Well, I think that our relations with France today
could be greatly improved.
QUESTION: Well, Nationalist China has been in arrears, too...
what would you do about our relations -
MR. FORD: I don't think we can treat them any differently
than we do France or the Soviet Union.
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen... on your last paragraph here,
are you saying ... "to stop aggression in Vietnam, we should net
BRAR
6
entertain overtures to broader trade with Rumania, Poland, Yugoslavia
or any other Communist nations?"
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I'm just saying, if you're going
to put them all in one bloc, so to speak, and you have to deal with them
on that basis, I'm sure, because you're dealing with an ideology.
Now then, of course, you get someone like Rumania, let us say, who
doesn't send ad elegation to Moscow, but that doesn't alter the fact for
one moment that you're still dealing with an ideology that refuses to
make any concessions if it can get out of it. And following up that
line and in response to your question:
It seems to me that we can insist upon some concession
with respect to the Congo and make them keep their hands off if they
want to do business with us.
QUESTION: Senator, they're not dealing with themselves -
how can we put themall in one bloc?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Who is not dealing with themselves?
QUESTION: Albania
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, the concessions go mainly to the
Soviet Union, as you so well know. And so we'll just pick them out as
Number One and make that a test case and see where we go. That would
be true of the so-called "Moscov-New York" Treaty and the Consular
Treaty. It would be true of Vietnam, it would be true as a matter of
fact of Cuba. The whole question is a general one: To what extent
do we continue to give in and to give in and to give in and to make
concessions and get exactly nothing in return that is conducive to the
7
peace of the world and to repairing all those holes that have been
made in the fabric of freedom in the world?
QUESTION: Would you be against our going through with the
air route between Monoow and New York so long as aggression continues
in Vietnam?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I believe I would, as a matter of fact.
If we can't get any understanding, if they're not going to stop these
aggressive Noves, we're going to be takingout of one pocket and spending
it out there - and then out of the other pocket in order to help the
Soviet Union. Now where is the legic in a pesition of that kind?
QUESTION: ... might drive the Soviet Union and China cleser
together than they are now...
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, first, that is sheer speculation and,
secondly, there isn't a single evidentiary fact to indicate - in view of
this ideological split - that that is going to bring them together,
because that rift is infinitely desper and goes to the very heart of
Marxism.
QUESTION: Senator, if the President asked you to accompany
him to Moscow on a visit to the Russian leaders, would you agree to go
along?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Andy, I don't like high altitudes.
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: in regard to trade, would you apply the same
strictures to the East European countries as you would to the Seviet
Union?
8
SENATOR DIRESEN: I think you have to play it a little
by ear as you deal first with one country and then another. But in
every case where we've run up against that ideological barricade, I
think you're going to have to deal with it in pretty nearly the same
fashion. I don't mean to say you just lay out a broad pattern and
say you don't change a period or a commin...
We're just trying to make
the point that there ought to be some concessions that are in furtherance
of the objectives that we have so freely announced to the world over so
long a peried of time.
QUESTION: Senator, you want as Administration policy that
there be no negotiation over Vietnam as long as the Communists promote
aggression there. Well, isn't this realistic since the aim of
negotiation is to stop this aggression?
SENATOR DIRKSKN: Well, I don't quite get your question...
QUESTION: Well, you deplore (9) Administration policy in
Vietnam... saying we say there will be no negotiations there as long as
Communist nations promote aggression in South Vietnam. But isn't the
aim of negotiations to stop this aggression?
SENATOR DIRESEN: Well, I just followed the line of the
Secretary of State here. How do you negotiate when aggression continues?
The overture has to come from the other side, and there has to be some
manifestation of good faith, because all we have to do is to go back
to the accord of 1954, or the Convention of 1962, and say you haven't
kept faith on either one of them. What reason is there to believe that
if we start another series of negotiations that we'll come out any better
than we did eleven years ago, or three years ago?
9
QUESTION: ... in your most recent conversation with
the President?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Not in this detail, but I have certainly
stood in his corner and gave him reason to believe that I fully
supported the position that he takes out there and likewise the position
of the Secretary of State.
QUESTION: What's his feeling about your conditions..
SENATOR DIRKSEN: The very salle thing. Well, I think the
President, of course, shares the Secretary's belief, as evidenced not
only by the statement he made a week or ten days ago, and also, of course,
in the White Paper that was issued.
QUESTION: Is he doing anything more to keep you people
informed?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I must say that I had a three-hour
session with the President about two weeks ago. I spent an hour and
thirty minutes with him Tuesday night and in that time you can talk about
a good many things.
QUESTION: Like what? (LAUGHTER)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, Reger, shall I give you the old
standard legal answer: "On sum at the moment the depenent sayeth not
because it might be just a little anticipatory." (LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Senator... (EVERYONE STILL LAUGHING... and
Senator Dirkson says: "Was that the right answer?")
Senator, under
the Eisenhower Administration... Mr. Dillon was then Under-Secretary of
Vietnam Affairs(?)... said we were quite willing to have trade with the
IBRARY
10
Soviet Union provided they had things they wanted to sell that we
wanted to buy. Do you think that was a mistake of the Eisenhower
Administration?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, they thought, I believe, there
would be some improvement in relations and there would be some
concessions from time to time. I'm afraid in that field we have been
frustrated so far as any real sweet ! ruit is concerned.
QUESTION: Senater, your statement seems to assume that the
Soviet Union has control over the situation in North Vietnam... other
people have some question whether the Soviet Union or the Chinese have
control of the situation. Do you have any information to indicate that
the Soviet Union does, in fact, have control?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: It doesn't assume control at all. You look
at the White Papër and what do you discover? Arms, weapons... made in
Crecheslovakia... weapons that have come from the Seviet Union, weapons
that have come from Red China... so you don't have to make any
assumption, they're in there supplying and aiding the cause of aggression,
and if the White Paper means anything, it simply documents that fact,
so there is no assumption on my part.
QUESTION: ... the mob of so-called "students" who plastered
our Hubassy in Moscow... what can we do in a practical way about that?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, first of all, I have counselled
some caution when you're dealing with those demonstrations because
students, for example, in other countries have quite a different role
in the political life than they do in the United States. Secondly,
LIBRARI
kk 11
the constabulary. or the police, cannot always control a spontaneous
student d emonstration. And third, we've had an occasional demonstration
in our own country and I name no state, and I name no particular
institution when I say it. But... when you get these constant flare-
ups and they continue, it becomes quite a different matter. But I
have nothing to say HOW they shall be dentrolled, because that is a
policing matter within the power of the country where it takes place.
QUESTION: The police let them - for ten minutes - break
windows, throw ink and everything... then they tried to drive them
back...
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I just point out, of course, that
never has a stone gone through the window of the Soviet Babassy on
16th Street. Now, it does seen to me, that by adequate policing they
can do something about it, but I don't go BO far as to invade the
authority of the country and the exercise of its domestic police power.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford... providing no agreement is reached
by which the Seviet Union can pay up ... and refuses to do so... would
you have the United States leave the United Nations on that ground?
REP. FORD: I would put it on the other basis. The United
Nations and the General Assembly ought to have the character and
fortitude to take the necessary action IN the United Nations to pre-
clude those nations who were in arrears from exercising their vote.
What happens if a majority doesn't take this proper stand, we'll have to
wait and see for the future.
question: (Not clear... asks something about negotiations..)
LIBRARY
12
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, we have no expression that
negotiations are in progress at the present time. If they are in
progress, then, of course, the country hasn't been advised on that
score. But if you take Dean Rusk's statement at face value, when he
speaks of aggression and the impossibility of even entertaining overtures
for negotiation, you'd have to assume no negotiations were in progress
unless the "Hot Line" is being used... and on that subject I'm not
informed, momentarily at least.
QUESTION: Thank you.
LIBRARY
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Jr.,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Press Release
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
of the Conference
Melvin R. Laird,
Thruston B. Morton,
Chr. of the Conference
Chr. Republican
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Senatorial Committee
Issued following a
of the Policy Committee
Leadership Meeting
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
March 4, 1965
Ranking Member
The Republican
Rules Committee
National Chairman
Dean Burch
Bob Wilson,
Chr. Republican
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Congressional Committee
In days past, the members of the Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership
have expressed support for a stiffened American military position in South Vietnam.
At the very time we spoke, the Soviet and Red Chinese regimes were warning the
United States against such action and promising the North Vietnamese increased mil-
itary assistance. In many nations throughout the world, Communist agents were or-
ganizing riots and demonstrations against American diplomatic establishments in an
all-out propaganda drive against the United States.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk has stated, as American policy, that there can
be no negotiations on the Vietnamese issue so long as the Communist nations pro-
mote aggression against South Vietnam. We believe this a worthy policy. In fact,
we advocated it.
We suggest that logic would have the United States carry this policy one step
farther.
The Soviet Union has been espousing a policy of "peaceful co-existence." This
policy was welcomed by the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations and numerous moves
were made to demonstrate American readiness to respond, particularly in the fields
of trade, communications, and diplomatic relations.
Yet the fact remains that the Soviet Union and the other Communist nations
have not diminished, but stepped up, their promotion of subversion in the neutral
and free-world countries. South Vietnam is only the most glaring example. The
continued supplying of Cuba, the subversion in South America, notably Venezuela,
and in Africa, notably the Congo, and the ceaseless agitation throughout Southeast
Asia, are typical.
The only thing peaceful about "peaceful co-existence" is the title. In any
relaxed relations, it is the United States that is supposed to do the relaxing. The
Communist nations continuously outrage the rights of other nations. Too long, have
we heard the trumpet of retreat from those who seem to favor another Munich.
If we are not going to negotiate the Vietnamese question until the aggression
against South Vietnam ceases, an equally necessary step would be to stop entertain-
ing the overtures of the Communist nations for broader trade and diplomatic rela-
tions and to intensify our efforts to persuade our friends abroad to do the same,
until the Communists have demonstrated their good faith in areas where not only
freedom but life and death are at Stare: CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
- 2-
March 4, 1965
During the past three years the Soviet Union and other Communist nations
have, under the so-called "peaceful co-existence" policy, made measurable gains in
trade and diplomatic concessions from the United States while offering little in
return. Here are some examples:
An agreement has been initialed for the establishment of a New York-Moscow
air route which the Soviet Union has long sought.
An American-Soviet treaty has been negotiated, which now awaits Soviet
approval, that would give the Soviets consular offices they want in New York,
Chicago, and San Francisco in exchange for similar American consulates in Russia
which would avail us little and only give the Communists more targets for mob vio-
lence.
Having purchased $140 million worth of badly-needed U.S. wheat on which the
American taxpayer paid $44 million in subsidies so the Soviet could buy it far
below our domestic price, Russia has now bought $11 million in soybeans which the
New York Times speculated might be going to Cuba.
In response to Communist bloc overtures for expanded trade, President Johnson
has named a committee to explore stepped-up sales, and the Commerce Department's
issuance of export licenses for sales to Communist nations has been increasing
steadily.
Even more significant, our government last month backed down completely on
its widely-publicized call for the Soviet Union to pay up its assessments to the
United Nations, and then compounded this loss of face by lifting a three-month
freeze on voluntary contributions to the U.N. out of the U.S. Treasury.
From a standpoint of bargaining, we constantly give much and get little or
nothing in deals with the Communist nations. We, the members of the Joint Senate-
House Republican Leadership, urge a "no concession-no deal" policy, meaning that
the Communists must be ready to make concessions as the price of agreements with
the United States, Until we and our allies arrive at such a policy, we can only
expect more Koreas and Vietnams and an ever-widening circle of Communist subversion
around the earth.
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Jr.,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
of the Conference
Melvin R. Laird,
Thruston B. Morton,
Chr. of the Conference
Chr. Republican
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Senatorial Committee
of the Policy Committee
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Issued following a
Clarence J. Brown,
The Republican
Leadership Meeting
Ranking Member
National Chairman
Rules Committee
Dean Burch
March 4, 1965
Bob Wilson,
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
In days past, the members of the Joint Senate-House Republican
Leadership have expressed support for a stiffened American military
position in South Vietnam. At the very time we spoke, the Soviet and
Red Chinese regimes were warning the United States against such action
and promising the North Vietnamese increased military assistance. In
many nations throughout the world, Communist agents were organizing
riots and demonstrations against American diplomatic establishments in
an all-out propaganda drive against the United States.
Secretary of State Dean Rusk has stated, as American policy, that
there can be no negotiations on the ietnamese issue so long as the
Communist nations promote aggression against South Vietnam. We believe
this a worthy policy. In fact, we advocated it.
We suggest that logic would have the United States carry this
policy one step farther.
The Soviet Union has been espousing a policy of "peaceful co-
existence.' This policy was welcomed by the Kennedy and Johnson Ad-
ministrations and numerous moves were made to demonstrate American
readiness to respond, particularly in the fields of trade, communica-
tions and diplomatic relations.
Yet the fact remains that the Soviet Union and the other Communist
nations have not diminished, but stepped up, their promotion of sub-
version in the neutral and free-world countries. South Vietnam is
only the most glaring example. The continued supplying of Cuba, the
subversion in South America, notably Venezuela, and in Africa, notably
the Congo, and the ceaseless agitation throughout Southeast Asia, are
typical.
The only thing peaceful about "peaceful co-existence" is the
title. In any relaxed. relations, it is the United States that is
supposed to do the relaxing. The Communist nations continuously out-
rage the rights of other nations. Too long have we heard the trumpet
of retreat from those who seem to favor another Munich.
If we are not going to negotiate the Vietnamese question until
the aggression against South Vietnam ceases, an equally necessary step
would be to stop entertaining the overtures of the Communist nations
for broader trade and diplomatic relations and to intensify our ef-
forts to persuade our friends abroad to do the same, until the Commun-
ists have demonstrated their good faith in areas where not only free-
dom but life and death are at stake.
(Ford statement - page 2)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
STATEMENT BY REP. FORD:
-2-
March 4, 1965
During the past three years the Soviet Union and other Communist
nations have, under the so-called "peaceful co-existence" policy,
made measurable gains in trade and diplomatic concessions from the
United States while offering little in return. Here are some examples:
An agreement has been initialed for the establishment of a New
York-Moscow air route which the Soviet Union has long sought.
An American-Soviet treaty has been negotiated, which now awaits
Senate approval, that would give the Soviets consular offices they
want in New York, Chicago and San Francisco in exchange for similar
American consulates in Russia which would avail us little and only
give the Communists more targets for mob violence.
Having purchased $140 million worth of badly-needed U.S. wheat
on which the American taxpayer paid $44 million in subsidies so the
Soviets could huy it far below our domestic price, Russia has now
tought $11 million in soybeans which the New York Times speculated
might be going to Cuba.
In response to Communist bloc overtures for expanded trade,
President Johnson has named a committee to explore stepped-up sales,
and the Commerce Department's issuance of export licenses for sales to
Communist nations has been increasing steadily.
Even more significant, our government last month backed down com-
pletely on its widely-publicized call for the Soviet Union to pay up
its assessments to the United Nations, and then compounded this loss
of face by lifting a three-month freeze on voluntary contributions to
the U.N. out of the U.S. Treasury.
From a standpoint of bargaining, we constantly give much and get
little or nothing in deals with the Communist nations. We, the members
of the Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership, urge a "no concession-
no deal" policy, meaning that the Communists must be ready to make
concessions as the price of agreements with the United States. Until
we and our allies arrive at such a policy, we can only expect more
Koreas and Vietnams and an ever-widening circle of Communist subver-
sion around the earth.
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Jr.,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Press Release
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
of the Conference
Melvin R. Laird,
Thruston B. Morton,
Chr. of the Conference
Chr. Republican
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Senatorial Committee
of the Policy Committee
Issued following a
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Leadership Meeting
Ranking Member
The Republican
Rules Committee
National Chairman
March 18, 1965
Dean Burch
Bob Wilson,
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT BY REP. FORD:
In a series of messagesto Congress that are almost encyclopedic
in the listing of problems purportedly to be solved by the Federal
government, President Johnson proposes enactment of laws and the
appropriation of funds that will place the Federal foot in the door
of every important function now reserved to the states and local
communities.
The formula is ingenious. The future needs of every local com-
munity for the next 10 to 20 years are fed, computer-like, into the
Federal maw to arrive at a gigantic nationwide figure calculated to
stagger the imagination and reduce the citizen to a feeling of utter
helplessness. The heroic answer is of course the one now being set
forth almost daily by the Johnson Administration: Only the Federal
government can handle the problem.
Had our founding fathers examined the problems confronting them
on the same basis, this country probably would have remained a
British colony with the Crown handling everything. The fact that the
states and local communities have been meeting these problems in their
relatively simple locales for nearly two centuries of unequaled proj
gress 18 ignored.
Federalized schools, text books, and teachers, Federalized zoning
building codes, health centers, and transportation, Federalized
libraries, laboratories, auditoriums and theaters -- all these and
much more are now in prospect for our states and local communities.
In time our state and local governments can only be reduced to resident
agents for the huge central authority in Washington.
Perhaps the American people want to abandon a proven system that
has worked as no other on earth. We do not believe it. The Johnson
program has been so disguised by platitudes and Madison Avenue adjec-
tives that its real aim has not been recognized. We are told we are
approaching the "Great Society."
We deem it our obligation to provide our citizens with full
knowledge of the direction in which their Federal administration is
heading our nation. The end of this road is complete Federal control.
(Dirksen statement - pg. 2)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
- 2 -
March 18, 1965
The unveiling of President Johnson's "Great Society" makes it
starkly clear that the Federal government has only begun to grow in
size, power and cost.
The central thesis of the "Great Society" is that bigger and big-
ger government means better and better health, better and better
education, better and better transportation and better and better
environment. It resembles political "perpetual motion."
How big is big government today? The answer is: It's enormous.
Here are some samples of the combined impact of Federal, state
and local governments: Taxes and other government levies now consume
35 percent of total national income. One out of every six workers in
the United States is a government employee. One out of every five
dollars spent in the United States for goods and services is spent by
government. One dollar out of every four dollars and a half of
personal income in the United States is accounted for by direct govern-
ment payments.
The impact of the Federal government alone is startling: Federal
aid to State and local governments has risen from $3.8 billion in
1956 to $13.6 billion for 1966 -- an increase of nearly 260 percent.
Federal funds now amount to 14 percent of total state-local revenue.
These figures give some idea of the size of government today.
Right now the Federal government has more civilian employees in 30 of
the 50 states than do state governments themselves, including the five
biggest in the Union -- California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois
and Chio.
To all this we are now going to add President Johnson's "Great
Society." There is no conceivable way to estimate its future cost.
The sky's the limit.
The Fresident has already told us that balancing the budget
"too quickly" can be "self-defeating." Thus the Congress and the
nation have been put on notice that the "Great Society" will be
financed by ever-increasing Federal deficits and, although not
predicted by the President, these deficits could break all records,
wartime or peacetime, if the "Great Society" expands as projected.
It is time all Americans took a look at the hard facts.
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
Thruston B. Morton,
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Chr. Republican
of the Policy Committee
Senatorial Committee
Issued following a
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Leadership Meeting
Clarence J. Brown,
Ranking Member
The Republican
Rules Committee
National Chairman
May 20, 1965
Bob Wilson,
Ray C. Bliss
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
From the time the President announced to Congressional leaders
that he had sent forces into the Dominican Republic to protect lives
and to thwart the danger of a Communist take-over in that country,
the Republicans in the Congress have given him their support.
Support of the President's action in the circumstances does not,
however, imply blanket approval of Administration policy toward
Latin America.
The Administration has been slow to recognize danger signals in
Latin America. It has permitted problems to grow to crisis propor-
tions before acting. It has been reluctant to provide leadership to
make the Organization of American States an effective agency for the
defense and development of the Western Hemisphere.
Even now, in its reaction to events in the Dominican Republic,
the Administration is not manifesting awareness of the extent and the
danger of Castro - exported Communist subversion in at least half a
dozen other American nations. In the past three years, many thou-
sand citizens of other Latin American countries have received para-
military and ideological training in Cuba and have been sent home to
carry on subversion, terrorism, and guerrilla warfare in Central and
South America. Since the end of November 1964, there has been re-
newed emphasis by Cuba on the use of violence to attain political
power, particularly in Venezuela, Colombia, and Guatemala. In
Guatemala, the activities of 500 terrorists and guerrillas led to
the establishment of a state of siege in February of this year. Haiti,
Panama, Paraguay, El Salvador, and Honduras are all announced targets
of Communist violence.
It is regrettable that the Administration did not move to head
off the new outbreak of subversion and violence when it was planned
at 1964. the Havana meeting of Latin American Communist leaders in November,
Clearly there is need now for vigorous and effective action by
the Organization of American States and by the individual American
nations to put an end to the current Castro offensive.
We urge the Administration to present such a plan of action to
the O.A.S. before the tragic drama of the Dominican Republic is re-
played in other Latin American nations.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD
May 20, 1965
Today is the 63rd anniversary of Cuban independence. On May 20,
1902, Cuba assumed the status of an independent Republic with the
inauguration of its first president.
On this anniversary, we call f-r the reestablishment of Cuba's
independence. Since late 1960 the present government of Cuba has been
a military, economic, and political vassal of the Soviet Union. Today
thousands of foreign Communist military personnel remain on Cuban soil.
Cuba's rulers continue to serve the purposes of an alien system by
carrying on a campaign of terrorism, sabotage, subversion, and sporad-
ic warfare against their neighbors, disturbing the peace of the hemi-
sphere and threatening the security of all American nations.
The policy objective of the present administration toward the
Communist government of Cuba has been ambiguous. At times it has
been described as "to get rid of the Castro regime and of Soviet Com-
munist influence in Cuba." So Mr. Johnson declared at Midland, Texas,
on September 30, 1962. At other times it has been described as "to
insolate Cuba to frustrate 15s efforts to destroy free governments
and to expose the weakness of Communism so that all can see." So it
was formulated by President Johnson on April 20, 1964.
The melancholy events in the Dominican Republic are a forceful
reminder that neither objective has been attained. Cuba has not been
isolated, nor is it rid of Castro and Soviet Communist influence.
Cuba is the breeding ground for Communist subversion throughout this
hemisphere.
President Johnson's recent statement that we "cannot permit the
establishment of another Communist government in the Western Hemi
sphere" clouds the purposes of Administration policy toward Cuba still
further.
The Administration should fix clearly SO that all can see the
objective of its policy toward Cuba. The isolation of the Castro
regime and the prevention of the export of Communism from Cuba should
be pursued more vigorously as an immediate policy objective. But the
ultimate objective can be nothing less than the elimination of the
Communist government of Cuba and the restoration of independence under
a government freely chosen by the Cuban people.
This objective is dictated by policies subscribed to by all the
(More)
Rep. Ford (Continued)
nations of the hemisphere at Caracas in 1954. The Caracas Declaration
stated, If the domination or control of the political institutions of
any American State by the international communist movement, extending
to this Hemisphere the political system of an extracontinental power,
would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and political independence
of the American States, endangering the peace of America If
In compliance with this doctrine, President Eisenhower said on
July 9, 1960, " Nor will the United States in confc rmity with its
treatyobligations, permit the establishment of a regime dominated by
international Communism in the Western Hemisphere."
IC is time to reaffirm this as our national purpose and the
purpose of the other American nations.
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
Thruston B. Morton,
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Chr. Republican
of the Policy Committee
Senatorial Committee
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Ranking Member
The Republican
Issued following a
Rules Committee
National Chairman
Leadership Meeting
Bob Wilson,
Ray C. Bliss
June 24, 1965
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE AND ON
THE SENATE FLOOR
It is now clear that the United States has lost its fight to keep Article 19 of
the United Nations Charter alive. The fight was waged with neither skill nor
vigor.
No sophistry can mask the fact that the United Nations has been weakened and
that the present Administration has suffered a serious defeat.
Article 19 prescribes the penalty of loss of voting rights in the General
Assembly for any Member nation in arrears by two years or more in thepayment of its
contributions to the United Nations.
A decision of the World Court in 1962, ratified overwhelmingly by the General
Assembly, removed any doubt that the Soviet Union and some other nations are now
subject to the penalty of Article 19.
The Administration at first loudly announced its intention to insist on the
application of Article 19. It even threatened to withhold its contributions for
some U.N. activities if the Soviet Union failed to pay up.
Because of the issue raised by Article 19, the last session of the General
Assembly was a tragic farce with no voting at all until February 18. In effect,
the delinquent members of the United Nations deprived the nations that had lived
up to their obligations (including the United States) of their right to vote.
On February 18, a vote was taken. The acquiescence of the representative of
the United States in that action constituted an abandonment of the position which
he had taken until that time. On that day the position of the Administrations
exposed as a bluff, and a staggering blow was dealt to the structure of the United
Nations.
We regret the backdown of last February. Further action to make Article 19 a
dead letter will further weaken the United Nations.
Until the nations that are in arrears in their payments to the United Nations
manifest interest in preserving the international organization by moving to make
up their deficit, the United States should make no voluntary additional contribu-
tion. Once this nation embarks on a policy of paying the debts of other countries
to the United Nations, there will be no end to the process. It will help neither
the world organization nor the cause of peace.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
More
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
- 2 -
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AND
ON THE SENATE FLOOR
We salute the United Nations with a mixture of satisfaction and apprehension
on the occasion of its twentieth anniversary.
Republicans (notably the late Senator Arthur Vandenberg) helped to bring this
organization into being. They have loyally supported its every effort to attain
the noble goals set forth in its Charter.
There is some encouragement in its accomplishments in keeping the peace in
certain troubled areas and there is reason for satisfaction in its social, economic,
and humanitarian activities.
Yet the United Nations today is in difficult straits. It is bankrupt. It has
been used as nothing more than a propaganda forum by many nations. It has violated
its Charter. The General Assembly was unable to take a vote on any substantive
issue in its last session.
The survival of the Organization as an effective agency is in doubt.
To save it, the United States and its other leading members must move to deal
with its problems instead of permitting them to fester and grow.
One problem is posed by the separation of power and responsibility. A two-
thirds majority of the 114 Members of the General Assembly can be put together by
nations representing 10 per cent of the population of U.N. Members and 5 per cent
of the contributions to the U.N. budget. Clearly, these small states cannot enforce
big decisions, and situations can easily arise in which big states will be unwilling
to follow the orders of smaller Members.
Anotherproblem is the relationship of the United Nations to regional organi-
zations such as the Organization of American States. In the Dominican Republic
representatives of the U.N. have in fact worked at cross purposes with the repre-
sentatives of the inter-American organization.
Finally, there is the problem of finance. For more than 3 years, the U.N. has
teetered on the brink of bankruptcy. At present it is $108 million in the red.
The problems are formidable. Solving them calls for determined action on the
part of the Administration.
---000000--
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
Thruston B. Morton,
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Chr. Republican
Issued following a
of the Policy Committee
Senatorial Committee
Leadership Meeting
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
July 1, 1965
Ranking Member
The Republican
Rules Committee
National Chairman
Bob Wilson,
Ray C. Bliss
Chr. Republican
STATEMENT BY SENATOR BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER
Congressional Committee
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The health of the economy has become a matter of concern and debate since
William McChesney Martin pointed out some similarities between present conditions
and those of 1929. The President and other Administration spokesmen, emphasizing
the bright spots in the economic picture, have suggested that anything wrong in the
economy results from fright caused by Mr. Martin's speech.
We find it hard to understand how an Administration that has been talking con-
stantly of the poverty in the United States can blame Mr. Martin's qualified warn-
ing for weakening confidence in the economic system.
A balanced appraisal of the performance of the economy should begin with a
recognition of the fact that the period since World War II has been one of steady
and sustained economic growth. Downturns have been few, short, and moderate. We
should not expect only guaranteed and sustained rises in economic activity for the
future, but the attitude that "things are so good they can't continue" is probably
too nearsighted.
Nevertheless, there are danger signals in some economic indicators. To ignore
them, to sweep them under the rug, or to denounce those who point them out is short-
sighted.
The international financial situation is one of the most ominous clouds on the
economic horizon. The Administration's program of "voluntary coercion" in the
balance of payments area is based on the same principle of political expediency as
so much of its domestic economic wheeling and dealing. In the process of institut-
ing short-run remedies, the President is following a practice of giving glib and
pat answers to serious and involved questions. In imposing more and more controls
over international trade and capital flows, the Administration is abandoning the
principle of liberalized multilateral trade embodied in the Trade Expansion Act of
1962 and supported by the United States throughout the Eisenhower years, in the face
of adversity encountered by almost all of our trading partners. If this series of
shortsighted treatments for the symptoms in our balance of payments produces serious
dislocations in major foreign economies, the United States will not remain unscathed.
We believe that an International Monetary Conference should be called to deal
with the basic structural shortcomings of our international monetary system. The
problem is one which cannot be further neglected,
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 . Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
PRESS RELEASE ISSUED FOLLOWING A LEADERSHIP MEETING
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
- 2 -
July 1, 1965
Certain strategic imbalances have developed in the domestic economy. Although
more than 41% of our labor force reamins unemployed, distinct inflationary pres-
sures are evident. Indeed, we are greatly concerned about eroding price increases
in view of the employment situation. In particular, nothing seems to succeed in
helping young labor force participants -- the teenager jobless rate remains close
to 15%. Yet in May 1965 the Consumer Price Index stood at 109.6 of its 1957-1959
base, which was an increase of 0.3% for the month of May. If the rate of increase
for April and May is maintained for the next 12 months, the Consumer Price Index
would rise 3.6%, which is inflation in anybody's book. Even more important, the
Wholesale Price Index rose by 2.0% from May 1964 to May 1965 and this index had
been standing still from 1957 to 1964. We note that a number of recent labor con-
tracts have provided about 4% in yearly wage increases substantially above the
guide lines set by the Administration. These may well lead to cost-of-living in-
creases during 1965 and future years.
We are entering the sixth fiscal year of continuous deficits. They have
averaged over 6 billion dollars a year for the past five fiscal years. The deficit
for fiscal 1965 is somewhat below four billion dollars, and this is being hailed as
a great accomplishment. We deplore the doctrine of "permanent fiscal irresponsibil-
ity" coupled with a politically pressured easy money policy. The continuous use of
fiscal "pep pills" has serious consequences inflationary pressures (so hurtful
to the very poor and the elderly retired), a growing interest charge on the public
debt, and disruption of international trade as more and more nations lose their
faith in the value of our currency. Even more important, Democrats in Congress
have lit the fuse on an inflationary "time bomb" by rubber-stamping one expenditure
program after another. These extended programs give the Administration greater
and greater carry-over authority to spend and spend in fact, this carry-over
unspent authorization ties the hands of Congress in switching to an anti-inflation-
ery policy.
There are definite signs that the quality of much of the debt has been deterior-
sting and that its quantity may be growing too fast. The so-called temporary public
debt ceiling was just raised from $324 to $328 billion. Other debt -- of states,
local governments, corporations, and individuals -- has been growing more rapidly.
For example, consumer installment payments now stand at 15% of personal income, and
total debt of the average family is a staggering 60% of its yearly earnings. Bank
credit has been expanding more quickly than in all previous expansions, although
some recent changes are apparent here.
It is our view that the Administration may be in great danger of falling from
their tightrope. Clearly they are falling off on the side of inflation. It is our
view that a balanced economy is important to all. We therefore endorse the sug-
gestion made by Senator Javits and Congressman Curtis, i.e., that the Joint Economid
Committee call hearings "at the earliest possible time" in order to explore "the
basic issues raised by Mr. Martin" and "the outlook for the economy over the next
year."
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
Thruston B. Morton,
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Chr. Republican
Senatorial Committee
Issued following a
of the Policy Committee
Leadership Meeting
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Ranking Member
The Republican
July 15, 1965
Rules Committee
National Chairman
Bob Wilson,
Ray C. Bliss
Chr. Repúblican
Congressional Committee
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
This is an appropriate time to speak of bipartisanship in foreign policy.
Bipartisanship signifies united support by the two major parties for such
policy aims and means as are required for the security of the nation.
A bipartisan foreign policy imposes obligations on both the majority and the
minority parties. For the majority party, it counsels frequent consultation with
the minority as policy is formulated and access for the minority to information
needed to determine the wisdom of policy.
For the minority party it imposes an obligation to avoid carping about trivia.
The minority should avoid the hypocrisy of complaining about measures which it
would favor if it were in the position of policy maker. No administration should
be blamed for events beyond its control.
Members of both parties must weigh all the consequences of public criticism.
There is an obligation to demonstrate to both friend and foe that the American
people are united in time of danger. There is an obligation to avoid furnishing
grist for the propaganda mills of an enemy.
But bipartisan foreign policy has never meant a cessation of debate, of criti-
cism, of suggestion. Senator Arthur Vandenberg, who, more than any other public
figure in his time, personified bipartisanship, said that bipartisan foreign policy
"simply seeks national security ahead of partisan advantage." But, he added immed-
iately, "Every foreign policy must be totally debated
and the 'loyal opposi-
tion' is under special obligation to see that this occurs."
Debate, then, should be encouraged. Only in the crucible of full and candid
debate can the nation forge a foreign policy which will lead to the ends which all
Americans seek to attain -- peace, freedom, and security. Only thus can public
understanding and acceptance of foreign policy be achieved.
Bipartisanship in foreign policy demands that representatives of both parties
give each other a respectful hearing, that both deal in facts, that both discuss
genuine issues, that both avoid distortion and misrepresentation.
We pray that the national security decisions of the President may always be
wise. If we must disagree with any of those decisions, we shall never question his
sinceredesire for peace. We expect that responsible spokesmen for his party will
credit us with similar motives.
(Ford statement - page 2)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
- 2 -
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
July 15, 1965
Today the President is being called on to make fateful decisions. His efforts
to end the fighting in Vietnam by negotiation have been spurned. President Johnson
has now decided to increase substantially the commitment of American ground forces
in the theater of conflict.
As the military commitment grows, the nation must be clear about its objectives,
its responsibilities, and the consequences in Vietnam. This objective can only be
the establishment of conditions under which the people of South Vietnam can live in
peace, freedom, and security.
The objective can be attained only when aggression from within or without is
brought to a halt.
The establishment of a coalition government with Communist participation in
control of South Vietnam is incompatible with this objective.
Evacuation of American troops under an agreement to be policed by a commission
including a Communist member with veto power over commission decisions would be
incompatible with this objective.
The desire of the government and the people of the United States to negotiate
a peace in Vietnam has been established beyond question. But a peace which would
turn South Vietnam over to the Communists -- immediately or after some interval --
must be forthrightly rejected.
Any doubt as to the resoluteness of the United States in the pursuit of the
objective of maintaining the freedom and independence of South Vietnam that has
arisen is due to unfortunate statements of some Democrats.
Although we do not quarrel with the President in his invitation to the aggres-
sors to negotiate without any pre-conditions, we doubt the wisdom of failing to
make it clear that the United States is not going to agree to the kind of treaty
and truce provisions that have made possible Communist take-overs in the past.
President Johnson has said that the United States will not withdraw from
Vietnam under a meaningless agreement. We suggest that the President assure the
nation that no agreement will be made which will make a mockery of the sacrifices
already suffered by our American fighting men and the soldiers of South Vietnam.
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
Thruston B. Morton,
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Chr. Republican
Senatorial Committee
Issued following a
of the Policy Committee
Leadership Meeting
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Ranking Member
The Republican
July 22, 1965
Rules Committee
National Chairman
Bob Wilson,
Ray C. Bliss
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Next week the Members of the House of Representatives will demonstrate by
their votes whether they are members of an independent branch of government or
simply yes men responding blindly to the manipulation of the Executive branch.
The issue which the House will face is fair consideration of the repeal of
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act -- a section which simply preserves to each
State some right to regulate labor-management relations.
An attempt will be made as a part of President Johnson's program to force
repeal of Section 14(b) through the House under the most stringent of gag rules.
I anticipate a proposal that the House act on this important change of policy with
only two hours of debate and that no opportunity be given to offer meaningful amend-
ments.
If the House is not to sacrifice its self-respect, it will vote down the
proposal that it shut its mouth, plug its ears, close its eyes and swallow the
Johnson Administration's prescription without adequate debate and without oppor-
tunity to vote on important amendments.
The action expected next week is the latest manifestation of a disturbing
tendency to avoid discussion of the subject of the repeal of Section 14(b) on its
merits. The Administration has engaged in a cynical type of log-rolling on the
subject. It has sought to convince city Congressmen to vote for a bread tax
against their convictions in order to get repeal of Section 14(b) and farm Congress-
men to vote for repeal of 14(b) against their convictions in order to get a farm
bill.
If the coalition which the Administration is ruthlessly trying to put to-
gether is successful, how can Congress be considered to act as an independent
branch of government?
(Dirksen statement - page 2)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
- 2 -
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
JULY 22, 1965
A strange thing happened to the proposed constitutional amendment on appor-
tionment of State legislatures on its way to the Senate floor. Disputes over the
wording of the amendment have recently arisen and produced a deadlock in the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
I am confident that the Senate will in time act favorably on an amendment.
Recent discussion shows the need for clarification of the effect of the proposal.
There is universal recognition of the need for reform of the system or re-
presentation obtaining in most states at the time of several well-known Supreme
Court decisions. In fact, in 1955 a presidential commission reported to President
Eisenhower that the strengthening of state governments called for adequate repre-
sentation of the interest of urban areas in state legislative bodies. I welcome
the reforms now under way in many states in the belief that they provide more
equitable representation and help to invigorate state governments. I do not on
the other hand, conclude that mechanical adherence to the "one man, one vote"
principle should be imposed on both branches of the legislature of every state by
Federal fiat regardless of the desires of the people. Everyone concedes that it
is appropriate to require that representation in one house of the legislature of
each state be based solely on the factor of population.
The proposed amendment does no more than permit the people of each state to
employ factors other than population as the basis of representation in the other
house if by periodic referendum a majority of the people in any state so desire.
It would not deny any minority group the opportunity to gain representation.
Presumably any system of representation contrived to discriminate against any group
would be struck down by the courts as a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Experience shows that the "one man, one vote" principle can be used to
euchre minorities out of seats in legislative bodies. This can be accomplished by
submerging minorities in large constituencies with at-large elections, as has been
done in the State of Virginia to render less likely the election of members of
minority groups to the State legislature. It can be accomplished by drawing dis-
trict lines so as to spread the minority population thinly over a number of districts.
The issue which the proposed amendment presents is this: Shall we allow the
people to make the decision about the basis of representation in one house of their
state legislature, or shall we impose a decision on them whether they want it or not?
We propose to meet this issue and fight every step of the way to preserve our Fed-
eral-State system and the historic right of the people of the several states to
determine the composition of one branch of their own legislature according to their
desires,
-- o0000oo--
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
Thruston B. Morton,
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Chr. Republican
Senatorial Committee
Issued following a
of the Policy Committee
Leadership Meeting
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Ranking Member
The Republican
August 5, 1965
Rules Committee
National Chairman
Bob Wilson,
Ray C. Bliss
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The most recent figures on the cost of living convey disheartening news. For
the third month in a row a substantial increase in living costs was registered.
The increase to date in 1965 has been four times the increase during the same
period of 1964.
The month of June showed the biggest increase in 23 months. Food prices alone
rose 2%. The meat, poultry, and fish group was up 10% from a year ago.
Food store prices in the Washington area bring these statistics to life. For
instance, in one chain store since June 1964 the cost of smoked ham has risen from
43 cents per pound to 59 cents per pound. At another chain store, the past thirteen
months have seen a rise in the cost of rib steaks of 22 cents per pound, while bone-
less chuck roast has zoomed from 49 cents per pound to 85 cents per pound. Pork
chops at another chain store have nearly doubled in price, from 69 cents per pound
in June of 1964 to today's price of $1.19 per pound. The same store in the same
period has seen bacon more than double in price, from 49 cents to $1.05 per pound.
There are signs of continued pressures affecting not only the price of food
but also a broad range of commodities and services. Wholesale prices, following
a six-year period of stability, have risen 2 per cent in the past year. On top of
this, the Labor Department reports that in the first six months of this year the
increases granted in wage settlements have averaged 4 per cent -- well above the
Administration's guidepost of 3.2 per cent. And that will tend to push prices up
even more.
In spite of these disquieting signs, the press reports that "Administration
spokesmen
said they were not worried by the recent surge in consumer prices."
These sentiments are not shared by the American housewife, the wage earner with a
family to feed, the poor, the retired, and others who live on fixed incomes. Per-
haps the President should be reminded of that portion of his State of the Union
Message in which he said, "Our continued prosperity demands continued price sta-
bility."
The inflationary trend offsets the billions being expended in the highly pub-
licized war on poverty.
(Ford statement -- page 2)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
- 2 -
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
August 5, 1965
It is now more than four years since the Council of Economic Advisers set an
unemployment level of 4 per cent as the "interim goal" of the Administration. It
1s now more than three years since Hubert Humphrey declared, "I predict that by
the end of the coming calendar year -- by December 31, 1962, the problem of unem-
ployment in the United States will be a page in the history book The year
1962 is long gone. It has been a long interim, and the achievement of the goal is
not yet in sight. The unemployment rate has been stuck around the 5 per cent
level since early in 1964.
In the four years since 1960 employment in agriculture has declined by one
million jobs, or 17 per cent. This is more than double the rate of decrease in
farm jobs under the previous Administration.
In spite of the economic upsurge which the nation has experienced, unemploy-
ment remains an unsolved problem. Unlike past periods of upswing in economic
activity, the current prosperity has not brought with it an automatic reduction of
the ranks of the jobless to tolerable levels.
The problem of unemployment is particularly a problem of the young. The rate
of joblessness among teenagers hovered between 15 and 17 per cent before schools
closed for the summer -- a rate more than three times as high as that for the
total working force.
Employment of youth promises to be a more difficult problem within the next
few years because of substantial increases in the number entering the labor
force. In 1964, 2,700,000 Americans reached their 18th birthday. This year
3,700,000 will reach the age of 18, and on through the 1970's approximately
4,000,000 will attain this age each year.
Speiding programs by the score have been offered as panaceas for unemployment.
They have not attained the Administration's stated goal.
We see here a reptition of lessons which should have been learned decades ago.
A Niagara of Federal spending -- a host of Federal programs -- has never provided
a real solution to the problem of unemployment.
The Administration stands indicted by its obvious failure in dealing with
this critical problem.
---000000--
FOOD PRICES IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
CHAIN STORES
June 1964
July 1965
CHAIN STORE A
Fryers, legs (per pound)
$ .37
$ .55
Fryers, breasts (per pound)
.43
.59
Smoked hams, fully cooked (per pound)
.43
.59
Medium fresh shrimp
.69
.89
2 dozen large eggs
.91
.95
CHAIN STORE B
Chuck roast, boneless (per pound)
.49
.85
Fryers, whole (per pound)
.25
.39
Fryers, cut
.29
.43
Rib steaks, 7 inch cut (per pound)
.57
.79
CHAIN STORE C
Pork Chops (per pound)
.69
1.19
Bacon (per pound)
.49
1.05
CHAIN STORE D
Porterhouse steak, USDA choice
.95
1.49
(per pound)
.79
1.35
Round steak (per pound)
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leader
of the Policy Committee
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Conference
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
Thruston B. Morton,
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Chr. Republican
of the Policy Committee
Senatorial Committee
Clarence J. Brown,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Ranking Member
The Republican
Rules Committee
National Chairman
Bob Wilson,
Ray C. Bliss
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
FOR RELEASE
FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 1965
STATEMENT BY THE
JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Senator Dirksen
Representative Ford
Senator Kuchel
Representative Arends
Senator Hickenlooper
Representative Laird
Senator Saltonstall
Representative Rhodes
Senator Morton
Representative Brown
Representative Wilson
August 13 marks the fourth anniversary of a tragedy in American
foreign relations and a tragedy for all mankind- the erection of one of
man's most hated and degrading structures, the Berlin Wall. The Wall
is an insult to all of mankind. It is an ugly reminder that the com-
munists cannot command the voluntary allegiance of those trapped by
terrible circumstance within their borders.
In 1961, the communists violated the Four Power Agreement, a pledge
among nations, and they violated man's sense of individual diversity, a
pledge among all men, when they constructed their cold cement edifice.
Now, four years afterward, the Wall has been warmed many times over by
the blood of courageous, imprisoned men who have sought escape from
mistrust, compulsion by force, and deadening conformity.
The lust for freedom of the east German people has sent unnumbered
hundreds under, through, and over the Wall in quest of this freedom.
In order to join with their families and friends in the West and escape
the tyranny of communist government, these men have matched bravery and
ingenuity against the fiendish traps and obstacles concocted by the
communists, Many German people have died by the bullets of communist
rifles when they sought to escape.
It is a great irony that man's response to the Wall, the escape,
has become one of the most meaningful and important actions to all
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex (more) 3700
STAFF CONSULTANT: Robert Humphreys
- 2 -
freedom-loving men. We feel a common bond with the stifled individuals
behind the Wall, and every free man identifies with the individuals
who are compelled by conscience and blessed with the opportunity to
escape.
Tragically, as more men have escaped and more men have died, the
Wall has been fortified and enlarged with cement, wire, and explosives,
Yet one remains confident that the bravery and genius of such men will
not be defeated by a wall.
The return of freedom and unity to all the German people must
remain a major objective of the foreign policy of the United States
until the Wall is no more.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
Leader
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
of the Policy Committee
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird,
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Chr. of the Conference
of the Conference :
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
H. Allen Smith,
Chr. Republican
Ranking Member
Senatorial Committee
Rules Committee
Issued following a
Bob Wilson,
Leadership Meeting
Chr. Republican
PRESIDING OFFICER:
The Republican
September 9, 1965
Congressional Committee
Charles E. Goodell,
National Chairman
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
If the President insists on Senate consideration of the repeal of
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act this year, the present session
of Congress will end not with a bang in the fall but with a whimper
when the snow falls. Section 14(b) is the provision affirming the
right of the states to forbid compulsory unionism.
The Senate will not act speedily on this issue SO basic to federal-
state relations. Several senators have promised extended discussion
of the subject, and clearly the votes for cloture will not be forth-
coming.
The Congress has done enough for 1965. There is no emergency, no
crisis that requires immediate alteration of a law for which the
President once voted and which he never sought to amend in the course
of his 12 years of service in the Senate.
Undoubtedly there is room for many improvements in labor's rela-
tions with management and management's relations with labor. If the
repeal of Section 14(b) is taken up, it is clear that members of the
Senate cannot be persuaded to refrain from offering numerous and far-
reaching changes in labor-management legislation. It would be far
wiser for the Senate to turn to the task of overhauling such laws next
year after a respite from the hectic pace of the present session and
after consulting the folks back home than to attempt to ram through a
single highly controversial change this year.
There are dangers in the indiscriminate use of presidential power
to compel action from a reluctant Congress - particularly when the
President showed little interest in the legislation until relatively
late in the session.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 Ex 3700
STATEMENT BY REP. FORD
September 9, 1965
The 89th Congress has passed several bills increasing the flow of
federal funds available for education. It has added a cut in excise
taxes to a reduction of income tax rates in 1964.
Because of Administration opposition, the Congress has not, how-
ever, provided tax relief specifically directed toward lightening the
burden of higher education.
More than 5 million students will settle on the campuses of col-
leges and universities throughout the United States this month. In
the course of the next 5 years, college enrollemnt is expected to
increase by an additional 1½ million students.
The average cost of a year of higher education at a public insti-
tution is now $1560; it is $2370 at a private institution. These
costs will continue to rise in future years. It is estimated that
tuition charges will increase by 50 per cent in both public and pri-
vate institutions in the next decade.
The cost of going to college is a severe strain on the resources
of most of the 5 million students now enrolled and on their families.
Millions, who on the basis of ability deserve a college education,
are deprived of one because of the financial burden.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 will provide federal scholar-
ships for fewer than 3 per cent of the college students immediately
and for fewer than 8 per cent eventually. It will make borrowing to
defray educational expenses somewhat easier, but these provisions are
not enough.
The most effective and direct method of lightening the burden of
college expenses formall is to provide for a credit which those who
are paying for higher education may take against their federal income
tax.
Assistance of this kind has been advocated by Republicans for
many years. We shall continue to fight for it.
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
Leader
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
of the Policy Committee
Melvin R. Laird,
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
of the Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
Thruston B. Morton,
of the Policy Committee
Chr. Republican
H. Allen Smith,
Issued following a
Senatorial Committee
Ranking Member
Leadership Meeting
Rules Committee
Bob Wilson,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
September 30, 1965
Chr. Republican
Congressional Committee
The Republican
Charles E. Goodell,
National Chairman
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Republicans have long been engaged in a determined and effective campaign to
broaden economic opportunity for all Americans and to reduce the numbers of those
in the lowest-income brackets.
During the first four years of the Eisenhower Administration the number of
families below the $3,000 income level (in dollars of constant purchasing power at
1962 prices) was reduced at a rate of 400,000 a year. In four years since 1960,
the number has been dropping at a rate of 250,000 a year.
When President Eisenhower assumed office, 28 per cent of the fumilies of the
United States had incomes below $3,000. Four years later the percentage was down
5 points to 23 per cent. In four years of the Democratic Administrations which
succeeded Eisenhower, the figure has been reduced by 3 percentage points.
Despite the pressagentry of the current war on poverty, progress toward the
goal of eliminating this evil has been slower during the past four years than it
was during the first term of the last Republican Administration.
The success of the Administration's anti-poverty efforts must be judged in
these terms. The crucial question is whether these efforts with their vast in-
crease in federal spending and their sizeable bureaucracy accelerate the rate of
reduction of the numbers of those in the lowest-income brackets. Thi question
has become obscured in a paper blizzard of press releases from the White House and
the Office of Economic Opportunity which provide some measurement of the effort of
the Administration but yield little information about the results.
The public is told how many communities there are in which federal anti-poverty
programs have been started, how many job corps camps have been established, how
many Vista workers have been recruited, but it is not told how many poor people
have increased their income, and by what amounts, because of participation in the
anti-poverty program. It is not even told the names of the disadvantaged youths
who were given summer employment by the Post Office Department.
It is too early to pass final judgment on the effectiveness of the anti-poverty
program. The evidence available at present makes it appear that the program has
not yet proved itself.
(Ford statement - page 2)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
STATEMENT BY REP. FORD
September 30, 1965
There are several glaring weaknesses in the anti-poverty program.
The Administration of the program is chaotic. It is headed by a part-time
director and a top staff of temporary personnel who simultaneously decided to
desert as the first skirwishes of the war on poverty were hardly under way. The
Office of Economic Opportunity is top heavy with high salaried executives. In
this agency, one out of every 18 employees receives a salary in excess of $19,000.
In the Defense Department, by contrast, one of 1,000 employees is paid more than
$19,000.
The program as administered treats elected State and local officials with cav-
alier disdain. Though Republican protest in the Congress salvaged some semblance
of influence in the operation of the program for State governors, neither State
nor local officials have an effective voice in the program today. This weakening
of the federal system, on top of other centralizing programs of the current admin-
istration, is a dangerous trend.
Disregard of State and local governments and their elected officials has made
the term "war" an apt title for the poverty program. In too many places it has
become a war waged by local officials and competing private groups with each other
for control of federal funds and for partisan and personal advantage, The poor are
treated as the spoils in this conflict. They do not participate in decisions on
what is to be done for them or to them.
Enough evidence has come to light to raise serious doubts about the Job Corps
program. Instances of criminal and immoral behavior suggest inadequate selection
processes for trainees and a breakdown of discipline. There is a serious question,
too, as to whether the training consists too much of work that keeps youth off the
streets but does not nurture skills needed in the job market.
The poverty program needs basic reform and a tightening of administrative
practices. Whatever benefits that can be realized from this program can be
attained less wastefully by clearer definition of objectives, by more careful
structuring of programs, by cooperation with State and local governments, and by
elimination of considerations of partisan politicalvadvantage.
-- 0000000--
Press Conference: September 30, 1965
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE LEADERSHIP
Transcript of comments on John Birch Society
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, Bill, let me give you my estimate of the situation.
First, and let me emphasize this with as much vigor as I can -- that the
John Birch Society is NOT a part of the Republican Party. It never was and
I don't suppose it even pretends to be.
Secondly, let me say that in the American political scheme I do not
believe there is any place or any room for any organization which operates
on a secret basis to achieve political goals. Way back in Lincoln's day, as
you remember, they had the "Know Nothings" and if you asked them a question,
asked them what they stood for, the answer was: "I know nothing."
Third, let me say that it's rather curious that General Walker, who
supposedly is a member of this group, ran for office in Texas -- not on the
Republican ticket -- but on the Democrat ticket -- and got 100,000 votes.
Fourth, we have never been encumbered with any group like the Americans
for Democratic Action. Now, if you want to talk about extremism, well, you
can put your teeth into that. We do not believe in extremism, we got out a
moderate platform in 1964, and we stand by it.
And finally, let me say, that insofar as I'm familiar with what the John
Birch Society is seeking to do -- and frankly not a single piece of their
literature has ever gone across my desk. So I don't know exactly what they
do stand for. But I read in the press they're against the United Nations
the Republican Party isn't; they have demeaned some of the Republican leaders
like the late John Foster Dulles, like President Eisenhower and others, and
tried to put on them an ideological tag that is at complete variance with a
whole tradition of the Republican Party. We EMPHATICALLY reject that sort of
thing and we stand on our platform, but I make it abundantly clear that they
are NOT a part of the Republican Party. They never have been -- and in my
judgment they never will be.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: I would subscribe wholeheartedly to the observations and comments
of Senator Dirksen. I would like to point out in addition, however, that the
Republican record in the House and in the Senate on such issues as the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 -- the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- the Republican Party
supported those two legislative proposals very substantially. And if I
understand correctly, the John Birch Society is opposed to BOTH of those laws
that are now on the statute books. The legislative record of the Republican
Party in the House and in the Senate is in substantial conflict with the views
of the John Birch Society, a monolithic organization that takes its orders
from the top and therefore there is no place for that organization in the
Republican Party.
Press Conference: September 30, 1965
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE LEADERSHIP
Transcript of comments on John Birch Society
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, Bill, let me give you my estimate of the situation.
First, and let me emphasize this with as much vigor as I can -- that the
John Birch Society is NOT a part of the Republican Party. It never was and
I don't suppose it even pretends to be.
Secondly, let me say that in the American political scheme I do not
believe there is any place or any room for any organization which operates
on a secret basis to achieve political goals. Way back in Lincoln's day, as
you remember, they had the "Know Nothings" and if you asked them a question,
asked them what they stood for, the answer was: "I know nothing."
Third, let me say that it's rather curious that General Walker, who
supposedly is a member of this group, ran for office in Texas -- not on the
Republican ticket -- but on the Democrat ticket -- and got 100,000 votes.
Fourth, we have never been encumbered with any group like the Americans
for Democratic Action. Now, if you want to talk about extremism, well, you
can put your teeth into that. We do not believe in extremism, we got out a
moderate platform in 1964, and we stand by it.
And finally, let me say, that insofar as I'm familiar with what the John
Birch Society is seeking to do -- and frankly not a single piece of their
literature has ever gone across my desk. So I don't know exactly what they
do stand for. But I read in the press they're against the United Nations
the Republican Party isn't; they have demeaned some of the Republican leaders
like the late John Foster Dulles, like President Eisenhower and others, and
tried to put on them an ideological tag that is at complete variance with a
whole tradition of the Republican Party. We EMPHATICALLY reject that sort of
thing and we stand on our platform, but I make it abundantly clear that they
are NOT a part of the Republican Party. They never have been -- and in my
judgment they never will be.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: I would subscribe wholeheartedly to the observations and comments
of Senator Dirksen. I would like to point out in addition, however, that the
Republican record in the House and in the Senate on such issues as the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 -- the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- the Republican Party
supported those two legislative proposals very substantially. And if I
understand correctly, the John Birch Society is opposed to BOTH of those laws
that are now on the statute books. The legislative record of the Republican
Party in the House and in the Senate is in substantial conflict with the views
of the John Birch Society, a monolithic organization that takes its orders
from the top and therefore there is no place for that organization in the
Republican Party.
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
EverettrM. Dirksen, Leader
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
Leader
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
of the Policy Committee
Melvin R. Laird,
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
of the Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
Chr. Republican
H. Allen Smith,
Senatorial Committee
Issued following a
Ranking Member
Leadership Meeting
Rules Committee
Bob Wilson,
October 23, 1965
Chr. Republican
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Congressional Committee
The Republican
Charles E. Goodell,
National Chairman
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The White House acted wisely in suppressing the motion picture which it had
prepared glorifying the 89th Congress. For this session of the Congress would win
no Oscar, even in the best supporting role category. From this Congress, we have
had an echo, not a choice.
A movie of the 89th Congress would be like an episode of the old-time
serial which always ended as the heroine was pushed off a cliff or was about to be
ground up by an oncoming locomotive, Not until you see the thrilling episode that
will be presented in this theater next year will you know whether 14(b) of Taft-
Hartley is ground to bits under the Administration's locomotive or whether the
Reapportionment Amendment survives its fall from the cliff.
We would caution those who judge the work of the session which just wheezed
to a close to look, not at the quantity of the legislative product, but at its
quality. The test should be not how much has the Congress done, but how well has
it done.
Always a candid man, the majority leader of the Senate has confessed ser-
ious deficiencies in the legislation enacted this year. Senator Mansfield has
announced that the second session of the 89th Congress should "spend less time on
new legislation and more time correcting oversights in legislation we have just
passed," He has said the Congress "must tighten up the hasty enactments
and
must rectify "a number of gaps and any number of rough edges, overextensions and
overlaps."
It is highly significant that Senator Mansfield, in reviewing the work of
this session before the Democratic Conference, could find no adjective to describe
it other than the ambiguous word "exceptional."
As a believer in complete candor, I endorse the majority leader's appraisal
of the work of this session. I assure him that he will find on the Republican side
willing allies in the effort to devote considerable attention during the second
session of this Congress to correction of the mistakes of the first session.
(Ford statement -- page 2)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
- 2 -
October 23, 1965
The first session of the 89th Congress clearly demonstrates the evils of
one-party dominance of the national government.
When the party that occupies the White House holds a two-to-one majority in
the Congress, the Congress ceases to function as a co-equal branch of government,
the integrity of state and local governments is undermined, and the public interest
1s often jeopardized.
The Executive branch unchecked becomes careless and arrogant. Arrogant is
a strong word, but there 1s no other to describe those who attempted to bull through
the appointment to the federal judiciary of a man totally devoid of qualifications
for this high office. There is no other word for the conduct of an agency that
withholds federal funds from a city in defiance of the procedures clearly established
by Congress before such action can be taken. There is no other word for the methods
used to rush legislation through the Congress without adequate consideration and
without adequate opportunity to debate and to amend.
The House had no chance, for example, to consider any meaningful amendment
to the bill repealing Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, In the consideration of
the Administration bill on elementary and secondary education, no opportunity was
granted to the sponsors of 14 amendments for explanation and debate.
Protest has been heard from both sides of the aisle. Democratic Congress-
woman Green, of Oregon, early in the session, condemned the "determined effort to
silence those who are in disagreement." Many other Democrats have spoken out in
similar terms in frustration and futility.
When either House of the Congress acts in this way, it abdicates its respon-
sibility. It ceases to be a deliberative body and becomes a rubber stamp.
State and local governments have suffered because of one-party dominance in
this Congress. Congress has enacted far-reaching programs without concern for the
views of responsible state and local officials or the effect of federal action on
existing state and local programs. Especially significant was the Democratic
attempt to deprive governors of any shred of veto power over projects under the
poverty program.
Finally, this Congress has been prodigal with taxpayers' money, over and
above the military needs of the country. During this year $119 billion has been
appropriated -- $36 billion more than in the last year of the Eisenhower Administra-
tion. For many new programs this year's appropriation is only a small fraction of
the annual expenditure that will be inevitable when the programs are fully in opera-
tion.
-=0000000--
TO
The Union- -
A Republican
Appraisal
FOR
LIBRARY
REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE WITH *
FOREWORD
On Monday night, January 17, 1966, the Re-
publican Minority Leaders in the U. S. Senate
and House of Representatives - Senator Everett
Dirksen of Illinois and Congressman Gerald Ford
of Michigan - delivered a Republican message
on the State of the Union.
The message, entitled "The State of the Union
- A Republican Appraisal," was delivered at
the U. S. capitol in the historic chamber formerly
occupied by the Supreme Court before Republi-
can members of Congress and their wives and
other Party leaders.
International Affairs
The program, televised and broadcast nation-
ally, was the first of its kind by the leaders of a
By Senator Everett M. Dirksen
minority party. It was sponsored jointly by the
Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, Re-
Fellow Citizens:
publican Congressional Campaign Committee, and
the Republican National Committee.
I am Senator Dirksen of Illinois, Republican
Floor Leader in the United States Senate. With
The remarks of Senator Dirksen on inter-
me on this program will be Congressman Ford
national affairs and by Congressman Ford on
of Michigan, Republican Floor Leader in the
domestic policies are published in this pamphlet.
United States House of Representatives. Each of
us will have about 14 minutes to discuss the State
of The Union. That is a short time for a gigantic
task.
The President has a mandate under the Consti-
GERA
RARY
tution to give to the Congress information of the
We hoped that if we supplied the tools, other
State of the Union, together with his recommen-
nations would supply the men on Freedom's fron-
dations.
tier. We fulfilled our pledges. They did so only
We have no such mandate. We do believe
in part and too often with ill grace.
we have a duty as elected Representatives
Where needed, we supplied manpower also.
to present our views. Time will permit only
The first feeble cries of "Yanki, go home"
a few basic highlights.
have become a chorus. Our prestige on the
We are the legatees of a great, strong land. We
world thermometer of good will has
received it from those who were here before us.
dropped fast and far. Our billions have
gained little respect, and even less appre-
ciation. Every continent has its fevers and
Reason and Realism
turmoil.
T he state of our land is too often measured in
Two things are needed. The first is a care-
material terms - jobs, income, gross product,
ful, precise audit to see where our fleeting
services and goods. Actually it embraces much
dollars went and what they really accom-
more. It includes the national mood, our capacity
plished. The second is a sustained and
to live together, and our prestige. It includes our
expert scrutiny of every estimate for for-
leadership of the Free World, our relations with
eign aid to determine how the aid requested
other lands, our respect for law, our devotion to
will be used and whether there will be divi-
peace, and our willingness to sacrifice even as
dends in the form of good will and real
others have done before us. It includes reason and
devotion to peace and freedom. To accept
realism in a world of tumult and confusion.
less would be an injustice to the charity
and sacrificial spirit of the American
We are not only in this world but of it, and
people.
we shall be for ages to come.
The Horsemen of Despair
Our Relations With Other Countries
onsider now the horsemen of despair who ride
Consider then our ties and relations with other
over the world - the population explosion, hun-
lands. Twenty-one years ago, we pioneered the
ger, and poverty. They constitute a crisis already
United Nations. Since then, we have developed
on our doorstep. We pay farmers to produce less.
regional groups throughout the world for specific
Industry forever seeks ways to produce more at
purposes. We believed it would aid the cause of
less cost. Meanwhile, births continue to grow and
peace and tranquility and freedom.
hunger stalks many areas of the world. Each year,
the world gains 65 million persons. The number
In pursuit of these high purposes, we spent more
will grow. So will hunger. Can peace and hunger
co-exist?
than $120 billion of your money on foreign aid.
Ages ago, Isaiah wrote, "And it shall come
Millions Spent To Aid French
to pass, that when they shall be hungry,
Our country did not sign that accord. But we
they shall fret themselves, and curse their
had an interest. Hundreds of millions of your
King and their God." American agriculture
money was spent to aid the French. But it also
is geared to high production. Better to pay
involved our defense perimeter and our security.
for abundance than for scarcity.
We pledged ourselves to aid Vietnam in preserv-
In a few years, Red China will have 800 million
ing her integrity and independence.
people. Leaders can survive only when the urgent
Accordingly we were permitted to keep
needs of the people are met.
military advisers there. At first it was but
The ugly heads of aggression and conquest
a few hundred. Gradually the number grew
vanish when there is no need for new do-
into thousands. Today it approaches
mains. Surely, within the genius of Amer-
200,000. It has become a grim, bloody, and
ican enterprise, the way can be found for
costly business.
the produce of our fruited plains to reach
the empty bellies of the world.
It is a war but not of our making. Young men
The signs of trouble are already written in the
with gay hearts go forth to Vietnam and lifeless
young men in wooden boxes return. They fought,
firmament and there is no time to lose. This too
bled, and died in the heat and mud of the jungles.
with its vast potential impact on our future in-
All this is 12,000 miles from home. For a long
volves the State of the Union.
time it seemed remote. But no longer. We became
grimly aware that we are fighting a war to help
a small land, so many of whose people can neither
read nor write.
Vietnam Is Not Our War
Consider now the grim struggle in which we are
Joint Resolution
involved in Asia. Let us be crystal clear. Vietnam
is not our war. But we pledged ourselves to help
Eighteen months ago, Congress enacted a Joint
a small nation. Our word was given. We are there
Resolution, giving support and approval to the
President as Commander In Chief to take all
to keep our word.
necessary steps including the use of force to repel
For more than 90 years, Cambodia, Laos and
attack on our forces and prevent further aggres-
Indo-China were under French tutelage. The Viet
sion. That resolution is still in effect. In both
Minh - the north half-rebelled. It was a long,
Houses of Congress the vote was 504 to 2. Every
bloody struggle. The French were defeated. The
Republican present voted for it.
conflict ended with an accord signed at Geneva.
Laos and Cambodia achieved their independence.
B ut as complications develop and the choice
Indo-China was divided in half with a non-
becomes guns or butter or both, groups and indi-
military zone between.
viduals become increasingly vocal. Let's get out.
We must stay in. We must bomb Hanoi. We must
not bomb. We must step up. We must hold back.
We must negotiate. We must not negotiate.
To retreat and get out would be deemed a
confession that we are a paper tiger. What
a propaganda weapon that would be in
Asia, Africa and elsewhere.
To forsake our pledges would shatter confi-
dence in us and further diminish our
prestige.
To negotiate from weakness would mean
defeat before we ever reached the negotia-
tion table.
So what? Is there then a rational course to
follow? I believe so. Let the peace efforts con-
tinue. Who can object to any honorable effort to
secure peace where young blood is involved?
Let the military effort continue. It demonstrates
our determination to keep our word. Let it be in-
tensified if necessary as sound military judgment
dictates. There is, after all, no substitute for vic-
tory. Let the objective be kept crystal clear at
Domestic Issues
all times, and that is guaranteed freedom and
By Cong. Gerald R. Ford
independence for the Vietnamese.
How else could we keep faith with the
We are assembled tonight in an historic cham-
young dead?
ber - a chamber that has echoed the thunderous
How else do we redeem our word?
debate and vigorous dissent of some of our coun-
How else do we regain our prestige?
try's greatest leaders.
How else do we maintain our leadership in
Daniel Webster here proclaimed the immortal
the Free World?
words, "Liberty and union, now and forever, one
and inseparable."
All this is part of the State of the Union.
The Torch of Dissent
As a minority party, it is our task to carry the
torch of dissent responsibly and constructively.
Curricula must be enriched.
Tonight we look forward, not backward.
People already working should be given the
Our people are restless and impatient with
chance to retrain and upgrade their skills and
problems too long unsolved and too often
earning power.
compounded by bad laws and bureaucratic
failings.
Vocational Rehabilitation for the handicapped
must be expanded.
The Congress turns in 1966, as in the past, to
its part in the always unfinished task of making
This cannot, and should not, be done by
America united, strong, and free.
the Federal government alone. But there is
much that the national government can do
T hese goals in their present setting point
to promote this effort without the heavy
particularly to three types of problems in
hand of federal control.
domestic policy: how to increase jobs and
For example, the Congress should ease the fi-
output without inflation; how to move ahead
nancial burden of going to college.
toward equality for all citizens; and how to
The door of education must be opened wide.
improve government and its services.
Therefore, we propose a federal income
tax credit for college students and their
Education
parents.
While there are courses of action that strike at
each of these problems, there is a common remedy
Compassion With Competence
that effects all three: Education.
The problem of unemployment is particu-
We must liberate the War on Poverty from
larly the problem of the young, inexpe-
waste, controversy, and the bad odor of political
rienced, unskilled person of inadequate
bossism.
schooling. More and better schooling will
We must combine compassion with com-
reduce racial tensions and speed the Ne-
petence. This nation can afford what is
gro's economic and social progress.
necessary to help the less fortunate among
Improved education will help to solve the
us to help themselves. The children of the
problems of government by enlightening
poor must have the highest priority. How
both the electors and the elected.
many of the poor have actually received
any of the twenty-three hundred million
We believe every youth must be encouraged to
taxpayer's dollars from the present War on
pursue his education as far as his talents will take
Poverty? Tragically, very few.
him.
The poor themselves must have an important
Drop-outs must be encouraged to go back to
role in policy decisions at the community level.
school for. an education or training to fit their
The States should be partners in this War on
ability.
Poverty. It is time that the poverty fighters
stopped fighting each other.
health. In the ten years since the second
Republicans will offer specific proposals
Hoover Commission made its report, dur-
to redirect this program to achieve its
ing five Democratic-controlled Congresses,
goals without waste, scandal and bureau-
employees on the Federal payroll have in-
cratic infighting. Without such changes,
creased 175,000 and Federal expenditures
the good will fall with the bad under the
have increased by $57 billion.
fiscal pressures created by Vietnam and
the massive new domestic spending pro-
The Executive branch has become a bureaucratic
grams.
jungle. The time has come to explore its wild
America has long waged the most effective War
growth and cut it back.
on Poverty in history through the genius of private
We urge a new independent bipartisan
enterprise cooperating with government.
Commission, patterned after the two dis-
We urge the enactment of the Republican
tinguished Hoover Commissions, to recom-
mend substantial reforms in the Executive
proposed Human Investment Act to bring
private enterprise more effectively to bear
branch of our government.
on the problem of creating productive jobs
for the poor. Through a 7% tax credit, this
Cost of Living
measure will encourage business and labor
to employ and train people with limited
To achieve a healthy and steady economic growth
skills and education.
there must be price stability. Today this national
goal is seriously endangered by the threat of in-
Executive Reform
flation. The Eisenhower dollar is now worth 90
cents.
The Executive Branch of the Federal government
needs reform - not Presidential repatching or
The, cost of living is 2 percent higher than
piecemeal creation of new departments.
it was a year ago. At the current level of
The proliferation of Federal programs, com-
consumer spending, the price rise is the
pounded by the mass production of laws in the
equivalent of a secret sales tax that silently
last session of Congress, demands the attention of
steals some $8 billion annually from the
pockets of the American people.
our people.
There are now 42 separate Federal agencies
involved in education programs alone.
Inflationary policies of the President have a
There are at least 252 welfare programs
major impact on the cost of living. This Admin-
today, including 52 separate Federal eco-
istration uses a double standard. With one hand
nomic aid programs, 57 job training pro-
it creates upward pressure on prices and with the
grams and 65 Federal programs to improve
other bludgeons workers and businessmen for re-
sponding to that pressure. The real villain in this
piece is the Administration which will increase
the cost of the Federal government by $26 billion
$31/2 billion? The President now advocates addi-
in a two-year period.
tional tax burdens to finance added costs both at
home and abroad.
The most direct and effective weapon the
National Government has to halt inflation is
With prudent restraint on spending, we
to curb Federal spending. This requires the
believe no new taxes are now needed.
President and the Congress to set priorities.
It is imperative that the President in his
budget classify his spending proposals ac-
Agriculture
cording to necessity and urgency. If he fails
to do so, we call upon the Democrats in Con-
T he farm parity ratio in 1965 was below the level
gress to join us in eliminating, reducing or
of five years ago. At home, we seek a free and
deferring low priority items.
prosperous agriculture by encouraging the opera-
tion of a healthy market economy. We will con-
We learn now that expenditures in this fiscal
tinue to resist Administration efforts to artificially
year will be at least 8 billion dollars more than
depress the market prices of farm commodities
we were told a year ago. Congress and the people
and to control the American farmers.
have not been given a straight-forward and real-
istic assessment of our Federal budget problems.
World population increases are adding a
Republicans intend to give the President's budget
new dimension to the problems of Ameri-
a searching examination.
can agriculture and demand new thinking.
For our overseas programs, we urge the
Whatever is needed - really needed - for
extension of Public Law 480, the Eisen-
national security must be provided. Urgent
hower Food for Peace program, and we
domestic programs that truly help the
urge the enactment of legislation, already
needy, that contribute to real economic
introduced by 65 Republicans in the House,
growth, that significantly advance the cause
to establish a bi-partisan "U.S. - World
of equal opportunity, need not be sacri-
Food Study and Coordinating Commis-
ficed. Applying these tests, Republicans
sion," in order to begin immediately the
believe the $55 billion which the President
task of closing the growing "food gap" on
will propose for non-military spending can
our planet.
be and must be reduced.
Political Reforms
Taxes
We were surprised and pleased that the Presi-
H OW many Americans know that the laws passed
dent touched on the subject of reform of political
last year, supposedly reducing taxes, actually im-
campaigns and elections. His recommendations
pose a net increase in Federal taxes for 1966 of
do not go far enough.
Ways must be found to eliminate vote
the load of local taxation, spur solution of
fraud, curb the cost of political campaigns,
vexing problems, and revitalize programs
and expand the franchise. Republicans will
in education, health, and welfare at the
propose:
local level.
to guard against abuses in the raising
and use of political funds;
to raise the ceiling on political expendi-
Unemployment Compensation
tures to realistic levels;
Changes in the system of unemployment com-
to bar effectively political contributions
pensation are needed, particularly to provide
from corporations and unions;
standby protection against the contingency of a
to require meaningful reporting of po-
substantial rise in the number of workers without
litical contributions and expenditures.
jobs. We support the constructive suggestions
worked out by the State Unemployment Compen-
sation administrators to meet this problem. We
States of the Union
oppose the Administration's bill that would substi-
O
tute Federal judgment for State determination in
ur nation has thrived on the diversity and
matters such as standards and benefits in this pro-
distribution of powers so wisely embedded in the
Constitution. The Administration believes in cen-
gram.
tralized authority, ignoring and bypassing and
undermining State responsibilities in almost every
Civil Rights
law that is passed. As a result, our constitutional
structure is today in dangerous disrepair. The
M aking real for all Americans the equality to
States of the Union form a vital cornerstone of
which this nation is committed remains an urgent
our Federal system, and the headlong plunge
national concern. Recent progress is encourag-
toward centralization of power in Washington
must be halted.
ing, but not enough. No citizen should be satis-
fied merely with the expectation of a better to-
All of us here tonight salute the gallant fight
morrow. It is only right to expect that the Consti-
of Senator Dirksen against the repeal of Section
tution of the United States be put in force every-
14 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act and for the Re-
where now.
apportionment Amendment.
The Congress has enacted four civil rights
We urge Congress to enact a system of tax
acts since 1957. There now is need to review
sharing, long advocated by Republicans, to
these laws, and especially tighten those designed
return to the States a fixed percentage of
to prevent violence and intimidation of citizens
personal income tax without Federal con-
who exercise their constitutional rights.
trols. Funds from this source will lighten
Hesitant administration of existing laws
has made them less effective than they
sand Americans in Vietnam.
should be. The President has even failed to
And what of the sacrifices of their families at
make the Community Relations Service the
home, who share inequally in the promises of the
effective instrument which Congress in-
Great Society? We urge more adequate housing
tended it to be. Leaderless for half of
and benefits for our fighting men and their fam-
last year, shunted off to an ambiguous
ilies. We urge a new GI bill of rights of veterans.
position in the wrong Federal agency, this
potentially valuable Service has suffered
We will not sacrifice their future.
from neglect.
Nor will we sacrifice the future of millions
Let us make it clear to all - there cannot be
of Americans whose lifetime savings and mod-
two kinds of justice, one for whites, another for
est pensions are being nibbled away by infla-
tion.
Negroes.
Nor can there be tolerance of riots, looting,
We are outnumbered two to one in this Con-
violence, and disorder. These impede the prog-
gress.
ress sought by the overwhelming majority of
But we will continue to speak out for the
Americans.
things in which we believe. We will not
sacrifice the ideals that make us Republi-
cans.
The President's Challenge
We will never sacrifice the sacred right, and the
Last week the President chided Americans who
sacred value to our country, of loyal dissent.
believe, as I do, that we cannot fight a war ten
This is our duty to all Americans.
thousand miles away without setting priorities at
home.
He asked: Whom will they sacrifice? the
poor?
Our answer is a resounding "NO!"
We will not sacrifice poor people.
We will sacrifice poor programs, poorly
conceived and poorly carried out.
We will sacrifice poor administrators.
We will sacrifice poor arithmetic in public
accounting.
Any sacrifices we call for cannot be com-
pared with those being made by 190 thou-
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Prepared under the direction of the Republican
National Committee, 1625 Eye Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
For additional copies, contact Editors Press,
6041 33rd Avenue, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
(Check or Money Order must accompany order-
Prices include handling and postage)
Single copies: 20¢ each; 100 copies: $10.00; 250
copies: $20.00; 500 copies: $35.00; 1,000 copies:
$60.00.
6
FOR THE SENATE:
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
FOR THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford,
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
Leader
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
of the Policy Committee
Melvin R. Laird,
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
Chr. of the Conference
of the Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
Chr. Republican
H. Allen Smith,
Senatorial Committee
Ranking Member
Rules Committee
Bob Wilson,
Chr. Republican
PRESIDING OFFICER:
ADDRESS
Congressional Committee
The Republican
Charles E. Goodell,
National Chairman
January 17, 1966
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
The Minority Leader of the House of Representatives,
Congressman Gerald R. Ford, Republican of Michigan
"The State of the Union - A Republican Appraisal"
FOR RELEASE
9:00 PM E.S.T.
We are assembled tonight in an historic chamber -- a chamber that
has echoed the thunderous debate and vigorous dissent of some of our country's
greatest leaders.
Daniel Webster here proclaimed the immortal words, "Liberty and
union, now and forever, one and inseparable."
As a minority party, it is our task to carry the torch of dissent
responsibly and constructively.
Tonight we look forward, not backward. Our people are restless and
impatient with problems too long unsolved and too often compounded by bad
laws and bureaucratic failings.
The Congress turns in 1966, as in the past, to its part in the always
unfinished task of making America united, strong, and free.
These goals in their present setting point particularly to three types
of problems in domestic policy: how to increase jobs and output without
inflation; how to move ahead toward equality for all citizens; and how to improve
government and its services.
While there are courses of action that strike at each of these problems,
there is a common remedy that affects all three: Education.
The problem of unemployment is particularly the problem of the young,
inexperienced, unskilled person of inadequate schooling.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
-2-
-- More and better schooling will reduce racial tensions and speed the
Negro's economic and social progress.
-- Improved education will help to solve the problems of goverment
by enlightening both the electors and the elected.
We believe every youth must be encouraged to pursue his education
as far as his talents will take him.
Drop-outs must be encouraged to go back to school for an education
or training to fit their ability.
Curricula must be enriched.
People already working should be given the chance to retrain and upgrade
their skills and earning power.
Vocational Rehabilitation for the handicapped must be expanded.
This cannot, and should not, be done by the Federal government alone.
But, there is much that the national government can do to promote this effort
without the heavy hand of federal control.
For example, the Congress should ease the financial burden of going
to college.
The door of education must be opened wide.
Therefore, we propose a federal income tax credit for college students
and their parents.
Compassion with Competence
We must liberate the War on Poverty from waste, controversy, and
the bad odor of political bossism.
We must combine compassion with competence. This nation can
afford what is necessary to help the less fortunate among us to help themselves.
The children of the poor must have the highest priority. How many of the poor
have actually received any of the twenty-three hundred million taxpayers' dollars
from the present War on Poverty? Tragically, very few.
The poor themselves must have an important role in policy decisions at
the community level. The States should be partners in this War on Poverty.
It is time that the poverty fighters stopped fighting each other.
-3-
Republicans will offer specific proposals to redirect this program to
achieve its goals without waste, scandal and bureaucratic infighting. Without
such changes, the good will fall with the bad under the fiscal pressures
created by Vietnam and the massive new domestic spending programs.
America has long waged the most effective War on Poverty in history
through the genius of private enterprise cooperating with government.
We urge the enactment of the Republican.proposed Human Investment
Act to bring private enterprise more effectively to bear on the problem of
creating productive jobs for the poor. Through a 7% tax credit, this measure
will encourage business and labor to employ and train people with limited skills
and education.
Executive Reform
The Executive Branch of the Federal government needs reform - not
Presidential repatching or piecemeal creation of new departments.
The proliferation of Federal programs, compounded by the mass
production of laws in the last session of Congress, demands the attention of our
people.
There are now 42 separate Federal agencies involved in education programs
alone. There are at least 252 welfare programs today, including 52 separate
Federal economic aid program, 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 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.
We urge a new independent bipartisan Commission, patterned after the
two distinguished Hoover Commissions, to recommend substantial reforms in
the Executive branch of our government.
-4-
Cost of Living
To achieve a healthy and steady economic growth there must be price
stability. Today this national goal is seriously endangered by the threat of
inflation.
The Eisenhower dollar is now worth 90 cents.
The cost of living is 2 percent higher than it was a year ago. At the
current level of consumer spending, this price rise is the equivalent of a secret
sales tax that silently steals some $8 billion annually from the pockets of the
American people.
Inflationary policies of the President have a major impact on the cost
of living. This Administration uses a double standard. With one hand it creates
upward pressure on prices and with the other bludgeons workers and businessmen
for responding to that pressure.
The real villain in this piece is the
Administration which will increase the cost of the Federal government by
$26 billion in a two-year period.
The most direct and effective weapon the National Government has to halt
inflation is to curb Federal spending. This requires the President and the Congress
to set priorities. It is imperative that the President in his budget classify his
spending proposals according to necessity and urgency. If he fails to do so,
we call upon the Democrats in Congress to join us in eliminating, reducing
or deferring low priority items.
We learn now that expenditures in this fiscal year will be at least 8
billion dollars more than we were told a year ago. Congress and the people
have not been given a straight-forward and realistic assessment of our Federal
budget problems. Republicans intend to give the President's budget a searching
examination.
Whatever is needed -- really needed -- for national security must be
provided. Urgent domestic programs that truly help the needy, that contribute
to real economic growth, that significantly advance the cause of equal opportunity,
need not be sacrificed. Applying these tests, Republicans believe the $55 billion
which the President will propose for non-military spending can be and must be reduced.
-5-
Taxes
How many Americans know that the laws passed last year, supposedly
reducing taxes, actually impose a net increase in Federal taxes for 1966 of
$3-1/2 billion? The President now advocates additional tax burdens to finance
added costs both at home and abroad. With prudent restraint on spending, we
believe no new taxes are now needed.
Agriculture
The farm parity ratio in 1965 was below the level of five years ago.
At home, we seek a free and prosperous agriculture by encouraging the operation
of a healthy market economy. We will continue to resist Administration efforts
to artificially depress the market prices of farm commodities and to control
the American farmers.
World population increases are adding a new dimension to the problems
of American agriculture and demand new thinking. For our overseas programs,
we urge the extension of Public Law 480, the Eisenhower Food for Peace program,
and we urge the enactment of legislation, already introduced by 65 Republicans
in the House, to establish a bi-partisan "U.S. - World Food Study and Coordinating
Commission, " in order to begin immediately the vital task of closing the growing
"food gap" on our planet.
Political Reforms
We were surprised and pleased that the President touched on the subject
of reform of political campaigns and elections. His recommendations do not go
far enough.
Ways must be found to eliminate vote fraud, curb the cost of political
campaigns, and expand the franchise. Republicans will propose:
-- to guard against abuses in the raising and use of political funds;
-- to raise the ceiling on political expenditures to realistic levels;
-- to bar effectively political contributions from corporations and unions;
-- to require meaningful reporting of political contributions and expenditures.
-6-
States of the Union
Our nation has thrived on the diversity and distribution of powers so wisely
embedded in the Constitution. The Administration believes in centralized authority,
ignoring and bypassing and undermining State responsibilities in almost every law
that is passed. As a result, our constitutional structure is today in dangerous
disrepair. The States of the Union form a vital cornerstone of our Federal system,
and the headlong plunge toward centralization of power in Washington must be halted.
All of us here tonight salute the gallant fight of Senator Dirksen against
the repeal of Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act and for the Reapportionment
Amendment.
We urge Congress to enact a system of tax sharing, long advocated by Republicans,
to return to the States a fixed percentage of the personal income tax without
Federal controls. Funds from this source will lighten the load of local taxation,
spur solution of vexing urban problems, and revitalize programs in education,
health, and welfare at the local level.
Unemployment Compensation
Changes in the system of unemployment co mpensation are needed, particularly
to provide standby protection against the contingency of a substantial rise in the
number of workers without jobs. We support the constructive suggestions worked out
by the State Unemployment Compensation administrators to meet this problem. We
oppose the Administration's bill that would substitute Federal judgment for State
determination in matters such as standards and benefits in this program.
Civil Rights
Making real for all Americans the equality to which this nation is commited
remains an urgent national concern. Recent progress is encouraging, but not enough.
No citizen should be satisfied merely with the expectation of a better tomorrow.
It is only right to expect that the Constitution of the United States be put in force
everywhere now.
-7-
The Congress has enacted four civil rights acts since 1957. There now is
need to review these laws, and especially tighten those designed to prevent
violence and intimidation of citizens who exercise their constitutional rights.
Hesitant administration of existing laws has made them less effective than
they should be. The President has even failed to make the Community Relations
Service the effective instrument which Congress intended it to be. Leaderless for
half of last year, shunted off to an ambiguous position in the wrong Federal agency,
this potentially valuable Service has suffered from neglect.
Let us make it clear to all--there cannot be two kinds of justice, one for
whites, another for Negroes.
--Nor can there be tolerance of riots, looting, violence, and disorder.
These impede the progress sought by the overwhelming majority of Americans.
The President's Challenge
Last week the President chided Americans who believe, as I do, that we cannot
fight a war ten thousand miles away without setting priorities at home.
He asked: Whom will they sacrifice ?
the poor ?
Our answer is a resounding "NO!"
We will not sacrifice poor people.
We will sacrifice poor programs, poorly conceived and poorly carried out.
We will sacrifice poor administrators.
We will sacrifice poor arithmetic in public accounting.
Any sacrifices we call for, cannot be compared with those being made by
190 thousand Americans in Vietnam.
And what of the sacrifices of their families at home, who share inequally in
the promises of the Great Society ? We urge more adequate housing and benefits
for our fighting men and their families. We urge a new GI bill of rights of veterans.
We will not sacrifice their future.
Nor will we sacrifice the future of millions of Americans whose lifetime
savings and modest pensions are being nibbled away by inflation.
-8-
We are outnumbered two to one in this Congress.
But we will continue to speak out for the things in which we believe. We will
not sacrifice the ideals that make us Republicans.
We will never sacrifice the sacred right, and the sacred value to our country,
of loyal dissent.
This is our duty to all Americans.
-30-
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Leader
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Melvin R. Laird,
Chr. of the Conference
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
of the Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
H. Allen Smith,
Chr. Republican
Ranking Member
Senatorial Committee
Rules Committee
Bob Wilson,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Chr. Republican
Issued following a
Congressional Committee
The Republican
Leadership Meeting
Charles E. Goodell,
National Chairman
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
March 31, 1966
Planning and Research
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
There's no longer a "Credibility GAP" -- it's become a Credibility
CANYON! -- and it's widening between the Johnson-Humphrey Administra-
tion and the American people with every week that goes by.
Dateline, March 15, the New York Times - "Secretary of the Treasury
Henry H. Fowler indicated today that he believed that there had been
excessive alarm in business circles about the boom economy."
Dateline, March 23, the New York Times - "President Johnson, citing
some decline in business indicators, made clear today that he was not
yet convinced that a tax increase was needed to slow down economic
expansion and inflation."
Dateline, March 24, the Baltimore Sun - "In a notable exibition of
Administration teamwork, Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury,
today reiterated what President Johnson said late yesterday -- there
is no reason at the moment to ask for an anti-inflation tax increase."
And yesterday, March 30, following announcement of a .5% nationwide
cost of living increase, the front pages of the press across the
country reported that the President favors a 5 to 7 per cent tax rise
if one is needed. How do you spell "credibility"? What can we
believe?
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration must take about 5 billion dol-
lars annually out of the economy if inflation is to be checked and a
recession prevented. It does not have the wish nor the wit nor the
will to reduce expenditures, hence it must increase taxes.
The checking of inflation could be achieved, as Republicans have
long maintained, by a reduction of wholly unwise Federal expenditures
and by other essential fiscal, monetary and economic reforms.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has elected the alternative of
new taxes.
Dateline, March 30, the Wall Street Journal - "Consumers Boil
About Widespread Increases; Many Attempt a Revolt." Whom can we best
believe on the high and rising cost of living -- America's homemakers
and wage-earners or a Democratic Administration that will not see,
will not hear, and will not believe these frightening facts of econo-
mic life?
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
Staff Consultant John B. Fisher
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
March 31, 1966
This debt-propelled Johnson-Humphrey Administration continues,
whether knowingly or not, to mislead the American people on matters
of the most vital importance to them. Whether this Johnson-Humphrey
Administration is misinformed, misguided or simply mystified is hard
to determine. It is, in any case, mistaken -- and the cost of its
mistakes in human well-being and in dollars is rapidly becoming far
more than the American people can -- or will -- pay.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration was grossly mistaken in its
budgetary planning,\ both as regards the cost of the war in Vietnam and
expenditures here at home. Fifteen months ago, after proclaiming "an
important first step toward a balanced budget" the Administration
produced a deficit of over 3 billion dollars. The fiscal 1966 deficit
will be at least twice that of the 1965 deficit.
In June of 1965 Representative Laird of Wisconsin predicted that
estimates of the cost of the war in Vietnam were low by at least 5
billion dollars, only to be harshly rebuked by the Secretary of De-
fense. Yet, in a matter of months, the Johnson-Humphrey Administra-
tion requested of Congress nearly 13 billion dollars in supplemental
appropriations for continued conduct of the war.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has also been 100 per cent
mistaken in its estimates of the inflationary forces now stampeding
across the country that take the earnings right out of the pocket of
the worker -- and this despite the early and unanimous warnings not
only of dozens of economists outside government but the equally strong
and unanimous warnings of members of the Joint Economic Committee of
the Congress.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has proposed -- and has tried
to impose -- economic guidelines for labor, for management and for
the farmer. Democrats are even proposing controls on wages and prices
yet the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has made no effort to place
guidelines upon its own inflationary excesses.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration is obsessed with symptoms
rather than causes.
The role of the opposition is one of both searching criticism and
constructive proposal of alternatives. I commend to you the 13 posi-
tive recommendations for effective action in bringing down the cost
of living presented earlier this week to the American people by the
Republican Coordinating Committee.
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Leader
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Melvin R. Laird,
Chr. of the Conference
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
of the Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
H. Allen Smith,
Chr. Republican
Ranking Member
Senatorial Committee
Rules Committee
Issued following a
Bob Wilson,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Leadership meeting
Chr. Republican
April 21, 1966
Congressional Committee
The Republican
Charles E. Goodell,
National Chairman
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The following quotations are excerpts from the Dallas Morning
News -- that's the Dallas, Texas Morning News of April 15, Ladies
and Gentlemen:
"President Johnson's chief economic adviser revealed
(in Austin) Thursday that he doesn't place much stock in
the American housewife's judgment on inflation.
"Gardner Ackley, speaking at the University of Texas
said he received numerous letters from homemakers blaming
him personally for high food prices.
11 it But housewives are notoriously poor judges of what's
happening to prices except for food,' he quipped during
a press conference.
"And Ackley claims that, even on the supermarket level,
the housewife is no expert.
"'She notices when the price of a pork chop or a head
of lettuce goes up,' he noted, 'but she's not always aware
when the price comes down.
I just can't believe that any Administration or other Government
spokesman could so misjudge or so underrate the American housewife and
homemaker!
Who knows better how rapidly inflation is eating away the family
income day by day? Who knows better, who feels more painfully, the
rising costs of living as, week by week, those costs discourage every
American family in its hopes for the future?
Mr. Ackley, from his privileged economic sanctuary, sadly and
cruelly underestimates the knowledge and the power of America's women
and I hope that he and the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and the
Congress will hear from every American home and hearth on this subject,
by letter and by telegram, in the days ahead. I urge every American
homemaker to take pen in hand and tell us now -- what you know -- how
you feel -- about these terribly harsh, constantly rising costs of
living.
(more)
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
Staff Consultant John B. Fisher
GERAL FORD LIBRAH.
Representative Ford
April 21, 1966
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
hesitates, vacillates and procrastinates in taking necessary action
to stop these sky-rocketing living costs. Again, Mr. Ackley, in
reply to a question as to what will happen if we get into an infla-
tionary period: "It depends on how you define inflation. I wouldn't
say we'd had much inflation." Will America's homemakers agree? And
the President and his Secretary of the Treasury continue to wonder
when or whether to "apply the brakes"! This, despite the report of
the Department of Commerce on the Gross National Product increase,
released Monday, April 18, and stating that more than one-third of
the increase in the dollar total represented higher prices and stating
further that "the accelerated price increase in the first quarter is
largely attributable to the steep rise in food prices."
There are two major fiscal brakes available -- either a tax
increase or a drastic cut in needless spending -- yet the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration, with constantly contradictory comments, will
not tell the American people truthfully what it proposes or plans.
This, therefore, is our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President, what are you doing
about the rising costs of living?
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
April 21, 1966
The Government of the United States is the biggest business in
the world. It is the biggest borrower, the biggest lender, the
biggest hoarder, the biggest spender, the biggest landlord, the big-
gest tenant, the biggest employer, and the biggest provider in the
history of mankind. Inevitably the biggest business in the world has
the biggest budget in the world.
No one can claim, of course, that a family budget is or should
be comparable, but no one can deny that every family budget is just
as important to the wage earner and the homemaker who control it.
If a family's income is not adequate to meet its expenses, the
family has only two alternatives: to increase that income or to
reduce those expenditures, yet there seems to be no recognition of
this whatever in the Johnson-Humphrey Administration.
In a recent appearance before Agriculture Department employees,
the President said: "We in government cannot afford the luxury of
thinking that nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
As public servants we know -- at least we ought to know -- that the
habits most in need of reform are our own." How very true!
What he actually said, of course, was: don't do as I do, do as
I say, for, quite obviously, while the Johnson-Humphrey Administra-
tion's spending habits are in need of drastic reform the President
is making no evident effort whatever to reform them and he and his
colleagues continue to allude repeatedly to a possible tax increase
while urging all others, but not themselves, to reduce expenditures.
The President hasn't hesitated to ask business, to ask labor, to
ask the housewives of America to reduce their spending. Why hasn't
he asked the Congress to do the same? On the contrary, hardly a
month goes by without a request from him for more and more and more
spending of the people's money for low priority, non-defense projects
and programs.
I have said before and I say again that the role of the opposi-
tion must be one of both searching criticism and constructive proposal
of alternatives. There has now been published for release today the
full text of the Republican Coordinating Committee's report entitled
(More)
Senator Dirksen
April 21, 1966
"The Rising Costs of Living -- A Report on the Fiscal Policies of the
Federal Government," approved at the Committee's last meeting March
twenty-eighth. A summary of the report was released at that time,
but the text contains an extensive amount of detail in support of
the report's conclusions and recommendations. The report was based
on a study made by the Task Force on Federal Fiscal and Monetary
Policies of which former Budget Director Maurice H. Stans is Chairman.
I commend this report to your attention and study and I urge you
to invite your readers to write to the Members of Congress for copies
of it. The role of the opposition of which I speak must not be one
of "Me too", nor yet one of "Not me". Rather, it must be one of
"Here's how". On the harsh question of inflation, with which every
homemaker and wage earner is living so painfully today, "Here's how".
The alternatives, as has been said, are clear -- either higher
taxes or a reduction in spending, yet we have no equally clear idea
from this Administration as to which path we will be taking.
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President, what are you doing
about the rising costs of living?
GERAL
LIBRARY
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen, Leader
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Thomas H. Kuchel, Whip
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Gerald R. Ford, Leader
Leslie C. Arends, Whip
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chr.
Melvin R. Laird,
of the Policy Committee
Chr. of the Conference
Leverett Saltonstall, Chr.
Press Release
John J. Rhodes, Chr.
of the Conference
of the Policy Committee
Thruston B. Morton,
H. Allen Smith,
Chr. Republican
Ranking Member
Senatorial Committee
Issued following a
Rules Committee
Leadership Meeting
Bob Wilson,
PRESIDING OFFICER:
Chr. Republican
June 16, 1966
Congressional Committee
The Republican
Charles E. Goodell,
National Chairman
Chr. Committee on
Ray C. Bliss
Planning and Research
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
On March 31st last, the Secretary of Agriculture, Orville L.
Freeman, announced that the prices of farm products had dropped during
the preceding weeks and expressed delight in this fact. The press
throughout the nation reported his elation in detail and farmers
throughout America reacted angrily.
The New York Times began its report on the situation in this way:
"Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman expressed
pleasure today with the fact that the prices of farm
products had dropped recently.
"It was the first time in the memory of Federal farm
officials that a Secretary of Agriculture indicated
that he was pleased with a decrease in farm prices.
Like Mr. Freeman, the officials were happy to note
that consumers would benefit from lower prices by
this summer.
Let me repeat that last sentence: "Like Mr. Freeman, the offi-
cials were happy to note that consumers would benefit from lower
prices by this summer." There is only one flaw in this statement. It
simply isn't true. Paradoxically, as farm prices have moved steadily
downward, retail food prices have risen even more rapidly and the
Department of Labor's cost of living index has continued to climb to
record highs.
Secretary Freeman, Economic Advisor Gardner Ackley, and each of
the other prominent agricrats have tried, repeatedly and with zeal,
to make the American farmer and his family the whipping boys for the
inflation that is steadily taking more and more dollars from the
pockets of every American. The housewives of America should be told
that 61% of the cost of the food in their market baskets AS added
after it leaves the farm. I repeat -- the housewives of America
should be told that 61% of the cost of the food in their market baskets
is added after it leaves the farm.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-CApitol 4-3121 - Ex 3700
Staff Consultant - John B. Fisher
GERALD
Representative Ford:
The cold hard fact of the matter is that the rising costs of
living in this country can be attributed primarily to the excessive,
reckless spending of our people's money for wasteful, too often
unnecessary programs conceived by the so-called Great Society planners
and concurred in by the great majority of Democrats in Congress.
Secretary Freeman has alleged that during his tenure of office
the American farmer has enjoyed a fifty per cent increase in his
income. Will all the farmers who have enjoyed a real income increase
of fifty per cent please stand up? Or, better yet, let the Adminis-
tration and the Congress hear from you by letter, wire, or telephone.
Farm organizations, farm state newspapers, farm leaders and countless
individual farmers from coast to coast are boiling with anger over
the policies and practices of this Administration which are driving
farm prices swiftly downward and consumer costs harshly upward with
each passing day.
Let there be no mistake. The Johnson-Humphrey Administration is
using and abusing American farmers and ranchers as the scapegoats
of inflation. To this statement I attach a listing of specific
examples and I invite your attention to it.
When the agricrats of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration impose
policies and practices which help no one and harm everyone, the
Congress and the American people are fully justified in their anger.
The boiling point is near at hand.
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President, are you going to
keep prices down on the farm?
(note attachment)
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration is using and abusing American
farmers and ranchers as the scapegoats of inflation:
(1) by domestic fiscal policies which have sharply increased
farm production costs;
(2) by market price manipulations whech have decreased prices
received by farmers, with the result that the present
parity ratio stands at only 79, even including direct
subsidies, despite Democratic promises of 100;
(3) by refusing to admit that increased consumer prices --
increased food costs to the housewife and the wage-earner
--have not been caused by farmers, such consumer prices
having risen steadily as farm prices have as steadily
decreased;
(4) by recommending drastic cuts in Congressional appro-
priations for school milk, school lunches, land grant
colleges, and other vital programs;
(5) by the Secretary of Agriculture's dumping of huge
quantities of grain at unrealistic prices upon the
domestic market in order to break and depress grain
and livestock market prices;
(6) by the Department of Commerce action of March 7, 1966
imposing restriction on the export of cattle hides, calf
and kip skins, such action resulting in lower domestic
livestock products,
(7) by a large and unilaterial increase in Cheddar cheese imports,
without any attempt being made to secure reciprocal trade
concessions from other nations to expand U. S. agricul-
tural exports overseas;
(8) by a sharp curtailment of purchases of pork and of butter
and other dairy products by the Department of Defense;
and, I repeat -
(9) by the Secretary of Agriculture's expression of pleasure
with the fact that prices of farm products have dropped.
GERALD
Lighter
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
June 16, 1966
When farm prices go down and farm production costs rise -- when
the taxpayer's living costs rise and his dollar earnings decrease in
value -- the American people are experiencing what is known in some
circles as "the double whammy". The Johnson-Humphrey Administration's
"double whammy" on this nation is now past all endurance.
For the agricrats of this Administration to contend or even to
imply that the price of farm products is a cause of inflation is
ridiculous. The principal cause of the inflation now upon us through-
out America is, rather, the w1ld, willful and witless spending of
the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and its supporters in countless
needless areas.
Inflation is on the move throughout the nation. Should it become
rampant -- as it threatens to do -- those who will suffer most will
be those in the lowest income brackets. Make no misjudgements about
this whatever.
Thus far, this Administration's major attack upon rapidly rising
living costs has been directed -- wholly misdirected -- against farm
prices. Living costs cannot be reduced significantly by any such
action, even though the Administration's economic advisers appear to
think SO. With farm prices down 13 per cent and retail food prices
up 16 per cent between America's wars of 1951 in Korea and 1966 in
Viet Nam, it should be clear even to these agricrats that the real
villain confronting them is the inflation so steadily promoted by
their reckless spending for needless programs and not by the prices
down on the farm.
Let it be recorded here and now that our vigorous protest
against these policies is neither partisan nor improperly political.
We invite the attention of the Congress, the press and the public
to the several resolutions that have been filed from both sides of
the aisle in a dedicated effort to meet this problem squarely --
Senate Concurrent Resolution 93 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 88,
among others -- and we commend without reservation the fair-minded
determination of the Republican and Democratic senators sponsoring
them.
GERALD FURD LIBRARY
Senator Dirksen
Meanwhile, down on the farm, the public anger to which we have
referred is finding ever greater expression with each passing day --
and we in the Congress are well aware of it. It has found voice
with particular force and eloquence in an editorial that first
appeared in the Walsh County Record published at Grafton, North
Dakota, on May 19 last, in which these two paragraphs seem to me
especially pertinent:
"Mr. President: This is either the fifth or sixth
draft of this brief comment. The first, written in
instantaneous anger a couple of weeks ago was, after
overnight reflection, discarded as just too furious.
In the intervening days, there's been a mighty struggle
going on to temper our fury down to rage, and then to
wrath, and then to indignation. That seems to be as
far as the emotion can be distilled.
"When you and your appointed aides announce that
you are going to control inflation by making war on
farm prices, you've set a grass-fire, Mr. President.
For the fact is, war is never waged against an
abstraction, like prices. War is waged against
people. In this case, us."
We repeat " against people. In this case, us."
I suggest that we listen now to the men and the women who feed
the nation -- taxpayers like all the rest of us. I suggest we stop
listening to these agricrats in Washington, far removed from the
farmlands and even farther removed from reality.
Therefore, our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President, are you going to
keep prices down on the farm?
GERALD
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
Thomas H. Kuchel
of California
Leslie C. Arends
of Illinois
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
of Wisconsin
Leverett Saltonstall
of Massachusetts
John J. Rhodes
of Arizona
Thruston B. Morton
of Kentucky
Issued following a
H. Allen Smith
Leadership Meeting
of California
Bob Wilson
PRESIDING:
September 15, 1966
of California
The National Chairman
Charles E. Goodell
Ray C. Bliss
of New York
SENATOR DIRKSEN:
Mr. President and Democratic Members of the Congress:
The American people are troubled, confused and terribly uncertain
as to the future. Their worry and their uncertainty have their basis
in both the actions and the inaction of your Administration, to which
they look hopefully for a leadership still sadly lacking.
The most recent of the nation-wide surveys of public opinion con-
firms this fact, indicating clearly that in six vital areas of domestic
concern -- fiscal and monetary policy, civil rights, the war on poverty
the farm problem, the curbing of inflation, and labor-management rela-
tions -- less than half of our people have been able to maintain their
confidence in you over these many months.
On Thursday last you presented to the Congress and the people a
five-point program hopefully designed to cool our nation's growing
economic fever and to restore something of the promise a once healthy
economy had.
Belatedly acknowledging as "a cruel and unjust tax on all the
people" the inflation now raging throughout the country -- inflation
created in great part by your actions -- you indicated, first, an
intention to cut all Federal expenditures to the fullest extent pos-
sible. Inasmuch as this primary and fundamental brake on inflation was
recommended to you by Republicans and documented in detail by us nine
months ago, why has this announcement of good intent been SO long
delayed? Specifically how --- specifically where -- and specifically
when -- will you order such budget cuts? Will you demand of your
Democrat-controlled Congress that it take the action required on the
eight appropriation bills still remaining before it? Will you slow
down the multi-million dollar Great Society programs already in your
hands? Will you, in short, act -- now? Republicans stand ready, as
always, to help in such actions.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
- 2 -
Second, you recommended that the seven per cent investment tax
credit be made temporarily inoperative. Could this have any possible
effect on our inflated economy for at least another six months? Is
your proposal a breach of good faith with the industrial, small busi-
ness and farm communities?
Third, you recommended suppension of the use of accelerated depre-
ciation on structures started or transferred after September 1 of this
year. Do you believe this a factor of consequence in limiting con-
struction activity and costs? Upon what basis was this remarkable
conclusion reached? Even if valid, how soon could it have any benefi-
cial effect -- if it had any at all?
Fourth, you tirged the Federal Reserve Board to lower interest
rates and SO ease the tight money burden. How odd that your Adminis-
tration and your Democrats in Congress, allegedly SO devoted to low
interest rates and loose money should for so long have made high
interest rates inevitable by your reckless spending policies and
programs!
Fifth, you urged deferment of certain Federal borrowing to alle-
viate credit pressures. Here again you have at long last but much too
late endorsed a clear and firm Republican recommendation of many
months ago. As a New York Times editorial put it last Tuesday,
September 13: "Even more important, the decision is a sign that the
Administration may have finally realized that it cannot really be
fiscally responsible SO long as it indulges in financial gimmickry."
Why this delay, Mr. President? Why such uncertainty? Why such fear
of the future?
This is exactly that uncertainty -- that growing fear -- that is
spreading SO rapidly among all our people. They are uncertain, they
are bewildered as to the future -- the future of the economy, the
future of their jobs, the future of the nation, the future of their
children in every aspect of their lives
Therefore, Mr. President and Democratic Members of the Congress,
most sincerely and respectfully, our Question of the Week: When will
the trust and confidence of the people be restored?
REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
Mr. President and Democratic Members of the Congress:
As these problems multiply at home -- and abroad -- and as the
uncertainty among our people grows, we look to the weeks ahead with
apprehension and understandably wonder what the future may hold.
As increasing reference is made to a possible adjournment of the
Congress by mid-October, Election Day, November 8th, draws closer and
we wonder more and more what the immediate period thereafter may bring.
From time to time, for example, you and your Administration and
you Democrats in Congress have suggested a tax increase as one of the
means available for checking inflation. Mr. President, do you plan to
recommend to your Democratic Congress an increase in our already heavy
income taxes, after November 8th?
Equally often, spokesmen for this Administration, including your-
self, Mr. President, have made reference to wage-and-price controls as
an alternative inflation check. Most recently, a Democratic Senate
leader urged that authority for standby controls be given you. Do you
have in mind the imposition of wage-and-price controls, after November
8th?
In an address to the American Farm Economics Association, a promi-
nent official of your Administration by inference wrote off as uneco-
nomical and needless more than two million of America's small farms
and farmers. Is it contempleted that this farm elimination program
shall be undertaken by your Democratic Congress, Mr. President, after
November 8th?
The rumor persists with each passing day that the anti-poverty
program of your Administration, SO loudly hailed and so extravagantly
administered, is under survey by the Bureau of the Budget, at your
order, as the first step toward its dismantlement. Is this, too,
something planned for action by your Democratic Congress, Mr. President,
after November 8th?
Your Secretary of the Treasury and your Secretary of Commerce, in
testifying this week before the House Ways and Means Committee on
certain of your proposals identified them as "an essential and
- 4 -
enduring part of our tax structure" Earlier in the year, they said
they were opposed to any "tinkering" with these credits for economic
purposes. Yet now, apparently under pressure, they blandly endorse
such "tinkering". Will this "tinkering" continue, after November 8th?
Our people cannot long endure such uncertainties. They cannot
live nor work effectively without trust and confidence. Therefore,
Mr. President and Democratic Members of the Congress, most respect-
fully and sincerely, our Question-of-the-Week: When will the trust
and confidence of the people be restored?
"FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
Thomas H. Kuchel
of California
Leslie C. Arends
of Illinois
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
of Wisconsin
Leverett Saltonstall
of Massachusetts
John J. Rhodes
of Arizona
Thruston B. Morton
Issued following a
of Kentucky
Leadership Meeting
H. Allen Smith
of California
September 22, 1966
Bob Wilson
PRESIDING:
of California
The National Chairman
Charles E. Goodell
Ray C. Bliss
of New York
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Mr. President, our Question-of-the-Week:
Can We Afford Your Automatic-Democratic Congress?
This may be, in some respects, a push-button world. It may be,
in some respects, a computer civilization. It may be, here and there,
that the rubber stamp has its proper place and function. But, the
push-button, the computer and the rubber stamp wielded in the White
House have not yet won the approval of the American people where their
Representatives and Senators in the Congress are concerned.
Does the Johnson-Humphrey Administration want not only a blank
check but push-button, computerized, rubber stamp voting in the
Senate and in the House? This the American people will no longer
tolerate.
Proof positive of this Administration's push-button psychology
is the voting record of those forty-five freshman Democrats, elected
in 1964 from districts formerly Republican, whose automatic responses
to the wishes of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration are recorded for
all to see.
Item: On reduction of foreign aid (authorization), 1965. This
was defeated by 41 votes. 38 of these were automatic-Democratic
freshman votes.
Item: On foreign aid authorization (recommittal), 1966.
Recommittal failed by 2 votes. 36 of the automatic-Democratic fresh-
men voted against recommittal.
Item: On anti-poverty program expansion (recommittal). Recom-
mittal was defeated by 49 votes. 39 of these were automatic-
Democratic freshman votes.
Item: On the repeal of 14B -- the right to work. The bill
passed by 18 votes. 41 votes for it were automatic-Democratic
freshman votes.
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
- 2 -
Item: On rent subsidies (recommittal). The margin was 8 votes.
36 automatic-Democratic freshmen voted to keep this bill alive.
Says Fortune Magazine (September, 1966);
"
those forty-five provided the saving margin for a number
of the more expansive and expensive Administration programs
11
This automatic-Democratic response by new members of the House
was echoed by that of the rest of the top-heavy Democratic majority
in the House. The push-button, the computer, the rubber stamp wielded
by the Johnscn-Humphrey Administration were in full force in every
instance. The result: a travesty on the legislative process, a gross
disservice to the will and the wishes of the American people.
No free society can long survive dominance by an unthinking
computer, nor dominance by an unthinking, unrestrained, top-heavy
legislative majority. This Democratic Congress, with its 294 to 139
majority in the House and its 67 to 33 majority in the Senate, has
lost its independence. It is the tool of the Johnson-Humphrey Adminis-
tration. The Administration and this Democratic Congress must bear
full and joint responsibility for the failures and the continuing
problems we face. This fact cannot be contradicted. Its simple .
arithmetic cannot be argued.
In our great tradition, the will of the majority must prevail,
yet the will of the minority must both be respected and remain vital
if, as has invariably happened in world history, an overwhelming
majority, seeking unreasoning power, is not to silence, subdue and
then suffocate the essential minority.
We cannot believe for a moment that the American people will
any longer accept a push-button Congress or consensus by computer.
We believe they agree increasingly that only in a healthy balance of
numbers and opinions can this free land survive and prevail.
Therefore, Mr. President: Our Question-of-the-Week:
Can We Afford Your Automatic-Democratic Congress?
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN
September 22, 1966
Mr. President, our Question-of-the-Weelt:
Can We Afford Your Automatic-Democratic Congress?
Seldom has the hypocrisy of numbers been better illustrated than
in the voting during this past week on the Civil Rights bill. The
Republican minority and its Leadership in the Senate have been
indicted and damned by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and its
Democratic majority for having killed the Civil Rights bill. How,
conceivably, can men of intelligence and good-will SO overlook that
same simple arithmetic to which Mr. Ford has just made reference?
There are 67 Democrats in the Senate. There are 33 Republicans,
This being so, how under Heaven, can it be concluded that the Republi-
cans defeated Civil Rights? Had the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
truly wished it, had the Democrats in the Senate truly sought it, the
proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966 would, without doubt, at this very
moment, be the law of the land. As one writer put it in comment on
the classic question of "Who killed Cock Robin?" it had to be a
Democratic arrow -- not that of the Republican minority.
Happily for the nation's best interest, fortunately for the
freedom of the individual, the Republican minority, outnumbered as it
was, reflected the will of our people to a degree that made converts
of regular Democrats and resulted in a vote that assured the right of
every American to preserve the integrity of his own judgment and to
determine the future of his own home.
The will of the people in this instance prevailed, but it could
never have done SO if a determined minority had not made clear the
issues involved and in so doing won the respect and the response of
many others.
It is unwise, it is dangerous and it can be disastrous, when an
overwhelming majority is permitted to prevail without question or
hindrance. Only as a majority is repeatedly questioned and checked
by a strong minority can the foundations of this Republic be preserved.
That we, a present minority, would welcome majority status is undeni-
able, but until that inevitable day we believe it all-important to
the American people that our numbers and our hand be strengthened
sufficiently to outlaw forever from Capitol Hill the push-button, the
computer, the soulless rubber stamp.
Therefore, Mr. President, our Question-of-the-Week:
Can We Afford Your Automatic-Democratic Congress?
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
Thomas H. Kuchel
of California
Leslie C. Arends
of Illinois
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
of Wisconsin
Leverett Saltonstall
of Massachusetts
John J. Rhodes
of Arizona
Thruston B. Morton
of Kentucky
H. Allen Smith
of California
Bob Wilson
PRESIDING:
of California
The National Chairman
Charles E. Goodell
Ray C. Bliss
September 28, 1966
of New York
FIVE VITAL ECONOMIC QUESTIONS
Speculation increases daily in both Government and public
circles that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is making
definite preparations for the imposition of wage-and-price
controls in the near future.
Administration officials are reported as seeing "no way
to avoid wage-and-price controls" in the months ahead. This
Administration appears unwilling or unable to stem the high
and rising costs of living by the clear and certain means
available to it -- a drastic cut in non-essential Federal
spending. As a result, nation-wide alarm at this prospect
of wage-and-price controls is increasing daily.
These questions, therefore, appear to be fair and
proper:
1. Mr. President, are you now making preparations for
wage-and-price controls?
2. Mr. President, despite your earlier reported
hesitancy about imposing wide-spread wage-and-price controls,
are you planning to impose them piecemeal?
3. Mr. President, is it true that a special wage-policy
review board is already contemplated?
4. Mr. President, if wage-and-price controls are imposed,
will they be imposed "across the board" or will exceptions and
exemptions be specified?
5. Mr. President, do you really believe that wage-and-
price controls represent the primary brake on inflation now
available?
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
FOR THE SENATE:
FOR THE HOUSE
& Everett M. Dirksen
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF REPRESENTATIVES:
of Illinois
Gerald R. Ford
Thomas H. Kuchel
OF THE CONGRESS
of Michigan
of California
Leslie C. Arends
Bourke B. Hickenlooper
of Illinois
of Iowa
Press Release
Melvin R. Laird
Leverett Saltonstall
of Wisconsin
of Massachusetts
John J. Rhodes
Thruston B. Morton
Issued following a
of Arizona
of Kentucky
Leadership Meeting
H. Allen Smith
of California
PRESIDING:
October 13, 1966
Bob Wilson
of California
The National Chairman
Charles E. Goodell
Ray C. Bliss
of New York
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN:
The President has referred to the Republican Party
as the party of fear, and, moreover, as having no constructive programs
to fight inflation, no programs to ease racial tension. He accused
us of not knowing what to do about crime in the streets or how to end
the war in Viet Nam.
Is the President bewildered? Was he referring to his Administra-
tion? His statements actually spell out the most damning self-
indictment in modern political history!
There is only one thing wrong with these Presidential statements
about the Republican Party. Like so much else voiced by this Adminis-
tration, they simply are not true.
We do not admit to being a party of fear. An honest reading of
history will prove the contrary. But we do admit, as a people, to
being concerned about this Administration and the many unwise courses
it has chosen to take.
What lies ahead of us in Viet Nam, under this Administration's
leadership, we cannot foresee. We are concerned about high and
rising living costs, in the face of which this Administration has been
helpless. We are concerned -- indeed, we know -- that we are losing
our money and our friends abroad. We are concerned -- for it is a fact
-- that the "War on Poverty" is being lost, with the poor and the
underprivileged receiving little actual help and with millions of the
people's dollars being wasted. We are concerned -- for we can prove --
that the farmer and consumer are, calculatingly, being played ruthless-
ly against one another. We are concerned -- for the proof is undeni-
able -- that an echo-chamber Democratic Congress, with its steam-
roller majorities, will continue, without thought or question, to
Room S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700
Consultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher
carry out the slightest whim and wish of this Administration. We are
concerned -- for the signs are frightening --- that we are being led
down the road to national bankruptcy. We are concerned that an all-
Asian Peace Conference -- a practical first step toward peace in
Viet Nam -- has now been summarily rejected as a peace hope. We are
concerned -- for we are convinced -- that the American people are
not being told the whole truth about their Government and this Adminis-
tration's plans for them.
Of the charge that the Republican Party has no constructive pro-
grams or policies we can only assume that this Administration has
from its very first days been blind, deaf and indifferent. To this
statement I attach a listing of the specific, positive, constructive
recommendations and programs which the Republican Leadership and
the Republican Party across the country have presented to the Congress,
the Administration and the American people month after month after
month. I would remind the leader of the Democratic Party that his
Administration has chosen, to our people's detriment, either to ignore
or to reject these recommendations, the majority of which would have
gone far to correct abuses spawned by the Administration and which
would When have prevented this onset of confusion and concern.
Until the President chooses to speak directly and candidly to the
American Decple, the Republican Leadership and the Republican party
will be attentive and responsive but when the President chooses to
do otherwise, we are indeed apprehensive and concerned. We hope --
we pray -- that in the weeks to come we will witness Administration
deeds calculated to inspire faith, not fear, belief, not doubt,
confidence, not concern, hope and not despair.
Therefore, our Question-or-the-Week:
Mr. President: At home: indabroad, what now --- what next?
REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS AND PROGRAMS
A Chronology of Constructive Recommendations
Published:
June 1965
United States Foreign Policy in Viet Nam
August 1965
The Balance of Payments
September 1965
Equality in America: a Promise Unfulfilled
December 1965
Viet Nam Policy Statement
December 1965
Toward a Stronger Federal System
December 1965
Toward Fair Elections in America
March 7, 1966
(Economic) Opportunity Crusade Act of 1966
March 1966
The Case for Revenue Sharing
March 1966
Latin America - United States: Progress
or Failure?
March 1966
The Human Investment - Job Opportunities
March 1966
The Rising Costs of Living
June 1966
The United Nations
June 1966
Effective Water Management
June 1966
The Challenge of the Modern Metropolis
June 1966
Federal, State, and Local Responsibilities
for Problems of Education
June 1966
Transportation in Modern America
June 1966
Housing and Urban Development
June 1966
The Alleviation of Poverty
June 1966
Jobs and People - Job Opportunities
June 1966
The Needs of the Aging
(Note: each of the above was published by the Republican
Coordinating Committee with the exception of the Economic
Opportunity Crusade Act of 1966, which originated with eight
Republican members of the House Education and Labor Committee.)
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD:
On the front page of the New York Times on Tuesday, October 4th,
in adjoining columns, there appeared the following news reports, The
first was headed: "Soviet Announces New Pact for Aid to Hanoi's
Regime. Additional program includes assistance for economy and
military needs." The second was headed: "Air Talks Revived by U.S.
and Soviet
Service may be opened next spring."
In the very same week the conflict in Viet Nam became the third
largest war America has ever fought. American troop strength in
Viet Nam now totals more than 325,000 men, 23,000 more than in the
Korean War. The latest U.S. casualty figures report 967 killed and
wounded in one week, the highest in any seven-day period so far.
For many months the Russians have supplied -- in ever-increasing
volume -- the weapons and ammunition that are killing American boys
every day.
As thousands of American boys fight, bleed and die in Viet Nam --
as the Soviet Union -- Communist Russia -- announces an enormous
further increase in its economic and military aid to our enemies --
this Administration must stop -- and stop now -- its trafficking with
the Russians in ways that can only result in Communist encouragement,
growth and enrichment.
And on Friday, October 7th, the President of the United States,
in addressing the National Conference of Editorial Writers, proudly
proclaimed:
We have just signed a new United States-Soviet cultural
agreement.
We intend to press for legislative authority to negotiate
trade agreements which would extend most-favored-nation tariff
treatment to European Communist states.
We have just concluded an air agreement with the Soviet
Union.
And today I. am announcing the following new steps:
We will reduce export controls on Fast-West trade with
respect to hundreds of non-strategic items.
I have just today signed a determination that will allow
the Export-Import Bank to guarantee commercial credits to
four additional Eastern European countries - Poland and
Hungary, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia
The Export-
Import Bank is prepared to finance exports for the Soviet-
Italian Fiat auto plant.
We are negotiating a Civil Air Agreement with the
Soviet Union
And with this announcement the President of the United States
included the comment: "This is good business and this will help us
"
If dealing with the enemy -- who are dealing in nothing but
death to Americans in Viet Nam -- is good business, then truth and
honor have indeed been perverted beyond recall by this Administration
In 1952, the Eisenhower Administration ended the Korean War and
kept the peace without surrender. That Administration's policy:
insistence that Communists toe the line in deeds and performance,
refusal to accept Communist words and promises.
Until the Communist world convinces us by act, not by word, that
it not only seeks peace but will so act as to preserve peace among
men, we will not be a party to any deal, any agreement, any arrange-
ment, any treaty with Communists anywhere in the world. Until we --
and our allies -- commit ourselves without qualification to such a
policy of strength we can expect only more Koreas, more Viet Nams and
an ever-widening spread of Communist subversion, deceit and death-
dealing around the globe.
Therefore, Our Question-of-the-Week:
Mr. President: At home and abroad, what now -- what next?
89TH CONGRESS
2d Session
}
SENATE
{
DOCUMENT
No. 118
A RECORD OF PRESS CONFERENCE
STATEMENTS
MADE BY
SENATOR EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN
AND
REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R. FORD
FOR
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
OF THE CONGRESS
PRESENTED BY MR. DIRKSEN
OCTOBER 14, 1966.-Ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-011 0
WASHINGTON : 1966
FORD SERALD LIBRARY
FOREWORD
This legislative year marks the sixth year of existence of the Joint
Senate-House Republican Leadership, now identified as the Republican
Leadership of the Congress, established at the suggestion of former
President Dwight D. Eisenhower in January of 1961.
THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP OF THE CONGRESS
As before, the format of communication from the leadership con-
FOR THE SENATE
FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
tinues to be the issuance of policy statements on subjects of both
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Leader
GERALD R. FORD, Leader
foreign and domestic significance. These statements have, on 18
THOMAS H. KUCHEL, Whip
LESLIE C. ARENDS, Whip
regular occasions since January, taken the form of press conference
BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER, Chairman of
MELVIN R. LAIRD, Chairman of the Confer-
appearances by Senator Dirksen and Representative Ford. In addi-
the Policy Committee
ence
LEVERETT SALTONSTALL, Chairman of the
JOHN J. RHODES, Chairman of the Policy Com-
tion, press releases have been issued separately from these conferences
Conference
mittee
by the Leadership and, from time to time, by individual members of
THRUSTON B. MORTON, Chairman of the Re-
H. ALLEN SMITH, Ranking Member, Rules
the Leadership.
publican Senatorial Committee
Committee
As has been true of Leadership meetings, Republican National
BOB WILSON, Chairman, Republican Congres-
sional Committee
Committee Chairman Ray C. Bliss also presided over the quarterly
CHARLES E. GOODELL, Chairman, Commit-
meetings of the Republican Coordinating Committee, an assembly
tee on Planning and Research
composed of Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, former Republican
PRESIDING OFFICER
presidential candidates Alf M. Landon, Richard M. Nixon, and Barry
RAY C. BLISS, the Republican National Chairman
Goldwater, the Republican Leadership of the Congress, and repre-
sentatives of multiple other Republican organizations.
II
During this past Congressional session the Coordinating Committee
held 3 sessions, maintained 6 task forces and approved and published
nationally 13 task force reports. The Republican Coordinating
Committee continues as an increasingly positive force in the examina-
tion of party policies and party operations. Its proposals and task
force recommendations represent strong and consistent evidence of
Republican thought and action.
As in previous years, the Leadership statements for 1966 are being
published as a Senate document. They appear on the following
pages and are indexed as to the issue covered.
III
CONTENTS
Page
Budget
1-2
Congress-The minority role
2-4
The Credibility Gap
4-6
Credibility-Public trust
6-8
The National Economy
9-10
Farm Prices
10-15
Foreign Aid
16-17
Foreign Policy-All Asian conference
18
Foreign Policy-Red trade
18-19
Foreign Policy-Vietnam
20
Inflation
21-26
Inflation-The costs of living
26-30
L.B.J.-Public confidence
30-32
Medicare
32
War on Poverty
33-35
Wage and Price Controls
36
V
A RECORD OF PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
BUDGET
March 10, 1966
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has been less than fully
candid with the American people and the Congress about its spending
programs. Its budget explanations have been far from concise and
clear.
For 3 years the budgets have been consistent in two matters-
they have contained built-in deficits and they have failed to establish
priorities.
During this time the war in Vietnam has escalated but there was
little effort through the budget to set priorities for future needs. The
result has been a multitude of sizable supplemental appropriations.
This year's budget is $13 billion higher than the one submitted a
year ago. The President says, however, it contains a deficit of "only"
$1.8 billion. What he has failed to tell the American people is that
this small deficit is fiscal chicanery. He has cut from this budget
some $200 million in popular programs which he knows the Congress
will undoubtedly restore. He has grossly understated the needs of
the Defense Department for fiscal 1967. He also fails to mention
that $5.2 billion of his added revenue is a 1-year proposition only.
The Government will gain in this 1 year $1.6 billion from coin clipping
by removing silver from our coinage and another $3.6 billion from the
speedup in tax collections.
In presenting his budget the President said that despite fighting in
Vietnam the war on poverty must also be escalated. For this he
asked an increase of $300 million in antipoverty funds. And yet, on
March 8, his antipoverty Director informed the Congress the poverty
war is being curtailed because of the Vietnamese fighting.
The budgets with their yearly deficits have helped breed inflation
and yet the Administration scoffs at inflation. With high taxes, high
prices, high spending, high deficits-the Great Society has become the
High Society.
It is time for the Johnson-Humphrey Administration to present
precise, more realistic figure and candid budgetary estimates to the
American people SO that they may judge truly how much they are
spending to meet the Administration's vast commitments here and
abroad.
March 10, 1966
By Senator Dirksen:
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has failed to reassure the
American people and the Congress concerning inflation, the war in
Vietnam, and its future tax programs.
1
2
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
3
Inflation is mounting at a rapid rate due in large part to fiscal and
Item: On reduction of foreign aid (authorization), 1965. This was
budgetary policies of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. Prices
defeated by 41 votes. 38 of these were automatic-Democratic fresh-
vary from day to day but continue to move higher and higher. This
man votes.
affects not only the public but the purchase of goods and services by
Item: On foreign aid authorization (recommittal), 1966. Recom-
the Government as well.
mittal failed by 2 votes. 36 of the automatic-Democratic freshmen
The war in Vietnam is escalating but the Administration has not
voted against recommittal.
informed the American people how big it will get nor how costly it
Item: On antipoverty program expansion (recommittal). Recom-
will become.
mittal was defeated by 49 votes. 39 of these were automatic-Demo-
Excise tax cuts given by Congress a year ago are being rescinded
cratic freshman votes.
at the request of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. There is
Item: On the repeal of 14(b)-the right to work. The bill passed
continued talk of new tax increases to come later this year.
by 18 votes. 41 votes for it were automatic-Democratic freshman
Perhaps the most dangerous sign of a new Johnson-Humphrey
votes.
power grab has been the floating of "trial balloons" on standby or
Item: On rent subsidies (recommittal). The margin was eight
emergency powers for the President to raise or lower taxes and perhaps
votes. Thirty-six automatic-Democratic freshmen voted to keep
impose direct wage and price controls at will.
this bill alive.
Republicans take sharp issue with this proposal. The Congress
Says Fortune magazine (September 1966):
should not further abdicate its constitutional taxing responsibility.
Republicans are unalterably opposed to granting standby taxing
*** those 45 provided the saving margin for a num-
powers or standby wage and price control authority to the President.
ber of the more expansive and expensive Administration
***
For these reasons, the Republican Leadership strongly endorses
programs
a resolution adopted by the Senate Republican Policy Committee on
This automatic-Democratic response by new Members of the House
March 8. That resolution reads in part as follows:
was echoed by that of the rest of the top-heavy Democratic majority
Resolved, In view of the clear language of article I, section 8
in the House. The push-button, the computer, the rubber-stamp
of the U.S. Constitution we are unalterably opposed to
wielded by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration were in full force
granting to the President of the United States any standby,
in every instance. The result: a travesty on the legislative process,
emergency, or other authority to raise or lower taxes.
a gross disservice to the will and the wishes of the American people.
No free society can long survive dominance by an unthinking
computer, nor dominance by an unthinking, unrestrained, top-heavy
CONGRESS-THE MINORITY ROLE
legislative majority. This Democratic Congress, with its 294 to 139
majority in the House and its 67 to 33 majority in the Senate, has
September 22, 1966
lost its independence. It is the tool of the Johnson-Humphrey Admin-
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
istration. The Administration and this Democratic Congress must
bear full and joint responsibility for the failures and the continuing
Mr. President, our Question-of the Week:
problems we face. This fact cannot be contradicted. Its simple
arithmetic cannot be argued.
Can We Afford Your Automatic-Democratic Congress?
In our great tradition, the will of the majority must prevail, yet
This may be, in some respects, a push-button world. It may be, in
the will of the minority must both be respected and remain vital if,
some respects, a computer civilization. It may be, here and there,
as has invariably happened in world history, an overwhelming ma-
that the rubber stamp has its proper place and function. But, the
jority, seeking unreasoning power, is not to silence, subdue, and then
push-button, the computer and the rubber stamp wielded in the White
suffocate the essential minority.
House have not yet won the approval of the American people where
We cannot believe for a moment that the American people will
their Representatives and Senators in the Congress are concerned.
any longer accept a push-button Congress or consensus by computer.
Does the Johnson-Humphrey Administration want not only a blank
We believe they agree increasingly that only in a healthy balance of
check but push-button, computerized, rubber-stamp voting in the
numbers and opinions can this free land survive and prevail.
Senate and in the House? This the American people will no longer
Therefore, Mr. President: Our Question of the Week:
tolerate.
Proof positive of this Administration's push-button psychology is
Can we afford your automatic-Democratic Congress?
the voting record of those 45 freshman Democrats, elected in 1964
from districts formerly Republican, whose automatic responses to the
wishes of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration are recorded for all
to see.
S. Doc. 118, 89-2-
4
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
5
September 22, 1966
Dateline, March 15, the New York Times:
By Senator Dirksen:
Secretary of the Treasury Henry H. Fowler indicated
Mr. President, our Question of the Week:
today that he believed that there had been excessive alarm
in business circles about the boom economy.
Can we Afford Your Automatic-Democratic Congress?
Dateline, March 23, the New York Times:
Seldom has the hypocrisy of numbers been better illustrated than
President Johnson, citing some decline in business indi-
in the voting during this past week on the civil rights bill. The
cators, made clear today that he was not yet convinced that
Republican minority and its Leadership in the Senate have been in-
a tax increase was needed to slow down economic expan-
dicated and damned by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and
sion and inflation.
its Democratic majority for having killed the civil rights bill. How,
conceivably, can men of intelligence and good will SO overlook that
Dateline, March 24, the Baltimore Sun:
same simple arithmetic to which Mr. Ford has just made reference?
In a notable exhibition of Administration teamwork,
There are 67 Democrats in the Senate. There are 33 Republicans.
Henry H. Fowler, Secretary of the Treasury, today reiter-
This being so, how under heaven, can it be concluded that the
ated what President Johnson said late yesterday-there
Republicans defeated civil rights? Had the Johnson-Humphrey
is no reáson at the moment to ask for an anti-inflation tax
Administration truly wished it, had the Democrats in the Senate
increase.
truly sought it, the proposed Civil Rights Act of 1966 would, without
And yesterday, March 30, following announcement of a 0.5-percent
doubt, at this very moment, be the law of the land. As one writer
nationwide cost-of-living increase, the front pages of the press across
put it in comment on the classic question of "Who killed Cock
the country reported that the President favors a 5- to 7-percent tax
Robin?" it had to be a Democratic arrow-not that of the Republican
rise if one is needed. How do you spell "credibility"? What can we
minority.
believe?
Happily for the Nation's best interest, fortunately for the freedom
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration must take about $5 billion
of the individual, the Republican minority, outnumbered as it was,
annually out of the economy if inflation is to be checked and a reces-
reflected the will of our people to a degree that made converts of
sion prevented. It does not have the wish, nor the wit, nor the will
regular Democrats and resulted in a vote that assured the right of
to reduce expenditures, hence it must increase taxes.
every American to preserve the integrity of his own judgment and to
The checking of inflation could be achieved, as Republicans have
determine the future of his own home.
The will of the people in this instance prevailed, but it could never
long maintained, by a reduction of wholly unwise Federal expenditures
have done so if a determined minority had not made clear the issues
and by other essential fiscal, monetary, and economic reforms.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has elected the alternative
involved and in so doing won the respect and the response of many
of new taxes.
others.
Dateline, March 30, the Wall Street Journal-Consumers Boil
It is unwise, it is dangerous and it can be disastrous, when an over-
whelming majority is permitted to prevail without question or hind-
About Widespread Increases; Many Attempt a Revolt." Whom can
we best believe on the high and rising cost of living-America's home-
rance. Only as a majority is repeatedly questioned and checked by a
makers and wage earners or a Democratic Administration that will
strong minority can the foundations of this Republic be preserved.
That we, a present minority, would welcome majority status is undeni-
not see, will not hear, and will not believe these frightening facts of
economic life?
able, but until that inevitable day we believe it all-important to the
American people that our numbers and our hand be strengthened
sufficiently to outlaw forever from Capital Hill the push-button, the
June 9, 1966
computer, the soulless rubber-stamp.
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
Therefore, Mr. President, our Question of the Week:
James Reston in the New York Times on May 17 last, wrote:
Can we afford your automatic-Democratic Congress?
What he (L.B.J.) wants is worthy of the faith and confi-
dence of the Nation, but this is precisely what he does not
have, because his techniques blur his conviction ***
He is mixing up news and truth *** He is confronted,
THE CREDIBILITY GAP
in short, with a crisis of confidence *
March 31, 1966
This statement expresses a point of view and a deep regret, both of
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
which we fully share.
There's no longer a "credibility gap"-it's become a credibility
On May 25, 1966, 19 distinguished Republican members of the
canyon-and it's widening between the Johnson-Humphrey Adminis-
House of Representatives, including the entire leadership, cataloged
tration and the American people with every week that goes by.
and summarized on the floor of the House the detailed reasons why
this crisis of confidence has resulted. We have seen this in almost
every aspect of the domestic scene. It has been revealed in the
6
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
7
President's budget messages and management. It has appeared in
economic fever and to restore something of the promise a once
the war on poverty. It has emerged relative to the NASA program.
healthy economy had.
It was vivid in wage-price guidepost disputes with labor and with
Belatedly acknowledging as "d cruel and unjust tax on all the
management. It was startling in his action on surplus sales of
people" the inflation now raging throughout the country-inflation
industrial stockpiles and farm products. It became bewildering in
created in great part by your actions-you indicated, first, an intention
Federal job multiplication figures. It surfaced again in appointments
to cut all Federal expenditures to the fullest extent possible. Inas-
to high level offices. It proved shocking in the President's uncertain
much as this primary and fundamental brake on inflation was recom-
assessment of the economy. In all these categories of confidence
mended to you by Republicans and documented in detail by us 9
doubt has developed and the American people have, not at all sur-
months ago, why has this announcement of good intent been so long
prisingly, steadily lost faith in a President who is rapidly losing touch
delayed? Specifically how-specifically where-and specifically
with them. A consensus of no confidence is coming to pass.
when-will you order such budget cuts? Will you demand of your
Constructively, positively, let it be recorded here and now that the
Democrat-controlled Congress that it take the action required on the
Republican opposition wants with all of its heart and energy to support
eight appropriation bills still remaining before it? Will you slow
the President of the United States when he is either right or of the
down the multimillion dollar Great Society programs already in your
right intent. In such cases it will always do so, but the Republicans
hands? Will you, in short, act-now? Republicans stand ready, as
in the Congress-and, indeed, the Democrats in Congress as well-
always, to help in such actions.
cannot know what is right or of right intent in the President's policies
Second, you recommended that the 7-percent investment tax credit
unless they have the facts upon which to base their judgments. The
be made temporarily inoperative. Could this have any possible
facts are all too seldom given us by this Administration.
effect on our inflated economy for at least another 6 months? Is your
There are those in this Administration who appear to believe that
proposal a breach of good faith with the industrial, small business, and
half-a-truth is better than none. We disagree. Where the American
farm communities?
people at home are concerned we must have the whole truth. Where
Third, you recommended suspension of the use of accelerated depre-
the American people in their foreign interests and national security are
ciation on structures started or transferred after September 1 of this
concerned, we must be given every fact possible consistent with our
year. Do you believe this a factor of consequence in limiting con-
safety. Given such facts as to domestic and foreign policy, we in
struction activity and costs? Upon what basis was this remarkable
Congress will, with all the people, be reassured that the soundest, the
conclusion reached? Even if valid, how soon could it have any
sanest, the best possible decisions will be made in the days to come.
beneficial effect-if it had any at all?
As of this date, as the record so clearly proves, we have not been
Fourth, you urged the Federal Reserve Board to lower interest rates
given and are not being given the vital facts of American life by the
and so ease the tight money burden. How odd that your Adminis-
Johnson-Humphrey Administration. We do not charge the Adminis-
tration and your Democrats in Congress, allegedly so devoted to low
tration with falsehood but we do claim it has failed to reveal the whole
interest rates and loose money should for so long have made high
truth. This being so, this crisis of confidence is inevitable and the
interest rates inevitable by your reckless spending policies and
consequent danger to the American people is great.
programs.
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
Fifth, you urged deferment of certain Federal borrowing to alleviate
credit pressures. Here again you have at long last but much too
Mr. President, What can we believe?
late endorsed a clear and firm Republican recommendation of many
months ago. As a New York Times editorial put it last Tuesday,
September 13:
CREDIBILITY-PUBLIC TRUST
Even more important, the decision is a sign that the ad-
September 15, 1966
ministration may have finally realized that it cannot really be
By Senator Dirksen:
fiscally responsible so long as it indulges in financial
gimmickry.
Mr. President and Democratic Members of the Congress:
The American people are troubled, confused, and terribly uncertain
Why this delay, Mr. President? Why such uncertainty? Why such
as to the future. Their worry and their uncertainty have their basis
fear of the future?
in both the actions and the inaction of your Administration, to which
This is exactly that uncertainty-that growing fear-that is
they look hopefully for a leadership still sadly lacking.
spreading so rapidly among all our people. They are uncertain,
The most recent of the nationwide surveys of public opinion con-
they are bewildered as to the future-the future of the economy, the
firms this fact, indicating clearly that in six vital areas of domestic
future of their jobs, the future of the Nation, the future of their
concern-fiscal and monetary policy, civil rights, the war on poverty,
children in every aspect of their lives.
the farm problem, the curbing of inflation, and labor-management
Therefore, Mr. President and Democratic Members of the Congress,
relations-less than half of our people have been able to maintain
most sincerely and respectfully-
their confidence in you over these many months.
Our Question of the Week:
On Thursday last you presented to the Congress and the people a
five-point program hopefully designed to cool our Nation's growing
When will the trust and confidence of the people be restored?
8
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
9
September 15, 1966
THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
March 17, 1966
Mr. President and Democratic Members of the Congress:
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
As these problems multiply at home-and abroad-and as the un-
In its manpower report of last week the Johnson-Humphrey Admin-
certainty among our people grows, we look to the weeks ahead with
istration offered a politically attractive but far from complete account
apprehension and understandably wonder what the future may hold.
of the national economy. The decline in unemployment to 3.7 per-
As increasing reference is made to a possible adjournment of the
cent was hailed as a milestone on the road to realization of our full
Congress by mid-October, election day, November 8, draws closer
economic potential.
and we wonder more and more what the immediate period thereafter
All Americans are pleased that fewer of their countrymen are with-
may bring.
out jobs. We hope that every American seeking a job finds one at a
From time to time, for example, you and your Administration and
decent, living wage. Most of all, however, we hope Americans can
you Democrats in Congress have suggested a tax increase as one of
find full and continuing employment in a nation at peace.
the means available for checking inflation. Mr. President, do you
A sober examination of figures this manpower report did not include,
plan to recommend to your Democratic Congress an increase in our
however, raises a cruelly serious question. Is this bright economic
already heavy income taxes, after November 8?
Equally often, spokesmen for this Administration, including your-
picture due to real prosperity as the Administration claims or is it,
rather, due to the bloody facts of war in Vietnam?
self, Mr. President, have made reference to wage-and-price controls as
The harshest fact is that during the past 12 months over 268,000
an alternative inflation check. Most recently, a Democratic Senate
Americans were inducted into the Armed Forces. On the surface, one
leader urged that authority for standby controls be given you. Do
of the most heartening statistics concerns the sharp decline in unem-
you have in mind the imposition of wage-and-price controls, after
November 8th?
ployment among men under 25. The number of unemployed in this
In an address to the American Farm Economics Association, a
age group dropped by 190,000 in the past year. During this same
prominent official of your Administration by inference wrote off as
period 264,757 men in this age group were inducted. Obviously, the
uneconomical and needless more than 2 million of America's small
total decline in unemployment in this group can be accounted for
farms and farmers. Is it contemplated that this farm elimination
mainly by the draft. This would hardly appear a milestone on the
road to national economic health.
program shall be undertaken by your Democratic Congress, Mr.
Unemployment always declines during wartime. Without blushing,
President, after November 8th?
The rumor persists with each passing day that the antipoverty
the manpower report states it has been more than 12 years since
unemployment was lower than it is now. They chose to emphasize
program of your Administration, so loudly hailed and so extravagantly
1953 but failed to mention that the Korean war was still being fought
administered, is under survey by the Bureau of the Budget, at your
then. They could have cited an even more dramatic figure-the
order, as the first step toward its dismantlement. Is this, too, some-
thing planned for action by your Democratic Congress, Mr. President,
1.2 percent unemployment rate of 1944, when a global war was still
being fought.
after November 8th?
Your Secretary of the Treasury and your Secretary of Commerce,
This is another glaring example of the Johnson-Humphrey Adminis-
tration's political double standards. They are claiming credit for
in testifying this week before the House Ways and Means Committee
on certain of your proposals identified them as "an essential and
giving the American people prosperity and what they call record
peacetime employment. In this they are playing cruelly cynical
enduring part of our tax structure." Earlier in the year, they said
they were opposed to any "tinkering" with these credits for economic
politics by disregarding the wartime boom and the wartime draft
purposes. Yet now, apparently under pressure, they blandly endorse
calls that contribute so significantly to their statistics.
such "tinkering." Will this "tinkering" continue, after November 8th?
Our people cannot long endure such uncertainties. They cannot
March 17, 1966
live nor work effectively without trust and confidence. Therefore,
Mr. President and Democratic Members of the Congress, most
By Senator Dirksen:
respectfully and sincerely,
A new game has made its appearance in Washington, and the name
Our Question of the Week:
of the game is "Statistics." To win, you have to be able to tell every-
body everything they'd like to hear-and back it up with figures.
When will the trust and confidence of the people be restored?
Relevancy and accuracy of the figures are not important. The
Johnson-Humphrey Administration plays the game of "Statistics"
with consummate skill.
For instance, a new program is often justified by saying it will cost
less than 1 percent of the gross national product, as though GNP
were some vast kitty upon which we could draw to finance these
programs. And Democratic Administration cohorts point with pride
to a $47.6 billion growth in the GNP for last year. Blissfully, they
10
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
11
ignore the fact that $13.5 billion of this growth is due to price increases;
prices have risen even more rapidly and the Department of Labor's
in other words, inflation. Although of questionable accuracy, GNP
cost-of-living index has continued to climb to record highs.
is a useful tool in measuring national production of goods and services,
Secretary Freeman, Economic Adviser Gardner Ackley, and each of
but loses its meaning when used for political purposes.
the other prominent agricrats have tried, repeatedly and with zeal,
And the Johnson-Humphrey Administration does conjure with
to make the American farmer and his family the whipping boys for
GNP figures for political reasons. Every supposedly productive
the inflation that is steadily taking more and more dollars from the
dollar transaction is dutifully tabulated. Notwithstanding the size
pockets of every American. The housewives of America should be
of the GNP, every time the price of bread and milk goes up it's a bang
told that 61 percent of the cost of the food in their market baskets is
in the paycheck. And, of course, GNP goes up, too. Every time
added after it leaves the farm. I repeat-the housewives of America
rent goes up, it's a bang in the paycheck, and, of course, GNP goes up
should be told that 61 percent of the cost of the food in their market
as well. What's really happening here is that when GNP goes up
baskets is added after it leaves the farm.
inflation is tearing off more of your paycheck.
The cold, hard fact of the matter is that the rising costs of living in
Republicans have mentioned the Johnson-Humphrey sleight-of-
this country can be attributed primarily to the excessive, reckless
hand budget. But how about the national debt? How much does
spending of our people's money for wasteful, too often unnecessary
the Nation actually owe? Congress and the public know about the
programs conceived by the so-called Great Society planners and con-
$323.7 billion statutory debt. But there are no accurate reports on
curred in by the great majority of Democrats in Congress.
the indirect debt, meaning debt commitments for which no funds
Secretary Freeman has alleged that during his tenure of office the
have been made available. This includes the $300 billion owed to
American farmer has enjoyed a 50-percent increase in his income. Will
the social security fund and the $40 billion owed to the civil service
all the farmers who have enjoyed a real income increase of 50 percent
retirement fund. It also includes $420 billion in contingent liabilities.
please stand up? Or, better yet, let the Administration and the
In all, they have not accounted for over $1,000 billion-trillion to
Congress hear from you by letter, wire, or telephone. Farm organiza-
you-in such indirect debts. Republicans have repeatedly sought
tions, farm state newspapers, farm leaders, and countless individual
such an accounting without success. Twice bills demanding such
farmers from coast to coast are boiling with anger over the policies and
reports have passed the Senate.
practices of this Administration which are driving farm prices swiftly
The game of fiscal and statistical hocus-pocus has become the rule
downward and consumer costs harshly upward with each passing day.
of the day in Washington. The American people know blarney when
Let there be no mistake. The Johnson-Humphrey Administration
they see it and know they cannot win.
is using and abusing American farmers and ranchers as the scapegoats
of inflation. To this statement I attach a listing of specific examples
and I invite your attention to it.
FARM PRICES
When the agricrats of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration impose
June 16, 1966
policies and practices which help no one and harm everyone, the Con-
gress and the American people are fully justified in their anger. The
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
boiling point is near at hand.
On March 31 last, the Secretary of Agriculture, Orville L. Free-
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
man, announced that the prices of farm products had dropped during
the preceding weeks and expressed delight in this fact. The press
Mr. President, are you going to keep prices down on the farm?
throughout the Nation reported his elation in detail and farmers
throughout America reacted angrily.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration is using and abusing
The New York Times began its report on the situation in this way:
American farmers and ranchers as the scapegoats of inflation:
Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman expressed
(1) By domestic fiscal policies which have sharply increased farm
pleasure today with the fact that the prices of farm products
production costs;
had dropped recently.
(2) By market price manipulations which have decreased prices
It was the first time in the memory of Federal farm
received by farmers, with the result that the present parity ratio
officials that a Secretary of Agriculture indicated that
stands at only 79, even including direct subsidies, despite Democratic
he was pleased with a decrease in farm prices. Like Mr.
promises of 100;
Freeman, the officials were happy to note that consumers
(3) By refusing to admit that increased consumer prices-increased
would benefit from lower prices by this summer.
food costs to the housewife and the wage earner-have not been caused
by farmers, such consumer prices having risen steadily as farm prices
Let me repeat that last sentence:
have as steadily decreased;
Like Mr. Freeman, the officials were happy to note that
(4) By recommending drastic cuts in congressional appropriations
consumers would benefit from lower prices by this summer.
for school milk, school lunches, land grant colleges, and other vital
programs;
There is only one flaw in this statement. It simply isn't true. Para-
doxically, as farm prices have moved steadily downward, retail food
S. Doc. 118, 80-2--3
12
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
13
(5) By the Secretary of Agriculture's dumping of huge quantities of
with particular force and eloquence in an editorial that first appeared
grain at unrealistic prices upon the domestic market in order to break
in the Walsh County Record published at Grafton, N. Dak., on
and depress grain and livestock market prices;
May 19 last, in which these two paragraphs seem to me especially
(6) By the Department of Commerce action of March 7, 1966,
pertinent:
imposing restriction on the export of cattle hides, calf and kip skins,
Mr. President: This is either the fifth or sixth draft of
such action resulting in lower domestic livestock products;
(7) By a large and unilateral increase in Cheddar cheese imports,
this brief comment. The first, written in instantaneous
without any attempt being made to secure reciprocal trade concessions
anger a couple or weeks ago was, after overnight reflection,
from other nations to expand U.S. agricultural exports overseas;
discarded as just too furious. In the intervening days,
(8) By a sharp curtailment of purchases of pork and of butter and
there's been a mighty struggle going on to temper our fury
other dairy products by the Department of Defense; and, I repeat-
down to rage, and then to wrath, and then to indignation.
That seems to be as far as the emotion can be distilled.
(9) By the Secretary of Agriculture's expression of pleasure with the
fact that prices of farm products have dropped.
When you and your appointed aids announce that you
are going to control inflation by making war on farm prices,
you've set a grass fire, Mr. President. For the fact is, war is
June 16, 1966
never waged against an abstraction, like prices. War is waged
against people. In this case, us.
By Senator Dirksen:
When farm prices go down and farm production costs rise-when
We repeat *** against people. In this case, us."
the taxpayer's living costs rise and his dollar earnings decrease in
I suggest that we listen now to the men and the women who feed
value-the American people are experiencing what is known in some
the Nation-taxpayers like all the rest of us. I suggest we stop
circles as the double whammy. The Johnson-Humphrey Adminis-
listening to these agricrats in Washington, far removed from the
tration's "double whammy" on this Nation is now past all endurance.
farmlands and even further removed from reality.
For the agricrats of this Administration to contend or even to imply
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
that the price of farm products is a cause of inflation is ridiculous.
The principal cause of the inflation now upon us throughout America
Mr. President, are you going to keep prices down on the farm?
is, rather, the wild, willful and witless spending of the Johnson-
Humphrey Administration and its supporters in countless needless
August 5, 1966
areas.
Inflation is on the move throughout the Nation. Should it become
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
rampant-as it threatens to do-those who will suffer most will be
Democratic Secretary of Agriculture, Orville Freeman, met in
those in the lowest income brackets. Make no misjudgements about
Washington last week in a closed session with a number of Demo-
this whatever.
cratic candidates for reelection to Congress, to discuss Democratic
Thus far, this administration's major attack upon rapidly rising
tactics and techniques of the coming campaign.
living costs has been directed-wholly misdirected-against farm
A reporter from the Chicago Tribune was present and recorded
prices. Living costs cannot be reduced significantly by any such
that Democratic political discussion in detail. Among other things,
action, even though the Administration's economic advisers appear to
he wrote:
think so. With farm prices down 13 percent and retail food prices
Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman has told Demo-
up 16 percent between America's wars of 1951 in Korea and 1966 in
cratic congressional candidates at a closed briefing that they
Vietnam, it should be clear even to these agricrats that the real
must overcome deep resentment in farm areas and should
villain confronting them is the inflation so steadily promoted by their
stay away from discussion of inflation.
***
reckless spending for needless programs and not by the prices down on
A candidate from Columbus, Ohio, told Freeman that a
the farm.
poll in his district showed that the major issue was inflation
Let it be recorded here and now that our vigorous protest against
and he sought advice on how to handle questions about the
these policies is neither partisan nor improperly political.
increased cost of living.
We invite the attention of the Congress, the press, and the public
to the several resolutions that have been filed from both sides of the
"I've been trying to figure out an answer to that question
aisle in a dedicated effort to meet this problem squarely-Senate
for 6 years," Freeman replied. "Slip, slide, and duck any
Concurrent Resolution 93 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 88,
question of higher consumer prices if you possibly can."
among others-and we commend without reservation the fairminded
"Don't get caught in a debate over higher prices between
determination of the Republican and Democratic Senators sponsoring
housewives and farmers," he cautioned. "If you do, and
them.
have to choose a side, take the farmers' side. It's the right
Meanwhile, down on the farm, the public anger to which we have
side, and besides, housewives aren't nearly as well organized."
referred is finding ever greater expression with each passing day-
These are unbelievable statements by the Democratic Secretary of
and we in the Congress are well aware of it. It has found voice
Agriculture. The American people will find them unbelievable.
14
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
15
America's farmers and America's housewives will find them not only
housewives, I can only conclude that he has sadly underestimated
unbelievable but intolerable. A strong reaction to them is both
the power of America's women.
certain and deserved.
There is not a single issue of our time that is not of paramount
The attitude revealed by these statements has consistently char-
concern to the housewives of America. Foremost among these are
acterized the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. Its failure to tell
the issues of inflation and the war in Vietnam. None know their
the whole truth about inflation, about Vietnam, about taxation, about
impact SO intimately; none are more willing to make whatever sacrifice
the poverty program, about Government employment, about foreign
may be needed to solve them; none are SO undeserving of such official
aid, about the budget, has been almost unequaled in our political
scorn as the women who make the homes and shape the future of the
history.
Nation. I hope, indeed I am certain, that this downgrading of
As the days go by will the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and
America's housewives will bring forth from them a resentment and a
its Democrat-controlled Congress continue to "slip, slide, and duck"
reaction that will be fierce and formidable.
the great and crucial issues that confront the Nation? Will the Great
During the past several months, we Republicans in loyal opposition
Unorganized of the Nation-the housewives, the majority of wage
have, in addition to the making of positive and constructive proposals
earners, the small businessmen, the independent professional people,
for administrative and legislative action, addressed specific questions
parents, and the young people, be increasingly ignored because they
to the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. Our intentions in this
do not fit the Freeman formula of "slip, slide, and duck" unless
have been honorable. Our objectives have been in the public interest.
they're organized?
These questions, making reference to the important issues of the time,
Among the Great Unorganized, too, are our schoolchildren-the
have read as follows:
very ones whose daily school milk Secretary Freeman and this Ad-
(On the high cost of living):
ministration seek to cut back so drastically.
Mr. President, what are you doing about the rising cost of living?
In further reference to our farm population, the Chicago Tribune
(On poverty):
story continues:
Mr. President, why is the war on poverty being lost?
"There is a reaction far deeper and more bitter than I
(On credibility):
could ever have anticipated among the Nation's farmers
Mr. President, what can we believe?
over recent remarks by administration officials concerning
(On farm prices):
farm prices," Freeman told the candidates. "Farmers know
Mr. President, are you going to keep prices down on the farm?
what tremendous minority they are and they are very
(On foreign aid):
sensitive."
Mr. President, why are we losing our money and our friends?
(On inflation):
Are we asked to assume from this disparaging reference that our
Mr. President, why do you brag about inflation?
farmers are an unimportant, as well as a sensitive, minority? Are
To date, in reply to these questions, there has come from the
we expected to conclude from this that the great unorganized majority
of Americans are to be disregarded by the Johnson-Humphrey Ad-
Johnson-Humphrey Administration only a deep and pregnant silence,
ministration in the months ahead? Can we expect, that not alone on
from which we can only assume that the Freeman formula of "slip,
the issue of inflation, but on every other issue of importance to our
slide, and duck" is of much earlier origin and application than last
people, this wretched philosophy, this unworthy attitude, this shock-
week. Will the Democratic campaign theme song this year be:
ing Freeman formula, will prevail?
"We Will Slip, Slide, and Duck Our Way to Victory"?
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
In fairness to the Congress and the American people these questions
should be answered, these issues must be faced, these problems must
Mr. President, will the Democrats "slip, slide, and duck" every issue?
be solved. Republicans in Congress and across the country have
repeated their willingness and demonstrated their ability to propose,
and to cooperate fully with respect to, such solutions but in this great
August 5, 1966
Republic of ours, the public interest requires that the majority show
an equal readiness to cooperate, an equal willingness to face the facts
By Senator Dirksen:
squarely and with courage. The Freeman formula of "slip, slide, and
"* * * and besides, housewives aren't nearly as well organized."
duck" indicates quite clearly that the Administration and its over-
Thus spake Democratic Secretary Freeman. Must we conclude
whelming Democratic congressional majorities have neither the wit
from this that the age of chivalry is indeed dead? Must we assume
not the wish nor the will to do so.
that America's housewives are of no consequence in the eyes of the
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
Johnson-Humphrey Administration?
I, for one, do not believe that the age of chivalry has passed.
Mr. President, will the Democrats "slip, slide, and duck" every issue?
Indeed, I like to believe it is in full flower, despite these Democratic
spokesmen. As for Secretary Freeman's indifference to the Nation's
16
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
17
FOREIGN AID
July 22, 1966
July 22, 1966
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
By Senator Dirksen:
The budget, the President tells us, is in danger-and he calls upon
The foreign aid debate in the House of Representatives last week
Congress to make drastic cuts in it. He tells us that unless this
and the continuing debate in the Senate reflect increasingly not
Democrat-controlled Congress curbs its excessive spending, inflation
merely the concern but the anger and the alarm of the American
is inevitable and that he will face the harsh choice of imposing controls
people with regard to this program.
or asking for a tax increase.
At the time of its inception in June of 1947, when our then Secretary
The recklessly swollen budget which he presented to the Congress is
of State, the late General Marshall, stimulated a massive program of
wholly his and his Administration's doing. The excessive spending to
financial assistance to war-torn Europe the need for and the merit of
which he alludes with alarm can be stopped, overnight, by a word from
the program were clear. It is no longer true in Europe and in count-
him to his overwhelming Democratic majority in the Congress. Let
less other nations around the world to whom the American taxpayers'
me remind the President and his Democratic troops in the Congress
dollars have been funneled year after year after year.
that the Republicans have, for 18 months and more, been urging
During these past two decades more than $125 billion of our people's
drastic cuts in nonessential Government spending.
money have been shipped abroad for the announced purpose of
The primary cause of the inflation which he now fears but which
stemming Communism, creating economic stability, encouraging rep-
every other American has felt for months is that excessive Federal
resentative government, and nourishing so-called underdeveloped
spending which from the first days of his Administration has been
nations.
planned, proposed, and pushed.
Lately, these objectives have been poorly served. This global dole
The alternatives for checking this current inflation are indeed clear:
must be curtailed. The time to start is now.
a tax increase as the President intimated, wage and price controls, or
In my more detailed remarks to this end on the Senate floor I
a truly effective reduction in nonessential Federal spending. A
have offered not only what I believe to be a reliable and a responsible
reduction in nonessential Federal spending is the most desirable and
criticism in detail with regard to the total foreign aid problem of
urgent. The President and his top-heavy congressional majority can
today but have added, in equal detail, positive and constructive
do this at once if they have the will to do so. Republicans will con-
suggestions for immediate and ultimate remedy of many of the
tinue vigorously to support responsible reductions in nonessential
program's defects.
Federal spending.
Getting dough out of Uncle Sam has become a way of life for the
Senator Dirksen has made crystal clear, as have other Republicans
rest of the world-a very happy way of life for many foreign nations
in both the Senate and the House, one wide-open area in which just
but a drain upon America's economic lifeblood that can no longer
such a reduction in needless spending can be achieved-that of foreign
be tolerated.
aid.
Here at home, the General Accounting Office has conducted an
Mounting evidence of waste in our foreign aid program in recent
almost surgical dissection of the foreign aid program in recent years
years is startling and shocking. It has been pinpointed and drama-
which, if publicized in detail, would make not only our taxpayers but
tized repeatedly not alone by the Republican minority but by the
even the angels weep.
sound recommendations of such highly esteemed and wholly objective
Not only has it required weeks of painstaking effort to learn the
private groups as the International Economic Policy Association and
true facts about our foreign aid program which I have presented; it is
the Administration's own bipartisan Advisory Committee on Private
infinitely more difficult-if not impossible-to learn from our alleged
Enterprise in Foreign Aid.
friends abroad just how they are spending our money, since in count-
1. Emphasis upon private investment projects; 2. Increase in our
less instances they will not permit even an elementary auditing of
dollar earnings through Public Law 480; 3. Far more selective alloca-
their books. How sharper than a serpent's tooth is an ungrateful
tion of foreign aid; 4. Emphasis on aid to "self-help" nations; 5. A
friend!
reexamination of the financing activities of the international lending
Despite America's extraordinary generosity, Communism continues
institutions; 6. The imposing of a drastic new discipline upon the
rampant over half the globe. We make no new friends and we are
Agency for International Development; 7. Development of these
losing old ones. I am reminded of an old rhyme which reads:
foreign nations' own resources; 8. A hardheaded, cold-eyed demand
When I had money, I had friends-
that the nations to which we lend or grant funds meet their obliga-
I loaned my money to my friends—
tions to us honorably and in full or be promptly cut off-these are
I asked my money of my friends—
among the available, the very practical steps the Johnson-Humphrey
And I lost my money and my friends.
Administration and its Democratic majority in Congress can take-
and can take now.
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
Mr. President, why are we losing our money and our friends?
Mr. President, why are we losing our money and our friends?
18
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
19
FOREIGN POLICY-THE ALL-ASIAN CONFERENCE
Vietnam now totals more than 325,000 men, 23,000 more than in the
Korean war. The latest U.S. casualty figures report 967 killed and
August 25, 1966
wounded in 1 week, the highest in any 7-day period SO far.
By the Republican Leadership of the Congress:
For many months the Russians have supplied-in ever increasing
Never before in American history has this Nation been involved
volume-the weapons and ammunition that are killing American boys
in a war more difficult, more unpopular, and so little understood.
every day.
Never before has any Administration been so frustrated in its foreign
As thousands of American boys fight, bleed, and die in Vietnam-
policy or, as it now appears, so uncertain as to the next step to be
as the Soviet Union-Communist Russia-announces an enormous
taken.
further increase in its economic and military aid to our enemies-this
As you know, a proposal has been made, initially by the Foreign
Administration must stop-and stop now-its trafficking with the
Minister of Thailand, recommending the convening of an all-Asian
Russians in ways that can only result in Communist encouragement,
conference to work toward a just and peaceful settlement of the war
growth, and enrichment.
in Vietnam.
And on Friday, October 7, the President of the United States,
Because the securing of a just and honorable peace is the clear de-
in addressing the National Conference of Editorial Writers, proudly
sire of every loyal American, we believe that the proposal of an all-
proclaimed:
Asian peace conference deserves prompt and thorough consideration.
We have just signed a new United States-Soviet cultural
To those who remind us needlessly that neither Communist China
agreement.
nor Communist North Vietnam would attend such a conference, we
We intend to press for legislative authority to negotiate
reply that neither would the United States be a participant, but we
trade agreements which would extend most-favored-nation
endorse unhesitatingly such a peace-seeking effort by all other Asian
tariff treatment to European Communist states.
nations. That Asian Communists disapprove or would oppose such
We have just concluded an air agreement with the Soviet
a conference should not surprise nor discourage us nor should it im-
Union.
pede such an endeavor by men of good will elsewhere in Asia.
And today I am announcing the following new steps:
To those who recommend a reconvening of the Geneva Conference,
We will reduce export controls on East-West trade with
we must insist that such an approach is no longer viable nor valid,
respect to hundreds of nonstrategic items.
because the approach must come from the Asian nations themselves.
I have just today signed a determination that will allow
A peaceful and honorable settlement of the conflict in Vietnam can-
the Export-Import Bank to guarantee commercial credits to
not now be originated, formulated or influenced by non-Asian inter-
four additional Eastern European countries-Poland and
ests. Only under Asian skies, under Asian auspices, under Asian
Hungary, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia *** The Export-
responsibility and guidance can such a move now be made with gen-
Import Bank is prepared to finance exports for the Soviet-
uine hope of success.
Italian Fiat auto plant.
The Republican Leadership emphasizes again its wholehearted sup-
We are negotiating a civil air agreement with the Soviet
port of our Armed Forces in southeast Asia. We reaffirm our deter-
Union
***
mination that Communist aggression in South Vietnam shall be
overcome and that peace with freedom shall be reestablished in that
And with this announcement the President of the United States
troubled land.
included the comment: "This is good business and this will help us
*
Our encouragement and endorsement of the proposal of an all-Asian
* If dealing with the enemy-who are dealing in nothing but
peace conference represents, in one respect, a new and important
death to Americans in Vietnam-is good business, then truth and
Republican foreign policy position. It emphasizes once more, how-
honor have indeed been perverted beyond recall by this administration.
ever, our determination that the Republican Party shall continue
In 1952, the Eisenhower administration ended the Korean war and
strongly to maintain its historic and cherished position as the party of
kept the peace without surrender. That Administration's policy:
peace.
insistence that Communists toe the line in deeds and performance,
refusal to accept Communist words and promises.
Until the Communist world convinces us by act, not by word, that
FOREIGN POLICY-RED TRADE
it not only seeks peace but will so act as to preserve peace among
October 13, 1966
men, we will not be a party to any deal, any agreement, any arrange-
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
ment, any treaty with Communists anywhere in the world. Until
On the front page of the New York Times on Tuesday, October 4,
we-and our allies-commit ourselves without qualification to such a
in adjoining columns, there appeared the following news reports. The
policy of strength we can expect only more Koreas, more Vietnams,
first was headed: "Soviet Announces New Pact for Aid to Hanoi's
and an ever widening spread of Communist subversion, deceit, and
Regime. Additional program includes assistance for economy and
death dealing around the globe.
military needs." The second was headed: "Air Talks Revived by
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
United States and Soviet *** Service may be opened next spring.
In the very same week the conflict in Vietnam became the third
Mr. President: At home and abroad, what now-what next?
largest war America has ever fought. American troop strength in
20
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
21
FOREIGN POLICY-VIETNAM
INFLATION
June 9, 1966
February 24, 1966
By Senator Dirksen:
By Senator Dirksen:
James Madison, fourth President of the United States, at a time
The American people are involved in a three-front war-in Vietnam,
when our Nation was imperiled, wrote:
against poverty, and now against inflation. Government directly or
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who
indirectly controls the money supply. Inflation has swept in upon
us because of policies this Administration has adopted. Every major
mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with
modern inflation has been aggravated by excessive Government
power knowledge gives. A popular government without
spending. And that has been the deliberate policy of the Democratic
popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but
administrations for the past 5 years.
a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.
This Administration has told us it is promoting inflation as a step
Our Nation is imperiled now.
toward fuller employment. What they have not told the American
On December 13 last, the Republican Coordinating Committee, in
people is the extent and cruelty of the burden they have placed on the
a statement unanimously agreed to by its membership, declared its
very poor through this policy of printing money at a rate twice that
own conviction and position with respect to the conflict in Vietnam.
of our population growth.
The first two sentences of that declaration were these:
The Johnson Administration, now concerned with inflation, prepares
Questions are being raised both at home and abroad as to
to meet it by higher taxes rather than through a prudent budget.
the devotion of the American people to peace. One cause of
This year's budget is $31 billion higher than the last Eisenhower
this confusion has been the inability of the Johnson Admin-
budget and Democrats have added $32 billion to the public debt in
istration to establish a candid and consistently credible state-
5 years. As most American workers know payroll tax increases since
ment of our position in Vietnam.
January 1 have already more than wiped out those tax cuts of a year
ago. And there's more to come, more even than the $4.8 billion tax
The two words, "candid" and "credible" are those most meaningful
increases now before Congress. The Administration is talking in
and most relevant to the point we make today: The Johnson-Hum-
terms of another 5 percent income tax increase and an added 2 percent
phrey Administration refuses even yet to be either candid or consist-
corporate tax later this year. These increases are over and above
ently credible with respect to its policies and our position in Vietnam.
the cruel tax of inflation which is already waging war on those with the
If, this, like Madison's, is a time of clear and present danger, it is
lowest incomes.
essential now, as it was then, that the people be fully informed as to
Higher personal income taxes hit hardest those who can least afford
the problems and the perils confronting them and as to the effective
them-the young people who are starting a family, building a home
steps it is planned to take to solve those problems and protect them
and building a future, those in our society on fixed incomes and those
from those perils.
who have the least.
All too consistently, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has
There are alternatives. One is to trim the budget which, the Presi-
failed, whether by oversight or intent, to take the Congress and the
dent refuses to do except in areas where he knows the cuts will be
American people into its proper confidence regarding Vietnam. Such
restored. Another is tighter credit-but when that was tried Demo-
a failure is inexcusable. It could be tragic.
crats wailed in anguish.
No American, in public office or in private life, wishes or seeks to
This Administration has made its choice: It plans to discipline the
know the details of any plan or program that must, in the interest of
American people rather than discipline itself.
our national security, be kept in executive confidence, but every
American does have the right to know where we are going in Vietnam
and how far and to what clear purpose. Such information as has
February 24, 1966
been given us by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has been
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
infrequent and incomplete.
For this reason, therefore, I urge again that the President convene
Economists talk of inflation in terms of a sharp rise in the amount
immediately a bipartisan leadership conference for a discussion and
of money or credit, or both, relative to goods available for purchase.
examination of American policy in Vietnam. I urge this in order
The American housewife has a sharper definition: You pay more for
that the American people through their elected representatives in the
less.
Congress might better understand the shape of things to come.
Bacon was $1.15 a pound at a chainstore here in Washington Mon-
Armed by such understanding, they will be better able to provide
day morning. Eggs were 71 cents a dozen. An American favorite-
that unqualified support SO necessary to the winning of a swift, secure,
pork chops-were $1.35 a pound. Mothers used to be able to save
and honorable peace.
their budgets with hamburger. But that's climbed to 59 cents a pound.
Unless, by such means, the people are respected in their right to
And very, very little of this increase has found its way into the
know we cannot help but ask this Question of the Week-and, indeed,
farmers' pocket.
of every week:
Food prices have climbed 3.7 percent in 1 year. And this accounts
for a major part in the overall 2 percent rise in the cost of living in
Mr. President, what can we believe?
22
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
23
the past 12 months. Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee
This is the Administration whose leader in a speech in Des Moines,
say it is inevitable that prices will rise by another 2 to 3 percent in
Iowa, on June 30 said:
1966. That's a rise of 5 percent in 2 years. This amounts to a 5-
When these folks start talking to you about inflation, you
percent sales tax on everything you buy. And you'll pay it because
tell them that is something you only have to worry about in
of the inflationary policies of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration.
Democratic administrations.
The housewife's $10 in 1961 now buys only $9.14 at the grocery store.
Inflation steals from everybody, but hurts most those 26 million
Seldom has such a public confession been heard!
Americans who live on pensions or other fixed incomes. It will also
This is the Johnson-Humphrey Administration whose leader urges
certainly do much to nullify whatever benefits might otherwise accrue
everyone else to economize-the housewife to select cheaper cuts of
from programs now pursued in the antipoverty war.
meat, the workingman to hold to wage "guideposts," the businessman
President Johnson says this Administration has produced an "Amer-
to review his budget, the manufacturer to restrict his spending. Yet
ican economic miracle." Will the American people call it a miracle
this same leader refuses to urge his overwhelming Democratic majority
after they pay their bills and then dig deep enough to pay the big
on Capitol Hill to economize in the only way that has any real meaning
tax increase the Johnson-Humphrey Administration wants?
for every American family.
The National Commission on Food Marketing reports Americans
Republicans in Congress and throughout the Nation have for many
are eating less beef and far less pork now than they did a year ago.
months now not only seen clearly, but have identified accurately, both
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration set out to change America
the causes of and the cure for these costs of living that threaten all our
and the American way of life. The Administration seems to be
people. The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has, with its head
succeeding-and you won't like it.
in the economic sand, been either unwilling or unable to admit these
harsh facts of domestic life in America today. We wonder why.
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
July 28, 1966
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
Mr. President, why do you brag about inflation?
Higher prices-higher costs-higher interest rates-higher wages-
higher rents-higher taxas. Add them all together and they spell
July 28, 1966
inflation, no matter how you look at them from any point in the
By Senator Dirksen:
economy.
No thinking person-no hard-pressed taxpayer-can help but be
The President has been gambling with our economy and, despite
alarmed by the pace of this inflation which, for many months now, has
the warnings of friend and foe over many months, he has been losing
been taking the tax dollars from his pocket far more rapidly than he
steadily. The stakes of the game have been, and are, the well-being
can earn them.
of the American people and the point of no concern has long since
Republicans in Congress and across the Nation are of course taking
been passed.
The Republicans in Congress, together with Republicans and mil-
issue with the Johnson-Humphrey Administration in its refusal to take
the necessary action to stop these skyrocketing costs of living. But
lions of worried Americans across the Nation, have been pointing with
alarm for more than a year to what was so clearly happening to their
ours is a protest in which millions of Americans of all political faiths
and on all economic levels are now joining. The chart on display
pocketbooks and to the Nation's economic welfare. The time of
reckoning so long foreseen has arrived.
here today illustrates the facts of inflation vividly. This chart re-
The late H. G. Wells, in another connection, once remarked:
veals, in clear and simple terms, the rate of increase of consumer prices
from June of 1957 to this very month of July 1966.
I am not prophesying now; I [am simply running along
The increase shown is alarming. The rate of increase indicated is
beside the marching facts and pointing at them.
frightening. The refusal of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration to
We have been prophesying also, month after month after month.
check nonessential Federal spending and to stem this inflation is
We have been running along beside the marching facts and pointing at
beyond all understanding.
them, with increasing concern and alarm. But we have been doing far
When the Government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics records the
more than this. Republicans have offered the solution to inflation
cold, harsh fact that the rate of increase in living costs during the past
and have consistently worked to help achieve that solution by cutting
6 months was the highest in the past 8 years, the issue is clear for all to
back all nonessential Federal expenditures.
see: unless these jet-propelled living costs are checked, the results
We have, first and foremost, demanded that nonessential Federal
could spell not just inflation but disaster for every American pocket-
expenditures be drastically reduced. We have urged that immediate
book.
action be taken to reduce foreign aid. At our insistence-and only
If this gravest of economic problems could not be solved, we would
with our help-the prospect of a reduction in foreign aid of over $400
feel hopeless and helpless indeed. But it can be-and by a means
million in this coming year now exists.
immediately at hand: the reduction of nonessential Federal spending
We have urged, again and again, that any number of the nonessen-
by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and its Democrat-
tial, Great Society programs that have been proposed and are being
dominated Congress.
24
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
25
pushed be delayed, if not curtailed, in order that the cost of living for
We repeat-and we shall continue to repeat it until action results—
every American might be reduced. In this we have not yet been given
we repeat that the solution to onrushing inflation is at hand-a
a meaningful hearing nor any cooperation by the Johnson-Humphrey
solution instantly available to this Administration and its topheavy
Administration.
majority in this Democratic Congress. That solution: a drastic cut
If nonessential Federal expenditures are substantially reduced-
in nonessential Federal spending. It is these billions of nonessential
and the initiation of new programs slowed down or eliminated-as
Federal funds that are being poured into the economy that represent
they clearly can be without the slightest detriment to our peoples'
the principal cause of inflation, the principal reason for today's high
well-being-there would be no need for the wage and price controls
living costs for every family.
to which the President has referred. There would be no need for the
The President has asked housewives to buy cheaper cuts of meat.
higher taxes to which he alludes. There would be no need for the
He has suggested that wage and price guideposts-which he himself
huge inflationary budget deficit which, as an alternative, he foresees.
has torpedoed-be observed. He has requested Government agencies
The way out of this inflationary jungle is clear. The need for taking
to economize. He has supported none of these things with any vigor
it is imperative. Because these things are so, we cannot understand,
at all. There has been no evidence that he means it.
nor can millions upon millions of our people understand, why the
On the contrary he points with peculiar pride to a wartime economy
Johnson-Humphrey Administration has lost sight of the commonsense
that inevitably produces high employment.
forest in its obsession with the Great Society trees.
With nearly 3,100,000 men in uniform not now employable in
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
civilian life-in the face of the known fact that at least 3 men are
needed in the labor force at home to provide for each man in uniform-
Mr. President, why do you brag about inflation?
we suggest that the President's boasting has a very hollow ring.
We believe that the time has come for the President of the United
(And, we might add, what are you going to do about it?)
States to stop passing the buck with the responsibilities that are his-
his responsibilities to labor, to management, to the consumer, to the
taxpayer, to all the American people. He can bring about a drastic
September 1, 1966.
cut in nonessential Federal expenditures through his huge Democratic
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
majorities in the Congress, if he is willing to do so-if he has the
Former President Truman had for several years on his desk a motto
courage to do so.
which read: "The buck stops here!" In this Johnson Administration
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
that motto appears to have been changed to: "Slip, slide, and duck
the buck!"
Mr. President, When Will You Democrats Stop Passing the Buck?
As the recent airline strike continued, the President passed the
buck to the Congress.
As labor increases its demands, the President passes the buck in
September 1, 1966
silence.
By Senator Dirksen:
As industry raises its prices, the President passes the buck to the
President Johnson tells us that what America needs is "a strong
consumer.
dose of self-discipline." To which we can only reply: "Physician,
As the cost of food continues to skyrocket in the market, the
heal thyself."
President passes the buck to the housewife.
To ask self-discipline of labor, to ask self-discipline of management,
As interest rates reach alltime highs and home mortgage money
to ask self-discipline of Congress, to ask self-discipline of the consumer,
becomes almost impossible to obtain, the President passes the buck to
is pious and pointless-until the President asks it of his Administra-
those millions of our people of modest means, both younger and older,
tion and his heavy Democratic majorities in the Congress. We are,
who have hoped for years to have a home of their own.
in short, not impressed.
As too long a mistaken reliance on monetary policy alone fails in
We are not impressed by timid surrender to labor unions. We are
the slightest to halt inflation, the President passes the buck to us all.
not impressed by fearful deference to management. We are not
For it is the American people, each and all of us, who continue to
impressed by "guideposts" for wages and prices that are anything
suffer increasingly from this buckpassing fever of the Johnson
but. We are not impressed by his requests for those reductions in
Administration.
appropriations by Congress-such as school milk and school lunch
Inflation-a dollar declining in value-the cost of living in orbit-
programs-that the President knows cannot be made. We are not
call it what you will, in simplest terms it means that the American
impressed by the intriguing fiction of Mr. McNamara's new math,
wage earner, the American taxpayer, is being cruelly misled and badly
which claims a doubtful savings of billions. We are not impressed
hurt.
by anything, in short, but a clear and courageous demonstration on
This Administration appears totally helpless, and, even worse,
the part of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration that it has the
hopeless, in its futile threshing about for solutions. When our people
will and the courage to put the brakes on inflation-to stop the
are given no help-worse yet, when they are given no hope-it's
skyrocketing cost of living-by the powerful means it has readily at
time for a drastic change.
hand: the drastic, sweeping reduction of nonessential Federal spending.
26
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
27
We have said before and we repeat, that Republicans in Congress
In June of 1965 Representative Laird of Wisconsin predicted that
and across the country have for months urged such reductions and
estimates of the cost of the war in Vietnam were low by at least $5
have shown clearly where they could be made.
billion, only to be harshly rebuked by the Secretary of Defense.
When the Congress was given the Johnson-Humphrey budget for
Yet, in a matter of months, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
1967, the Republican Leadership and the Republican membership of
requested of Congress nearly $13 billion in supplemental appropria-
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees identified, item by
tions for continued conduct of the war.
item, those programs where nonessential spending could be cut by
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has also been 100 percent
hundreds of millions of dollars-and this without depriving our fight-
mistaken in its estimates of the inflationary forces now stampeding
ing forces of a single thing they need!
across the country that take the earnings right out of the pocket of
The President and his Democratic majorities in Congress have
the worker-and this despite the early and unanimous warnings not
refused to make such savings, despite repeated and valiant Republican
only of dozens of economists outside Government but the equally
efforts to achieve them. Even now, at this point in the appropriations
strong and unanimous warnings of members of the Joint Economic
calendar, it is still possible to effect a savings-in nonessential spend-
Committee of the Congress.
ing-of hundreds of millions of dollars if the President and his con-
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has proposed-and has
gressional majorities really want to fight inflation.
tried to impose-economic guidelines for labor, for management, and
These, let me emphasize, represent savings in things that we can do
for the farmer. Democrats are even proposing controls on wages
without-just as the housewife is asked to do without, just as the
and prices yet the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has made no
wage earner is asked to do without, just as the would-be homeowner
effort to place guidelines upon its own inflationary excesses.
is asked to do without-just as American fighting men are being asked
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration is obsessed with symptoms
to do without the privileges of peace in the frightful jungles of Asia.
rather than causes.
We cannot have both guns and butter. We cannot fight a war in
The role of the opposition is one of both searching criticism and
Asia and win the war on inflation at home unless this Government of
constructive proposal of alternatives. I commend to you the 13
ours, this Administration, is equally willing to do without and to stop
positive recommendations for effective action in bringing down the
its willful, reckless spending of the people's money on nonessential
cost of living presented earlier this week to the American people by the
things.
Republican Coordinating Committee.
I am in total and enthusiastic agreement with Jerry Ford that the
only effective means available to fight inflation, to stem the high cost
REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE-THE RISING COSTS OF LIVING
of living, is to cut nonessential Federal spending drastically and to do
it now. The President and his Democratic congressional majorities
The Republican Party makes the following recommendations:
have the power SO to serve this Nation. We cannot help but wonder
1. That the Administration prepare and submit promptly to the
why they have been unwilling to do so.
Congress a new budget for fiscal 1967 which reflects a valid surplus,
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
achieved by postponing or eliminating nondefense expenditures.
2. That the costs of Vietnam be financed within annual balanced
Mr. President, When Will You Democrats Stop Passing the Buck?
budgets by reduction or postponement of domestic programs, not by
tax increases.
3. That in times of high-level prosperity and employment, the
INFLATION-THE RISING COSTS OF LIVING
Administration provide a significant surplus in the Federal budget to
reduce inflationary pressures and help protect the dollar.
March 31, 1966
4. That the Administration pursue prudent fiscal and monetary
policies that will make it unnecessary to have the so-called "voluntary"
By Senator Dirksen:
wage and price "guideposts," which are inconsistent with a free
This debt-propelled Johnson-Humphrey Administration continues,
market economy.
whether knowingly or not, to mislead the American people on matters
5. That the Administration lend support to monetary policies which
of the most vital importance to them. Whether this Johnson-
will hold increases in the supply of money to a pace consistent with
Humphrey Administration is misinformed, misguided, or simply
inflation-free economic growth.
mystified is hard to determine. It is, in any case, mistaken-and the
6. That the Administration respect and defend the role of the
cost of its mistakes in human well-being and in dollars is rapidly
Federal Reserve System as an independent agency within Govern-
becoming far more than the American people can-or will-pay.
ment.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration was grossly mistaken in its
7. That the Congress amend the Employment Act of 1946 to make
budgetary planning, both as regards the cost of the war in Vietnam
general price stability an explicit objective of Government policy,
and expenditures here at home. Fifteen months ago, after proclaim-
along with maximum employment, production and purchasing power.
ing "an important first step toward a balanced budget" the Administra-
8. That the Congress remove the unrealistic interest ceiling on
tion produced a deficit of over $3 billion. The fiscal 1966 deficit will
Government bonds, to permit noninflationary management of the
be at least twice that of the 1965 deficit.
national debt.
28
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
29
9. That, rather than relying on inflationary monetary and fiscal
Who knows better how rapidly inflation is eating away the family
policies to reduce residual unemployment in a high employment
income day by day? Who knows better, who feels more painfully,
economy, the Administration place emphasis on selective programs
the rising costs of living as, week by week, those costs discourage every
of job training, counseling, and placement, as provided in the Republi-
American family in its hopes for the future?
can-sponsored Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962,
Mr. Ackley, from his privileged economic sanctuary, sadly and
and have the Bureau of the Census undertake a survey of job vacancies
cruelly underestimates the knowledge and the power of America's
and a census of the unemployed at intervals to provide a factual
women and I hope that he and the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
basis for such activities.
and the Congress will hear from every American home and hearth on
10. That the Administration give high priority to developing a
this subject, by letter and by telegram, in the days ahead. I urge
solution to the balance-of-payments problem which will be lasting
every American homemaker to take pen in hand and tell us now-
and constructive for the rest of the world as well as for ourselves
what you know-how you feel-about these terribly harsh, constantly
(see, "The Balance of Payments, The Gold Drain and Your Dollar,"
rising costs of living.
a report of the Republican Coordinating Committee, Aug. 30, 1965).
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Johnson-Humphrey Administra-
11. That the Administration enhance the integrity and value of the
tion hesitates, vacillates, and procrastinates in taking necessary action
Federal budgeting process by:
to stop these skyrocketing living costs. Again, Mr. Ackley, in reply
(a) The annual dissemination of a 5-year budget projection
to a question as to what will happen if we get into an inflationary
for all departments and agencies, to assist long-term considera-
period: "It depends on how you define inflation. I wouldn't say we'd
tion of the fiscal consequences of new programs.
had much inflation." Will America's homemakers agree? And the
(b) An annual reporting, as part of the budget, of the unfunded
President and his Secretary of the Treasury continue to wonder when
commitments of the Government for future spending which
or whether to "apply the brakes." This, despite the report of the
have to be met by the taxpayers.
Department of Commerce on the gross national product increase,
12. That the Administration consolidate and, where appropriate,
released Monday, April 18, and stating that more than one-third of
eliminate as many as possible of the overlapping and duplicating
the increase in the dollar total represented higher prices and stating
Government programs and, where practical, take steps to turn their
further that "the accelerated price increase in the first quarter is
administration over to States and local governmental bodies.
largely attributable to the steep rise in food prices."
13. That the Congress create, at regular intervals, an independent,
There are two major fiscal brakes available-either a tax increase
bipartisan, adequately staffed "Hoover Commission"-type organiza-
or a drastic cut in needless spending-yet the Johnson-Humphrey
tion, composed of Members of the Congress and the public, to review
Administration, with constantly contradictory comments, will not
the budget, Government programs, and Government organization.
tell the American people truthfully what it proposes or plans.
This, therefore, is our Question of the Week:
April 21, 1966
Mr. President, what are you doing about the rising costs of living?
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
The following quotations are excerpts from the Dallas Morning
News-that's the Dallas, Tex., Morning News of April 15, ladies and
April 21, 1966
gentlemen:
By Senator Dirksen:
President Johnson's chief economic adviser revealed (in
The Government of the United States is the biggest business in
Austin) Thursday that he doesn't place much stock in the
the world. It is the biggest borrower, the biggest lender, the biggest
American housewife's judgment on inflation.
hoarder, the biggest spender, the biggest landlord, the biggest tenant,
Gardner Ackley, speaking at the University of Texas
the biggest employer, and the biggest provider in the history of
said he received numerous letters from homemakers blaming
mankind. Inevitably the biggest business in the world has the biggest
him personally for high food prices.
budget in the world.
"But housewives are notoriously poor judges of what's
No one can claim, of course, that a family budget is or should be
happening to prices except for food," he quipped during a
comparable, but no one can deny that every family budget is just as
press conference.
important to the wage earner and the homemaker who control it.
And Ackley claims that, even on the supermarket level,
If a family's income is not adequate to meet its expenses, the family
the housewife is no expert.
has only two alternatives: to increase that income or to reduce those
"She notices when the price of a pork chop or a head of
expenditures, yet there seems to be no recognition of this whatever
lettuce goes up," he noted, "but she's not always aware
in the Johnson-Humphrey Administration.
when the price comes down."
In a recent appearance before Agriculture Department employees,
the President said:
I just can't believe that any Administration or other Government
spokesman could so misjudge or so underrate the American housewife
We in Government cannot afford the luxury of thinking
and homemaker!
that nothing so needs reforming as other people's habits.
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
31
30
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
Is the President bewildered? Was he referring to his Administra-
As public servants we know-at least we ought to know-
tion? His statements actually spell out the most damning self-
that the habits most in need of reform are our own.
indictment in modern political history!
How very true.
There is only one thing wrong with these Presidential statements
What he actually said, or course, was: don't do as I do, do as I say,
about the Republican Party. Like so much else voiced by this
for, quite obviously, while the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's
Administration, they simply are not true.
spending habits are in need of drastic reform the President is making
We do not admit to being a party of fear. An honest reading of
no evident effort whatever to reform them and he and his colleagues
history will prove the contrary. But we do admit as a people, to
continue to allude repeatedly to a possible tax increase while urging
being concerned about this Administration and the many unwise
all others, but not themselves, to reduce expenditures.
courses it has chosen to take.
The President hasn't hesitated to ask business, to ask labor, to
What lies ahead of us in Vietnam, under this Administration's
ask the housewives of America to reduce their spending. Why hasn't
leadership, we cannot foresee. We are concerned about high and
he asked the Congress to do the same? On the contrary, hardly a
rising living costs, in the face of which this Administration has been
month goes by without a request from him for more and more and
helpless. We are concerned-indeed, we know-that we are losing
more spending of the people's money for low priority, nondefense
our money and our friends abroad. We are concerned-for it is a
projects and programs.
fact-that the "war on poverty" is being lost, with the poor and the
I have said before, and I say again, that the role of the opposition
underprivileged receiving little actual help and with millions of the
must be one of both searching criticism and constructive proposal
people's dollars being wasted. We are concerned-for we can prove-
of alternatives. There has now been published for release today the
that the farme rand consumer are, calculatingly, being played ruth-
full text of the Republican Coordinating Committee's report entitled
lessly against one another. We are concerned-for the proof is un-
"The Rising Costs of Living-A Report on the Fiscal Policies of the
deniable-that an echo-chamber Democratic Congress, with its steam-
Federal Government," approved at the committee's last meeting
roller majorities, will continue, without thought or question, to carry
March 28. A summary of the report was released at that time, but
out the slightest whim and wish of this Administration. We are
the text contains an extensive amount of detail in support of the
concerned-for the signs are frightening-that we are being led down
report's conclusions and recommendations. The report was based
the road to national bankruptcy. We are concerned that an all-Asian
on a study made by the Task Force on Federal Fiscal and Monetary
Peace Conference-a practical first step toward peace in Vietnam-has
Policies of which former Budget Director Maurice H. Stans is chair-
now been summarily rejected as a peace hope. We are concerned-
man.
for we are convinced-that the American people are not being told
I commend this report to your attention and study and I urge you
the whole truth about their Government and this Administration's
to invite your readers to write to the Members of Congress for copies
plans for them.
of it. The role of the opposition of which I speak must not be one
Of the charge that the Republican Party has no constructive pro-
of "Me, too," nor yet one of "Not me." Rather, it must be one of
grams or policies we can only assume that this Administration has
"Here's how." On the harsh question of inflation, with which every
from its very first days been blind, deaf, and indifferent. To this
homemaker and wage earner is living so painfully today, "Here's
statement I attach a listing of the specific, positive, constructive
how."
recommendations and programs which the Republican Leadership and
The alternatives, as has been said, are clear-either higher taxes
the Republican Party across the country have presented to the
or a reduction in spending, yet we have no equally clear idea from this
Congress, the Administration, and the American people month after
administration as to which path we will be taking.
month after month. I would remind the leader of the Democratic
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
Party that his Administration has chosen, to our people's detriment,
either to ignore or to reject these recommendations, the majority of
Mr. President, What Are You Doing About the Rising Costs of Living?
which would have gone far to correct abuses spawned by the Admin-
istration and which would have prevented this onset of confusion
and concern.
L.B.J.-PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
When the President chooses to speak directly and candidly to the
October 13, 1966
American people, the Republican Leadership and the Republican
Party will be attentive and responsive but when the President chooses
By Senator Dirksen:
to do otherwise, we are indeed apprehensive and concerned. We
The President has referred to the Republican Party as the party of
hope-we pray-that in the weeks to come we will witness Administra-
fear, and, moreover, as having no constructive programs to fight
tion, deeds calculated to inspire faith, not fear, belief, not doubt,
inflation, no programs to ease racial tension. He accused us of not
confidence, not concern, hope and not despair.
knowing what to do about crime in the streets or how to end the war
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
in Vietnam.
Mr. President: At Home and Abroad, What Now-What Next?
32
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
33
REPUBLICAN PROPOSALS AND PROGRAMS
WAR ON POVERTY
March 3, 1966
A chronology of constructive recommendations
By Senator Dirksen:
June 1965
U.S. foreign policy in Vietnam.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration by July first will have
August 1965
The balance of payments.
spent $2.3 billion on the antipoverty campaign and is asking for $1.7
September 1965
Equality in America-a promise unfulfilled.
billion more. For these vast sums the American people and the poor
December 1965
Vietnam policy statement.
have gotten a very shabby product. This program is expensive in
December 1965
Toward a stronger Federal system.
terms of money and experienced manpower. It has produced many
December 1965
Toward fair elections in America.
press releases and high professional salaries but little assistance for
Mar. 7, 1966
(Economic) Opportunity Crusade Act of 1966.
those who most need it.
March 1966
The case for revenue sharing.
The campaign has been marked by political favoritism and too often
March 1966
Latin America-United States-progress or failure?
has become the tool of political machines. What possible excuse is
March 1966
The human investment-job opportunities.
there for putting children of local politicians and high-income families
March 1966
The rising costs of living.
into the Neighborhood Youth Corps designed to keep poor children
June 1966
The United Nations.
from dropping out of school?
June 1966
Effective water management.
The program has been marked by political infighting between local
June 1966
The challenge of the modern metropolis.
Democratic politicians for control of community action program funds.
June 1966
Federal, State, and local responsibilities for prob-
They want the money to build political machines, not to reclaim and
lems of education.
dignify human lives.
June 1966
Transportation in modern America.
Mass creation of extravagant Job Corps centers, a lack of discipline
June 1966
Housing and urban development.
and purpose, have resulted in disillusionment, rioting, and vicious
June 1966
The alleviation of poverty.
gang rule. The Job Corps budget last year averaged $7,800 for each
June 1966
Jobs and people-job opportunities.
enrollee for 1 year, almost twice the cost of sending a boy to college.
June 1966
The needs of the aging.
This, it would seem, could have provided at least minimal screening
NOTE.-Each of the above was published by the Republican Co-
which would have helped turn these camps into the "residential skill
ordinating Committee with the exception of the Economic Opportunity
centers" long advocated by Republicans.
Crusade Act of 1966, which originated with eight Republican members
Scandalous misuse of funds, involving fraud, has led to Justice
of the House Education and Labor Committee.
Department and Congressional inquiries in a number of areas.
These things need not be. They would not be a part of a properly
administered program. Those with the lowest incomes in this coun-
MEDICARE
try cannot benefit from chicanery, fraud, and political misuse of
March 29, 1966
funds.
The antipoverty campaign was launced with a flurry of publicity
By the Republican Leadership of the Congress:
by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. It promised much, and
The Republican Leadership,today introduced medicare legislation
raised the hopes of many, but so far has produced little. The needy
to extend through August 31, 1966, the initial enrollment period for
must have hope and must be involved in developing their own future.
coverage under the program of supplementary medical insurance
They need help in helping themselves-now.
benefits for the aged.
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen and Representative Gerald R.
Ford announced the filing of identical bills for this purpose in the
March 3, 1966
Senate and House of Representatives in fulfillment of the Republican
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
Coordinating Committee pledge to do so.
The law presently requires registration for these benefits by March
To win a war on poverty low-income families must have better
31 but once it became clear that over 5 million older persons would be
education, a chance at getting decent jobs and help in helping them-
unable to register by that date, the Republican Leadership took action
selves. To accomplish these goals Republicans recommend:
to prevent the denial of such benefits to these millions of citizens.
1. Low-income families must become more directly and deeply in-
The supplemental benefits portion of the law was added to medicare
volved if the campaign is to succeed. Their capable representatives
should be elected to serve along with representatives of local officials
on the insistence of Republican Congressman John W. Byrnes of
and social welfare agencies on boards with clearly defined authority.
Wisconsin. Republican congressional agreement and insistence upon
extension of the enrollment period is unanimous.
Only through such sound local administration and less intervention
from Washington can this program shed the political money grubbing
found in so many cities.
2. Operation Headstart, first suggested by Republicans in 1961,
has been moderately successful despite administrative bungling but
34
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
35
that program now threatens to grind to a halt. It should be encour-
justified in demanding an explanation of this disastrous program and
aged to reach its maximum potential.
of how it is now proposed to spend still more of their hard-earned and
3. Productive jobs in private enterprise are the real keys to success.
rapidly vanishing income in this wasteful, reckless way.
To provide dignified and permanent employment private industry
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
and labor unions must be given realistic incentives-such as the Re-
publican proposal for a Human Investment Act-to widen their par-
Mr. President, Why Is the War on Poverty Being Lost?
ticipation.
4. Authority and responsibility of the States must be strengthened
and they must be brought in as partners to prevent the antipoverty
June 2, 1966
campaign from becoming more deeply mired in bureaucracy.
By Representative Gerald R. Ford:
5. To eliminate de facto racial segregation in many urban renewal
At the very outset, let me join with Senator Dirksen in urging your
projects adequate housing must be provided for all dispossessed
readers and your listeners to ask their respective Members of Congress
families.
for copies of this historic minority report on the poverty program as
6. Waste, abuse of power, political influence, and big city bossism
soon as the Democrat-controlled committee makes it available. Our
can be eliminated by applying the Hatch Act at all levels and through
people not only have the right to know the harsh facts of that program
preaudits and tighter accounting. A thorough, honest investigation
but, as they now struggle at every income level to make both ends
of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's handling of the antipoverty
meet, they must be told how frightfully, how disastrously their dollars
war is long overdue. To conduct such an inquiry we are today intro-
are being spent in this incredibly mismanaged, almost totally unpro-
ducing legislation to create a joint Senate-House bipartisan investigat-
ductive program of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration.
ing committee.
A very prominent Democrat has used the phrase "the arrogance of
power" with respect to his own Administration's foreign policy.
June 2, 1966
That phrase "arrogance of power" far more aptly describes this
By Senator Dirksen:
poverty program: in the day-to-day administration of that program in
The Republican membership of the House Education and Labor
countless communities across the country, in the highhanded, steam-
Committee have done the Congress and the Nation a signal service
rollering of poverty legislation in the House Education and Labor
in the detailed and vigorous minority report they have issued on the
Committee and in the repeated defiance hurled at many of the
so-called war on poverty program of the Johnson-Humphrey Adminis-
Governors of our States and mayors of our cities by poverty office
tration.
bureaucrats.
In a speech in the Senate on August 19, 1965, I identified the
We Republicans in opposition contend that, in this as on almost
erratic, costly, and misdirected course this program was then threaten-
every domestic front, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has reg-
ing to take. The Republican minority have now confirmed in every
ularly substituted promises for performance. When such a policy is
detail the most ominous of my predictions where the genuine welfare
applied to the poor it becomes not only harsh, not only cruel, but
of the poor and the dreadful costs to the American taxpayer were con-
intolerable and unforgivable.
cerned. This minority report will be printed and available within a
Let it be clear, however, that this is by no means a partisan polit-
day or so and I not only commend it to your attention but strongly
ical point of view. Repeated statements on the subject by promi-
urge your careful reading of it. I urge, moreover, that you in turn
nent and dedicated Democrats in the Congress have included such
urge your readers and listeners to write their respective Members of
poverty program charges and phrases as "disastrous," "Programs now
the Congress for copies of it. I have seen nothing in a good number
mired in the swamp of mediocrity," "a riot and a runaway of ineffec-
of years that will so alert and alarm our people as to the reckless
tive programs," "The rural areas * * have * * been lost in the
course the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has now clearly laid
shuffle," "an awful mess," "grandiose sociological studies and anti-
out before us.
social protest movements." These are the words of, Democratic
Constructively and positively, I therefore urge-
spokesmen for their constituents and to their reactions can be added
1. That the President institute immediately a thorough review and
the detailed article in the May issue of U.S. News & World Report
reappraisal of this disastrous poverty program under the Congressional
on "The Mess in the Poverty War," a significant poll taken in one
resolutions to this end that have already been filed by me and by
of our most populous States, and endless other evidence from public
Representative Ford and that at the same time he examine objectively
officials and private leaders of all political faiths.
and honestly the increasingly harsh impact of the high cost of living
As Senator Dirksen has indicated, we will not be critical only. The
upon the American people.
Republican minority on the committee has proposed an "Opportu-
2. The adoption by the Congress and the Administration of the
nity Crusade"-11 sound and specific recommendations for a total
strong clear recommendations of the Opportunity Crusade contained
overhaul of the poverty program. They deserve not only a hearing
in this superb minority report.
by the Congress and the country-they deserve to be heeded,
When the Representatives of the American people in Congress are
immediately, by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration.
asked to appropriate another $13/4 billion for a poverty program that
Therefore, our Question of the Week:
has already wastefully consumed $2½ billions, the people are fully
Mr. President, Why Is the War on Poverty Being Lost?
36
PRESS CONFERENCE STATEMENTS
WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS
September 28, 1966
By the Republican Leadership of the Congress:
Speculation increases daily in both Government and public circles
that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration is making definite prepa-
rations for the imposition of wage and price controls in the near
future.
Administration officials are reported as seeing "no way to avoid
wage and price controls" in the months ahead. This Administration
appears unwilling or unable to stem the high and rising costs of living
by the clear and certain means available to it-a drastic cut in non-
essential Federal spending. As a result, nationwide alarm at this
prospect of wage and price controls is increasing daily.
These questions, therefore, appear to be fair and proper:
1. Mr. President, are you now making preparations for wage and
price controls?
2. Mr. President, despite your earlier reported hesitancy about
imposing widespread wage and price controls, are you planning to
impose them piecemeal?
3. Mr. President, is it true that a special wage-policy review board
is already contemplated?
4. Mr. President, if wage and price controls are imposed, will they
be imposed "across the board" or will exceptions and exemptions be
specified?
5. Mr. President, do you really believe that wage and price controls
represent the primary brake on inflation now available?