Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4525513",
    "label": "Ford Press Releases - Budget, 1966-1968",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525513"
}

{
    "id": "4525513",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525513",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Ford Press Releases - Budget, 1966-1968",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525513",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Press Releases Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Federal budget"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525513.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525513.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525513.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525513",
    "naId": 4525513,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1968-02-29",
        "month": 2,
        "year": 1968
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1966-01-01",
        "month": 1,
        "year": 1966
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525513.pdf",
    "mediaId": "27ae9025bb7256d6",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D6, folder \"Ford Press Releases - Budget, 1966-\n1968\" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R.\nFord Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box D6 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nJanuary 4, 1966\nFor immediate release\nIf President Johnson's budget is either $110 billion or\n$115 billion next year it means he is financing both guns and\nbutter which will inevitably lead to a tax increase or runaway\ninflation,\nRepublicans believe a better solution is a reduction in\nnon-essential domestic spending in order to avoid added taxes\nor a skyrocketing cost of living.\n#\n#\n#\nFORD is LIBRARY\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nJanuary 24, 1966\nThe President's budget should receive dareful and critical scrutiny\nby the Appropriations Committees and by both houses of the Congress.\nWhen President Johnson's proposed spending in Fiscal 1967 is\ncompared with the last Eisenhower budget of 1960, we find that the increase\nin the administrative budget amounts to $36 billion and the increase in\ntotal Federal spending comes to $51 billion. Expenditures for national\ndefense under the President's proposal would rise by 33-1/3%, or $15 billion\nabove the 1960 level. Expenditure for Jeon-defens proposals in the\nadministrative budget would rise by 68%, or $21 billion.\nIn two fiscal years, 1966 and 19.7, the President proposes to\nincrease spending for programs in the administrative budget by $26 billion.\nIn its decisions on the budget, Congress must consider the impact\nof the sharp increase in Federal spending on an economy in which inflationary\npressures are already strong. The Administration admits its fiscal policies\nwill increase the cost of living by 1.9 percent. If the White House will not\ntackle this problem with restraint on federal spending, the Congress must.\nRepublicans are deeply concerned and will maximize our efforts to reduce\nnon-military, non-essential spending.\nI find it hard to understand how the national government can ask\nbusiness and labor to avoid price and wage increases which are measured in\nterms of millions of dollars when it is increasing non-defense spending by\nmany billions.\nI regret that the President did not see fit to indicate in his\nbudget any system of priority to assist Congress in reducing the less\nessential and less urgent items of expenditure.\n#\n#\n#\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nFebruary 4, 1966\nFor Immediate Release\nIn our Republican appraisal of the State of the Union at the outset of this\nsession, we called upon President ohnson to set realistic priorities for\nhis legislative proposals which would enable the Congress to support a war\n10,000 miles away and at the same time continue urgent domestic programs,\nwithout an increase in taxes. If the President failed to do so, we called\nupon our Democratic colleagues who outnumber us two to one in the Congress to\njoin us in cutting or eliminating low priority items.\nSo what is the first major law enacted by the 89th Congress this year?\nYesterday the House voted final passage of a $9.5 Million Interama project\nin Florida, 201 to 160. It is somewhat of a coincidence that the \"Noes\" on\nthis boondoggle exactly equaled our Republican ranks in the House, because\nin fact a few of our good Democrat friends also found this expenditure of\nFederal money on an ambitious Florida touristaattraction too much to swallow.\nBut we were too few.\nAt the same time the House majority was voting $9.5 Million for this Interama\nthing, the Veterans' Affairs Committee voted out a bill for limited GI benefits\nfor veterans of Vietnam and other cold war service. The Johnson Administration\nhas opposed any such action for a year, while Republicans in their State of\nthe Union proposals and through our House Republican Policy Committee have been\npressing for it as an act of simple justice.\nYesterday the committee rejected every Republican effort to increase the bene-\nfits and bring them into line with those already extended to veterans of the\nKorean war, Unfortunately the bill will be brought to the House Floor Monday\nunder a procedure which bars amendments, so that Vietnam veterans apparently\nwill have to be content with half a loaf, or none.\nSo the GI is still the forgotten man of the Great Society. \"Interama\" appar-\nently rates higher.\nThese two actions taken together clearly show that neither the Johnson Adminis-\ntration nor Lyndon's Landslide Congress have any intention of applying real-\nistic priorities to Federal projects and Federal spending this year. It is\nincomprehensible that a Democrat-controlled House should shortchange American\nsoldiers in South Vietnam and at the same time subsidize a future dream in\nFlorida with $9.5 Million taxpayers' dollars -- and don't forget, servicemen\nalso pay taxes.\nWe Republicans may be too few to stop this sort of shameful steamrollering\nbut we intend to let the people know about it -- and in the next Congress\nthings will be different.\nHouse Republican Policy Committee\nBudget\nJohn J. Rhodes, Chairman\nFor immediate release\n140 Cannon House Office Building\nMarch 22, 1966\nPhone: 225-6168\nRepublican Policy Committee Statement on the Second Supplemental\nAppropriations Bill for Fiscal 1966\nIt is becoming increasingly clear that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration\nis engaging in a tragic game with this Congress. Unfortunately, the stakes in\nthis game may be the American economic system that has produced unparalleled\nopportunities and abundance for our people.\nIn recent weeks a combination of alarming factors have created grave\nconcern over this country's economic condition. In February the wholesale\nprice index increased .7 percent, the sharpest rise since the Korean War.\nThe cost of living continues to mount. A recent Gallup Poll reported that,\naccording to the American public's own appraisal of living costs, it takes a\nfamily of 4 about $18.00 more a week to get along this year than it did a\nyear ago. And this is at a time when this country is experiencing the effects\nof accumulated deficits of six years of unbalanced budgets and sharply\nincreasing defense demands.\nIn spite of this serious inflationary situation and the spiraling costs\nof a massive war in Viet Nam, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has continued\nto insist upon a large number of new programs.\nFor example, in this bill there is Money for rent supp. ement and for the\nFederal Teachers Corps. This is money that was requested, considered, and\nthen rejected during the first session of this Congress.\nOnce an appropriation is made for rent supplements, the Federal Government\nwill be on its way to a 10-year, $6 billion program. Also, even though the\nproposed regulations governing allowable income limits and assets have been\ntightened since last year, if funds are appropriated, Congress will have little\nor no control over future regulations.\nThe Federal Teachers Corps has had an even more checkered career. In the\nHouse of Representatives, only one witness testified on this proposal.\nIt then was added to the Higher Education Act by the Senate. House\nRepublican conferees refused to sign the conference report and moved to\nrecommit the report with instructions to delete the Teachers Corps. Thereafter,\nthe $13.2 million that would have been used to finance the Teachers Corps was\nremoved from an appropriation measure.\nObjections to the Teachers Corps center on the fact that it will be a\nfederally-financed project in which the U. S. Commissioner of Education has\nthe extraordinary authority to recruit, select, train, and pay the salary of\nteachers and then choose the district, from among those that apply, in which\nsuch teachers would be assigned. Certainly, this is a new and dangerous\nextension of federal power into local school districts.\nover\nThe record now reflects that in fiscal 1966 the Johnson-Humphrey\nAdministration underestimated the escalating Viet Nam military needs by\n$15 billion. And this undoubtedly will be repeated in fiscal 1967. Until\nsuch time as a realistic appraisal of the Viet Nam costs is forwarded to\nCongress, all new and non-essential spending must be curtailed. Under the\ncircumstances, it is both reckless and dangerous to feed the fires of\ninflation as this appropriations bill would do. Certainly, in this period\nof grave uncertainty, new starts on broad and expensive programs should not\nbe called for in a supplemental appropriations bill. In times such as\nthese, new spending requests should be contained in a regular appropriation\nrequest and given the careful scrutiny they deserve.\nAll too often, this Democratically-controlled Congress has earned its\nrubber stamp characterization. It has winked when the occasion demanded\nfirmness. It has grinned when it should have gagged. We hope that this\ntime Congress will respond to the challenge.\nPRESS CONFERENCE\nRoll call Chart\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nFOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY AT 10:30 A.M.\nTHURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1966\nSTATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER.\nYesterday was the birthday of Thomas Jefferson. Today is the anniversary\nof Abraham Lincoln's death. Tomorrow, as most of us are unhappily aware\neven without this reminder is Great Society Tax Day--the deadline for filing\nyour federal income tax returns for 1965.\nPresident Johnson is in Mexico City today unveiling a statue of Abraham\nLincoln, so I suppose it will not be amiss for me to say a few words in praise\nof Thomas Jefferson.\nJefferson, though he called himself a Republican, is regarded now as the\nFather of the Democratic Party. Lincoln, the first Republican president, was\nhimself a great admirer of Jefferson, saying that \"the principles of Jefferson\nare the definitions and axioms of free society.\" For his part, Jefferson\ndeclared that \"every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle\nWe are all Republicans; we are all Federalists.\"\nSo without quibbling about labels, let me merely note that we are all today\nindebted to Thomas Jefferson for one major contribution to our system of\ngovernment. He was the Founding Father who started the Two-Party System. You\nmight say that, as Vice-President, he was the first minority leader here on\nCapitol Hill. And the country has prospered under the two-party system which\ndeveloped--thanks to Jefferson--outside the provisions of the Constitution.\nIt added another and most important check and balance to our experiment in\nself-government.\nAs to Jefferson's principles, during his presidency he cut federal spending,\nreduced taxes, repaid $33 million of the national debt, and repealed the excise\ntax on whisky. Whether he was the last Democrat or the first Republican to do\nthis I will leave for historians to argue.\nThere certainly can be no argument, however, about the differences of\nprinciple that divide our two parties in this lopsided 89th Congress. There is\nno doubt which is the spending party and which is the prudent party. Nevertheless,\nwe keep hearing noises from the direction of the White House that we 140\nRepublicans in the House of Representatives, outnumbered more than two to one,\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n(MORE)\n-2-\nFORD STATEMENT - APRIL 14, 1966\nare wrecking the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's earnest efforts to economize\nand head off higher taxes, The President pleads with us and with the housewives\nand businessmen and the farmers and labor leaders to sharpen our pencils and help\nhim halt inflation.\nWell, I have sharpened my pencil on my income tax forms, so let me show you\na little simple arithmetic:\nAt this moment, there are 293 Democrats and 140 Republicans in the House.\nThat is a two-to-one majority with 13 votes to spare. Even the liberal\n\"Democratic Study Group\" in the House of Representatives boasts enough members\nto outvote the Republican minority.\nIn the Senate there are 68 Democrats, including Wayne Morse, and 32\nRepublicans. That's also a two-to-one majority with four votes to spare.\nIn short, this is a Blank Check Democratic Congress which can do virtually\nanything it pleases, or anything President Johnson pleases, whether the\nRepublican Loyal Opposition likes it or not. Such lopsided legislative majorities\ncan spend your money, raise your taxes--and that's exactly what this Blank Check\nDemocratic Congress is doing.\nAnd remember, no matter what President Johnson says or how fervently he\npleads with the housewives to stop buying steaks, the responsibility for federal\nspending and for federal taxing rests with the Congress. This Blank Check\nDemocratic Congress will have to face the American voter in November, and the\npeople will know who are the spenders and who are the savers.\nThey will know because there will be roll calls on every spending bill that\ncomes to the House of Representatives which offers any hope of saving a single\nwasted dollar of your money.\nWe asked President Johnson at the outset of this session to put wartime\npriorities on his wartime budget requests. So far he has refused. We have gone\nalong with our elected commander in chief on everything he has asked to support\nour fighting men in South Vietnam--but when I read what is happening over there\nand how we are running short of bombs despite all the billions we have voted\nfor defense, I wonder how long we can underwrite shocking mismanagement in the\nname of national unity.\nWe are certainly going to take hard second looks at all the rest of the\nJohnson-Humphrey spending proposals when the Congress resumes.\nNow here is the record on nondefense spending rolled up by the Blank Check\nDemocratic Congress thus far this session: On six key money measures, an average\n(MORE)\n-3-\nFORD STATEMENT - APRIL 14, 1966\nof 82 per cent of the Democrats have voted for higher spending and, inevitably,\nhigher taxes. (See Table)\nOn the same six roll calls in the House of Representatives, an average of\n93 per cent of my Republican minority colleagues have stood up for economy and\nthe now dwindling hope of holding off inflation and higher federal taxes for\nfuture April fifteenths.\nWe were faced with 3 new spending proposals, all having some merit in normal\ntimes but steamrollered through the Blank Check Democratic Congress by lopsided\nmajorities. Then we tried to trim excess fat from 3 appropriation bills which\ncame to us before the recess. Some of these proposals were worthy, and they had\npowerful advocates. But we are at war--and not doing too well with it. So again\nthe roll was called. Again the result was the same. Ninety-three per cent of\nthe Republicans were for saving; 82 per cent of the Blank Check Democrats were\nfor more spending.\nWho votes for higher taxes? Democrats--four out of five of them. We cannot\nexpect to stop this steamroller without substantial help from any Jeffersonian\nDemocrats still left in the Congress--and it doesn't look like there are very\nmany of them left.\nBut we are going to make the record clear for the people to judge in\nNovember, and I predict that the next Congress will be known as the Check and\nBalance Congress instead of the Blank Check Congress. I am confident that here\nin the legislative branch, at least, this country will have the right kind of\nleadership next year to meet the mounting array of dilemmas and disasters at\nhome and abroad.\n# # #\nTOTAL STRENGTH: 293 DEMOCRATS VS. 140 REPUBLICANS (Two seats vacant)\nSIX ECONOMY ROLL CALLS IN THE HOUSE - 1966\nDEMOCRATS VOTING\nREPUBLICANS VOTING\nFOR SPENDING MORE\nFOR CUTS AND SAVING\n82%\n93%\n(Average)\n(Average)\n88%\nFive per cent cut in\n95%\nInterior Appropriations.\n4/6/66\n93%\nFive per cent cut in\n89%\nPostal-Treasury Appro-\npriations.\n4/6/66\n75%\n$12,000,000 Supplemental\n95%\nfor Rent Subsidies.\n3/29/66\n76%\n$750,000 new authority\n95%\nfor H.H.P. House.\n3/22/66\n79%\n$4,600,000 new authority\n94%\nfor Alaska Centennial.\n3/2/66\n83%\n$9,500,000 new authority\n87%\nfor Florida \"Interama\".\n2/3/66\nWHO VOTES FOR HIGHER TAXES?\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nFOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY AT 10:30 A.M.\nTHURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1966\nSTATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER.\nYesterday was the birthday of Thomas Jefferson. Today is the anniversary\nof Abraham Lincoln's death. Tomorrow, as most of us are unhappily aware\neven without this reminder is Great Society Tax Day--the deadline for filing\nyour federal income tax returns for 1965.\nPresident Johnson is in Mexico City today unveiling a statue of Abraham\nLincoln, so I suppose it will not be amiss for me to say a few words in praise\nof Thomas Jefferson.\nJefferson, though he called himself a Republican, is regarded now as the\nFather of the Democratic Party. Lincoln, the first Republican president, was\nhimself a great admirer of Jefferson, saying that \"the principles of Jefferson\nare the definitions and axioms of free society.\" For his part, Jefferson\ndeclared that \"every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle\nWe are all Republicans; we are all Federalists.\"\nSo without quibbling about labels, let me merely note that we are all today\nindebted to Thomas Jefferson for one major contribution to our system of\ngovernment. He was the Founding Father who started the Two-Party System. You\nmight say that, as Vice-President, he was the first minority leader here on\nCapitol Hill. And the country has prospered under the two-party system which\ndeveloped--thanks to Jefferson--outside the provisions of the Constitution.\nIt added another and most important check and balance to our experiment in\nself-government.\nAs to Jefferson's principles, during his presidency he cut federal spending,\nreduced taxes, repaid $33 million of the national debt, and repealed the excise\ntax on whisky. Whether he was the last Democrat or the first Republican to do\nthis I will leave for historians to argue.\nThere certainly can be no argument, however, about the differences of\nprinciple that divide our two parties in this lopsided 89th Congress. There is\nno doubt which is the spending party and which is the prudent party. Nevertheless,\nwe keep hearing noises from the direction of the White House that we 140\nRepublicans in the House of Representatives, outnumbered more than two to one,\n(MORE)\n-2-\nFORD STATEMENT - APRIL 14, 1966\nare wrecking the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's earnest efforts to economize\nand head off higher taxes. The President pleads with us and with the housewives\nand businessmen and the farmers and labor leaders to sharpen our pencils and help\nhim halt inflation.\nWell, I have sharpened my pencil on my income tax forms, so let me show you\na little simple arithmetic:\nAt this moment, there are 293 Democrats and 140 Republicans in the House.\nThat is a two-to-one majority with 13 votes to spare. Even the liberal\n\"Democratic Study Group\" in the House of Representatives boasts enough members\nto outvote the Republican minority.\nIn the Senate there are 68 Democrats, including Wayne Morse, and 32\nRepublicans. That's also a two-to-one majority with four votes to spare.\nIn short, this is a Blank Check Democratic Congress which can do virtually\nanything it pleases, or anything President Johnson pleases, whether the\nRepublican Loyal Opposition likes it or not. Such lopsided legislative majorities\ncan spend your money, raise your taxes--and that's exactly what this Blank Check\nDemocratic Congress is doing.\nAnd remember, no matter what President Johnson says or how fervently he\npleads with the housewives to stop buying steaks, the responsibility for federal\nspending and for federal taxing rests with the Congress. This Blank Check\nDemocratic Congress will have to face the American voter in November, and the\npeople will know who are the spenders and who are the savers.\nThey will know because there will be roll calls on every spending bill that\ncomes to the House of Representatives which offers any hope of saving a single\nwasted dollar of your money.\nWe asked President Johnson at the outset of this session to put wartime\npriorities on his wartime budget requests. So far he has refused. We have gone\nalong with our elected commander in chief on everything he has asked to support\nour fighting men in South Vietnam--but when I read what is happening over there\nand how we are running short of bombs despite all the billions we have voted\nfor defense, I wonder how long we can underwrite shocking mismanagement in the\nname of national unity.\nWe are certainly going to take hard second looks at all the rest of the\nJohnson-Humphrey spending proposals when the Congress resumes.\nNow here is the record on nondefense spending rolled up by the Blank Check\nDemocratic Congress thus far this session: On six key money measures, an average\n(MORE)\n-3-\nFORD STATEMENT - APRIL 14, 1966\nof 82 per cent of the Democrats have voted for higher spending and, inevitably,\nhigher taxes. (See Table)\nOn the same six roll calls in the House of Representatives, an average of\n93 per cent of my Republican minority colleagues have stood up for economy and\nthe now dwindling hope of holding off inflation and higher federal taxes for\nfuture April fifteenths.\nWe were faced with 3 new spending proposals, all having some merit in normal\ntimes but steamrollered through the Blank Check Democratic Congress by lopsided\nmajorities. Then we tried to trim excess fat from 3 appropriation bills which\ncame to us before the recess. Some of these proposals were worthy, and they had\npowerful advocates. But we are at war--and not doing too well with it. So again\nthe roll was called. Again the result was the same. Ninety-three per cent of\nthe Republicans were for saving; 82 per cent of the Blank Check Democrats were\nfor more spending.\nWho votes for higher taxes? Democrats-- four out of five of them. We cannot\nexpect to stop this steamroller without substantial help from any Jeffersonian\nDemocrats still left in the Congress--and it doesn't look like there are very\nmany of them left.\nBut we are going to make the record clear for the people to judge in\nNovember, and I predict that the next Congress will be known as the Check and\nBalance Congress instead of the Blank Check Congress. I am confident that here\nin the legislative branch, at least, this country will have the right kind of\nleadership next year to meet the mounting array of dilemmas and disasters at\nhome and abroad,\n###\nTOTAL STRENGTH: 293 DEMOCRATS VS. 140 REPUBLICANS (Two seats vacant)\nSIX ECONOMY ROLL CALLS IN THE HOUSE - 1966\nDEMOCRATS VOTING\nREPUBLICANS VOTING\nFOR SPENDING MORE\nFOR CUTS AND SAVING\n82%\n93%\n(Average)\n(Average)\n88%\nFive per cent cut in\n95%\nInterior Appropriations.\n4/6/66\n93%\nFive per cent cut in\n89%\nPostal-Treasury Appro-\npriations.\n4/6/66\n75%\n$12,000,000 Supplemental\n95%\nfor Rent Subsidies.\n3/29/66\n76%\n$750,000 new authority\n95%\nfor H.H.H. House.\n3/22/66\n79%\n$4,600,000 new authority\n94%\nfor Alaska Centennial.\n3/2/66\n83%\n$9,500,000 new authority\n87%\nfor Florida \"Interama\".\n2/3/66\nWHO VOTES FOR HIGHER TAXES?\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nFOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY P. M.\nAPRIL 20, 1966\nSTATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.\nPresident Johnson today asked Congress to give its blessing to a government\ndebt refinancing scheme that resembles a gigantic crap game with the taxpayer\nthe only one who loses.\nWhat the President proposes to do is to dump $4.2 billion in government loans\ninto a pot at the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and invite\ninvestment firms to grab a piece of the action--put some money into a government\nrevolving fund and get paid off with interest by the taxpayer for their trouble.\nThe conventional way to handle this kind of debt is to sell government bonds.\nBut this would show up in President Johnson's budget. It also would be subject\nto the debt limit. If Congress refuses to approve the President's refinancing\nscheme, the projected Johnson deficit for fiscal 1967 will be not $1.8 billion\nbut $6 billion.\nIt costs more in interest to refinance as the President proposes. If Congress\nrubber-stamps the President's refinancing bill, the taxpayer will pay off to\nprivate investors to the tune of up to $210 million more over the 10-year life\nof the refinancing game. The lid also will be off the national debt.\nWhy is Mr. Johnson willing to make a goat of the taxpayer with his refinancing\nscheme?\nHe wants to spend more but make it look like less. He wants a budget that\nlooks smaller on the outside but is bigger on the inside. And he wants to get\nout from under the debt ceiling with government agency loans.\nThis is the Great Deception of the Great Society. Mr. Johnson found himself\nwith a $6 billion fiscal 1967 deficit--not a $1.8 billion red ink figure--until\nhis budget director tucked the ball under his jersey and pulled a sneak run around\nthe budget. Congress has to stop this run around the budget before it crosses the\ngoal line.\nThis devious financing scheme is just another handle for backdoor spending.\nMr. Johnson is trying to treat the taxpayer like the spendthrift husband who\nkeeps his debts hidden from his wife. That chap runs up a lot of bills, consolidates\nhis debts by borrowing fresh money from a finance company at higher rates and then\nblithely resumes his role of the big spender.\nUnless Congress rejects the President's refinancing plan, the road to greater\ninflation will be wide open. Congressional authorizing committees will have\nno say in future lending operations of the agencies involved. The committees will\nnot be standing in the way to say this is as far as you go. They may as well hang\nup a \"gone fishing\" sign over their doore.\n###\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nFOR FRIDAY P.M.'s RELEASE--MAY 13, 1966\nSTATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.\nThe Americans for Democratic Action are opposing President Johnson's plan to\nsell shares in government-owned loans. This may be the one and only time the ADA\nhas ever subscribed to an official position of the Republican Party. In any case,\nI am pleased to say that the ADA is right on this issue.\nIt is significant that the ADA is against Mr. Johnson's financing scheme for\nseveral of the reasons I cited in declaring my opposition to it when the President\nfirst sent his loan pool bill to Congress.\nThe ADA points out, as I did, that this plan will provide a windfall for\nbanking interests and that it will cost the taxpayer millions more a year because\nit is an expensive way for the government to borrow needed funds.\nIt should be added that this move to channel private investors' funds to\nvarious government agencies is a devious device to permit greater government\nspending without having it show up in Mr. Johnson's demonstrably fictitious budget.\nGroups which have previously come out against this bill include the National\nFarmers Union, the Grange, and the National Association of Home Builders. The\nlatest from AFL-CIO President George Meany is that his organization has not taken\na position on it as yet.\nIt has been said that GOP opposition to this bill flies in the face of\ntraditional Republican philosophy. This is utter nonsense.\nRepublicans favor getting the government out of business. But this phoney\nfinancing plan does not accomplish that objective. On the contrary, it is a\nscheme to get business into government in order to promote bigger government\nthrough deficit spending cloaked with the high-interest-cost use of private funds.\nUnder this loan pool proposal, the taxpayer will suffer and suffer grievously.\nThis is why Republicans oppose it. This is why it should be defeated if it comes\nto the House Floor next week.\nIf it is not defeated, it will be because the taxpayer has no lobby in\nWashington.\n###\n(Not printed at Government expense)\nCongressional Record\nPROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 89th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION\nWrite, Wire, or Call the Big Spenders\nSPEECH\nguished chairman of the House Appro-\nOF\npriations Committee, the gentleman from\nHON. FRANK T. BOW\nTexas [Mr. MAHON], when the budget was\nsubmitted to us.\nOF OHIO\nThe Bow expenditure limitation\nIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\namendment has been offered on three\nWednesday, July 20, 1966\nbills this year. Simply stated, this\namendment would have limited Federal\nMr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, yesterday\nspending to 95 percent of what the Pres-\nmorning the President held a conference\nident had proposed in his January budget\nat the White House with House and Sen-\nto spend on items included in these three\nate leaders and with members of the Ap-\nbills. If the amendment had been\npropriations Committees of both bodies.\nadopted each time it was offered, Fed-\nIn short, the purpose of the meeting\neral spending in fiscal 1967 would have\nwas to let us know that Congress is ex-\nbeen reduced by $1.5 billion.\nceeding the President's budget request\nLet me tell you just how much support\nfor fiscal 1967 by $5 to $6 billion and if\nI got from members of the President's\nan effort is not made in Congress to cut\nown party each time this amendment\nback the result will be either a monu-\nwas offered.\nmental deficit or a tax increase.\nOn the Department of Interior and re-\nAccording to news stories on the Pres-\nlated agencies appropriation bill, the\nident's background briefing of the press\namendment received the support of 30\nafter our meeting with him, he indicated\nDemocrats.\nthe following courses of action that\nOn the Departments of Treasury and\nmight be taken to curb our already over-\nPost Office bill, Democrat votes totaled\nheated economy:\nonly 16.\nFirst, the imposition of wage and price\nOn the Departments of Labor and\ncontrols;\nHealth, Education, and Welfare bill,\nSecond, the reduction of Federal ex-\nDemocrat votes for my amendment went\npenditures; and\nup to the grand total of 36.\nThird, face the alternative of a monu-\nWith a present House membership of\nmental Federal deficit or a tax increase.\n294 Democrats and 139 Republicans, it\nThese are precisely the same hard\nis a pretty sorry economy effort when\nchoices that I have pointed to here in the\nonly 30 Democrats, and 16 Democrats,\nwell of the House ever since January 24,\nand 36 Democrats vote to support a\nwhen the President submitted his fiscal\nmodest cut of 5 percent in Federal spend-\n1967 budget to us.\ning on three bills. We all know very well\nI have tried to cut the budget for 1967\nthat such a cut could be absorbed by al-\nand failing that effort I have tried to re-\nmost any Department or agency of the\nduce appropriation bills back to the level\nGovernment without adverse effect on\nof the President's requests. Republi-\nany essential program.\ncans have supported my efforts but I am\nOn my motion to recommit the second\nsorry to say that most members of the\nsupplemental appropriation bill for 1966\nPresident's own party have rejected his\nto the House Appropriations Committee\nleadership on budget matters and have\nwith instructions to eliminate the initial\nfailed to support my efforts to curtail\nfunding of the rent supplement program,\n1967 appropriations and spending. They\nonly 65 Democrats voted in the affirma-\nhave even refused to follow the thought-\ntive. Of course, the initial funding of\nful admonitions uttered by our distin-\nthe rent supplement program, as well as\n226-036-4199\n2\nthe National Teachers Corps was much\nis causing this alarming increase in the\ndesired by the President and, as a con-\ninflation of prices? Well, I can tell you\nsequence thereof, Larry O'Brien and his\nthe greatest single cause is the astro-\nlegislative liaison troops marched up\nnomical Federal spending binge which we\nhere and twisted enough arms to assure\nhave been on for the past 2 years. And\nits approval.\nthat binge has been made worse by the\nOn six economy rollcalls in the House\nfact that we are now incurring rapidly\nthis year, an average of 82 percent of the\nand sharply rising expenditures for the\nDemocrats voted for more spending while\nwar effort in Vietnam.\nan average of 93 percent of the Repub-\nIf the majority party in this House\nlicans voted for cuts or savings. A tabu-\nsincerely wants to curtail nondefense\nlation of the percentages on these six\nspending and will offer amendments to\nrollcalls appears at the end of my re-\neffect such economies, I am certain mem-\nmarks.\nbers of the minority party will give over-\nAfter I had tested the temper of the\nwhelming support to such efforts. But,\nHouse and had found almost no support\nthese efforts will have to go down the\namong Democrats for cutting the appro-\nline on all nondefense spending because\npriation requests for 1967, I offered\nwe can ill afford a policy of political\namendments to cut individual appropria-\npicking and choosing which programs are\ntion items back to the level of the Presi-\nto be fully funded or which are to be\ndent's requests. And even then, the\ncut back.\nmajority party refused to support my\nefforts.\nThis afternoon at 4 o'clock, the Presi-\ndent will be holding a press conference\nI have suggested here in the well of\nthe House that the President veto those\nwith live radio and television coverage.\nauthorization and appropriation bills\nI would like to suggest that during that\nthat exceed his requests. And, I might\nconference he make an appeal to the\npublic to write, wire, or call their Mem-\nnote that he failed to mention that alter-\nbers of Congress and demand across-\nnative at his press briefing yesterday.\nthe-board economies in nondefense\nUp to this time, he has not seen fit to\nfollow my suggestion but I do hope that\nspending. Such an appeal might awaken\nin the days ahead he will give this seri-\nthe big spenders here in Congress to the\nous consideration. Earlier Presidents\nfact that we cannot spend and spend\nhave vetoed such bills and, insofar as I\nand tax and tax without doing irrepa-\nam concerned, there is no reason why\nrable damage to the economy of our\nPresident Johnson should not do SO.\nbeloved country.\nThe President has taken great pride in\n6 economy rollcalls in the House, 1966\nthe fact that the budget deficit for fiscal\n1966, which ended 2 weeks ago, was only\nDemo-\nRepub-\n$2.3 billion. That small deficit did not\ncrats\nlicans\ncome about as the result of any general\nvoting\nvoting\nfor\nfor cuts\neconomy efforts by the administration,\nspending\nor sav-\nor the Congress. It was occasioned in-\nmore\nings (93-\n(82-per-\npercent\nstead by growth in the economy and by\ncent\naverage)\nthe acceleration of corporate and indi-\naverage)\nvidual tax payments.\nIn the calendar quarter that ended\n5-percent cut in Interior appropri-\nPercent\nPercent\njust 2 weeks ago on June 30, the gross\nations, Apr. 6, 1966\n88\n95\n5-percent cut in Treasury-Post\nnational product increased by only $10.8\nOffice appropriations, Apr. 6,\nbillion, the smallest gain since the fall\n1966\n93\n89\n$12,000,000 supplemental for rent\nof 1964. But more alarming than this\nsubsidies, Mar. 29, 1966\n75\n95\nsmall gain, is the fact that $6.5 billion\n$750,000 new authority for H.H.H.\nhouse, Mar. 22, 1966\n76\n95\nof the gain was eaten up by inflation.\n$4,600,000 new authority for Alaska\nThus, the real gain in the output of\nCentennial, Mar. 2, 1966\n79\n94\ngoods and services in that quarter was\n$9,500,000 new authority for Flor-\nida \"Interama,\" Feb. 3, 1966\n83\n87\nonly $4.3 billion. What do you think\n226-036-4199\nU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:196\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\nFOR THURSDAY P.M.'S RELEASE\nJULY 21, 1966\nSTATEMENT BY HOUSE MINORITY LEADER GERALD R. FORD, R-MICHIGAN.\nThe federal deficit for fiscal 1967 will run between $10 and $15 billion\nbecause President Johnson and the Democrats have refused to make allowances for\nthe cost of the Vietnam War.\nLast January we Republicans asked that the President assign priorities to\nfederal spending in view of the war's tremendous cost. We were appalled when\nMr. Johnson chose instead to ask Congress for an additional $3.2 billion for\nGreat Society programs. We were amazed when Mr. Johnson told Congress the nation\ncould afford both ruffles and rifles.\nIt is because the President let them loose last January that the spendthrift\nDemocrats in the House and Senate have gone wild with the people's money and that\nof American children still unborn.\nMy prediction of a $10 to $15 billion deficit this fiscal year is not\nsomething picked out of the air. It is based on the Democrats' own figures.\nThe President originally predicted a $1.8 billion deficit. He says\nDemocrats in Congress already have added a billion dollars to his non-defense\nbudget requests and threaten to add on a total of $6 billion. Now comes House\nAppropriations Chairman George Mahon, D-Tex., with the statement that the Defense\nDepartment will ask for as much as $10 billion extra for the Vietnam War in\nJanuary.\nEven if we were charitable with the Democrats and figured there would be\nno add-ons to non-defense spending besides the billion dollars, the projected\n(OVER)\n-2-\nLBJ AND ECONOMY STATEMENT\ndeficit for this fiscal year would run to nearly $13 billion. This assumes that\nthe supplemental appropriation for the Vietnam War is $10 billion and is charged\nentirely to the fiscal 1967 budget.\nMr. Johnson's pose as a champion of economy would be believable if he had\nassumed it last January when he sent his 1966-67 budget to Congress and had acted\naccordingly. But it is only now that the big-spending Democrats in Congress have\nadded a billion to his non-defense spending requests that the gentleman from\nTexas says whoa. It is Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats who have put the\nfederal government on a wild spending spree. Is the President now to be hailed\nas a hero for applying the checkrein to his Democratic foremen--straw bosses who\nhave threatened to inflate his spending requests by $6 billion?\nIf the President were sincere about spending cutbacks, he would veto one of\nthe appropriations bills in excess of his budget and toss it back at Democrats\nin Congress. He also could freeze federal spending in various non-defense\ncategories.\nAt the opening of this session of Congress, we Republicans sought priorities\non federal spending. Now that the cost of the Vietnam War is approximating\n$2 billion a month, the President is belatedly admitting we were right by tardily\ntrying to hold back free-spending Democrats in Congress.\n###\nFOR THE HOUSE\nFOR THE SENATE:\nOF REPRESENTATIVES:\nEverett M. Dirksen\nTHE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP\nof Illinois\nGerald R. Ford\nOF THE CONGRESS\nof Michigan\nThomas H. Kuchel\nof California\nLeslie C. Arends\nof Illinois\nBourke B. Hickenlooper\nof lowa\nMelvin R. Laird\nPress Release\nof Wisconsin\nMargaret Chase Smith\nof Maine\nJohn J. Rhodes\nof Arizona\nGeorge Murphy\nof California\nH. Allen Smith\nof California\nMilton R. Young\nof North Dakota\nBob Wilson\nof California\nHugh Scott\nIssued following a\nof Pennsylvania\nCharles E. Goodell\nLeadership Meeting\nof New York\nPRESIDING:\nRichard H. Poff\nFebruary 2, 1967\nof Virginia\nThe National Chairman\nWilliam C. Cramer\nRay C. Bliss\nof Florida\nSTATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN\nEvery American family knows the meaning of the word \"budget\".\nEvery American family knows what it is to try to make ends meet --\nespecially these days. Every American family knows that, while it\ncan perhaps for a little while live beyond its means, it cannot do\nso for very long without finding itself on the short and rocky road\nto the poor house.\nA government -- any government -- is no exception for a govern-\nment is, after all, nothing more nor less than a collection of\nfamilies. Like a family, a government cannot rely on hoped-for\nincome nor can it endure economically for very long if needless\nexpenditures which it can afford are permitted I suggest, there-\nfore, that rather than dealing in countless billions of dellars and\nconfusing ourselves with endless strings of acros, we think hereafter\nof the operation of this government in family terms.\nAs has been emphasized already by the news media throughout the\ncountry and as has been emphasized already by members of the Congress,\nthis Administration's budget for the coming fiscal year is difficult\nto comprehend. It contains sums that are astronomical. It contains,\nto be sure, provision for necessities -- especially as regards the\nfearful conflict in Viet Nam -- but it contains also a large number\nof absolutely non-essential items which, in aggregate, can and should\nand will be eliminated if the still-heavy Democratic majorities in\nthe Congress will cooperate with us.\nThe budget of the United States, as submitted to the Congress by\nRoom S-124 U.S. Capitol-(202) 225-3700\nConsultant to the Leadership-John B. Fisher\nSenator Dirksen\n- 2 -\nthe Johnson-Humphrey Administration, is as big as a metropolitan\ntelephone directory and every page contains print just as small. The\nRepublican members of the Congress will, without exception, in the\ndays immediately ahead, be examining every line and item of this\nbudget with clear and knowledgable eyes. We are determined to vote\nto retain every item of necessity both in domestic and defense\nprograms but are equally determined, if the Democrat majorities in the\nCongress can be so persuaded, to eliminate every single item, large,\nmiddling or small, that should be cut. Our recommendations in the\ndays ahead will be specific, clear and unmistakable. In this area\nof non-essential expenditures, we are prepared to wield a swinging\nmeat-cleaver or use a delicate scalpel as the operation may require.\nFrom our school-day reading we have ever more occasion to recall,\nfrom Dicken's \"David Copperfield\", the timeless and timely lesson in\nbudgeteering given young Copperfield by the seasoned and sensible\nMr. Micawber:\n\"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure\nnineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual\nincome twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty\npounds ought and six, result misery, The blossom\nis blighted, the leaf is withered, the God of\nday goes down upon the dreary scene and you are,\nin short, flat.\"\nIf the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and its still dominant\nDemocrat majorities in the Congress persist in the course they have\nnow mapped out for the American people we too will be \"in short,\nflat\". This the Republican members of the Congress will do every-\nthing within their minority power to prevent. Let those in the\nseats of majority and authority be advised.\nSTATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD\nThe \"Big If\" budget of the United States for the coming fiscal\nyear, as presented to this Congress by the Jonnson-Humphrey Adminis-\ntration, is a bid budget. It should be returned to the President by\nthe Congress immediately, with the demand that it be reviewed and\nrevised into a document that makes sense to the Congress and to the\nAmerican people.\nThis budget is misleading. We don't believe in it. The people\ndon't believe in it. At a time when the living costs of every\nAmerican family have never been higher -- at a time when family\nincome just can't keep up -- at a time when we are Fighting the\nthird largest war in our history -- this budget tries to provide\nfor both guns and butter. It actually contains a great deal of lard.\nThe American people will not tolerate such fiscal manipulation.\nThey will no longer permit such insults to their intelligence and\nraids on their pocketbooks. The budget is agonizing table-talk in\nevery American home. The press is already echoing the same angry\nfeeling. One illustration -- shown here from a recent column in\nthe Washington Daily News --- makes the point dramatically. By any\nestimate hundreds of dollars will be added to each family's burden.\nThis budget should be labelled the \"Big If\" budget. It is\nthe biggest and the \"iffiest\"in American history:\nif the Administration's estimate of the cost of Viet Nam is\nanywhere near accurate;\nif the Congress votes a postal fee increase;\nif the Congress approves an income tax increase;\nif the Congress approves the various tax measures the\nAdministration recommends;\nif the program cutbacks promised actually occur;\nif the economy, despite the Administration's manipulations.\nproves healthy.\nRep. Ford\n-2-\nWe cannot as a people, gamble on so many and such big \"ifs\".\nIf a business were operated with a budget like this, it would\ngo bankrup in a week. If a family budget depended on any such\nreasoning, the family would be cold, hungry and without a roof\nalmost overnight.\nWhat must be done can be done by this Congress to make this\nbad budget a good one. What must be done can be done by the Congress\nif the Democrat majorities in the Congress will heed the people's\ndemand for economy. The Republican minorities in the Congress are\ndetermined to act. Let the Democrat leadership take heed.\nFor Release Friday A.M.s\nJune 9, 1967\nJOINT STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVES\nGERALD R. FORD (R-MICH.) HOUSE MINORITY LEADER, AND\nJOHN J. RHODES (R-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE\nOn March 22, 1967, we introduced identical House Resolutions, (H. Res. 406\nand H. Res. 407) respectfully requesting the President to reconsider his fiscal\n1968 budget and to indicate where substantial reductions in spending could best\nbe made. (See text.)\nThese resolutions were referred to the Committee on Appropriations which\nhas taken no action upon them. Meanwhile the Administration's own estimates of\nthe probable deficit under the 1968 budget have increased and the House of\nRepresentatives, by yesterday's vote of 210 to 197 rejecting the Administration's\nrequest to raise the national debt ceiling to a record $365 billion, has emphatie\ncally reflected the strong sentiment of the American people that ever-rising\ndeficits and runaway spending must be curbed in this time of international and\nfiscal crisis.\nWe are therefore today introducing a Special House Resolution under Rule 27,\nSection 4 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, calling for immediate\nfloor consideration of our earlier proposal to send the budget back to President\nJohnson for revision downward. Under this rule, when a public bill or resolution\nhas remained in a standing committee 30 days or more without action, members may\nfile a special resolution with the Rules Committee to bring the bill or resolu-\ntion up for immediate consideration by the Committee of the Whole House. (See\ntext.)\n***\nSPECIAL RESOLUTION\nThat upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall immediately resolve\nitself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the\nconsideration of H. Res. 406, requesting the President to submit to the House of\nRepresentatives recommendations for budget reductions. After general debate,\nwhich shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue not to exceed 3 hours,\nto be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member\nof the Committee on Appropriations, the resolution shall be read for amendment\nunder the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the resolu-\ntion for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with\nsuch amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be con-\nsidered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without\nintervening motion except one motion to recommit.\n***\nH. RES. 406\nWhereas the House of Representatives must, in the public interest, make\nsubstantial reductions in the President's budget for the fiscal year 1968: Now,\ntherefore, be it\nResolved, That the President be respectfully requested to indicate the\nplaces and amounts in his budget for the fiscal year 1968 where he\nthinks substantial reductions may be made.\nResolved, That a copy of this resolution be submitted to the President.\nFor Release Friday A.M.s\nJune 9, 1967\nJOINT STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVES\nGERALD R. FORD (R-MICH.) HOUSE MINORITY LEADER, AND\nJOHN J. RHODES (R-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE\nOn March 22, 1967, we introduced identical House Resolutions, (H. Res. 406\nand H. Res. 407) respectfully requesting the President to reconsider his fiscal\n1968 budget and to indicate where substantial reductions in spending could best\nbe made. (See text.)\nThese resolutions were referred to the Committee on Appropriations which\nhas taken no action upon them. Meanwhile the Administration's own estimates of\nthe probable deficit under the 1968 budget have increased and the House of\nRepresentatives, by yesterday's vote of 210 to 197 rejecting the Administration's\nrequest to raise the national debt ceiling to a record $365 billion, has emphatie\ncally reflected the strong sentiment of the American people that ever-rising\ndeficits and runaway spending must be curbed in this time of international and\nfiscal crisis.\nWe are therefore today introducing a Special House Resolution under Rule 27,\nSection 4 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, calling for immediate\nfloor consideration of our earlier proposal to send the budget back to President\nJohnson for revision downward. Under this rule, when a public bill or resolution\nhas remained in a standing committee 30 days or more without action, members may\nfile a special resolution with the Rules Committee to bring the bill or resolu-\ntion up for immediate consideration by the Committee of the Whole House. (See\ntext.)\n***\nSPECIAL RESOLUTION\nThat upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall immediately resolve\nitself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the\nconsideration of H. Res. 406, requesting the President to submit to the House of\nRepresentatives recommendations for budget reductions. After general debate,\nwhich shall be confined to the resolution and shall continue not to exceed 3 hours,\nto be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member\nof the Committee on Appropriations, the resolution shall be read for amendment\nunder the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the resolu-\ntion for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with\nsuch amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be con-\nsidered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without\nintervening motion except one motion to recommit.\n* * *\nH. RES. 406\nWhereas the House of Representatives must, in the public interest, make\nsubstantial reductions in the President's budget for the fiscal year 1968: Now,\ntherefore, be it\nResolved, That the President be respectfully requested to indicate the\nplaces and amounts in his budget for the fiscal year 1968 where he\nthinks substantial reductions may be made.\nResolved, That a copy of this resolution be submitted to the President.\n21 June 1967\nIIIII\nU. S. HOUSE\nOF REPRESENTATIVES\nREPUBLICAN POLICY\nCOMMITTEE\nREP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN\n140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING\nTELEPHONE 225-6168\n10\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON PUBLIC DEBT CEILING - H.R. 10867\nWe are opposed to H.R. 10867. It is in substance and effect the same bill\nwhich was rejected by the House of Representatives on June 7, 1967. It would even-\ntually increase the borrowing authority of the Treasury to a maximum of $365 billion.\nCleverly camouflaged by step increases and a \"sliding scale\" debt ceiling, the\nproposed bill is again designed to accommodate prospective deficits of $29 billion.\nIt represents on the part of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration, an arrogant demand\nthat the House repudiate its earlier position and without any additional information\nsanction the Administration's dangerous and irresponsible approach to federal\nspending and budget deficits.\nThe vote on the earlier Debt Ceiling Bill reflected a strong sentiment on\nthe part of the American people that ever-rising deficits must be curbed. Despite\nthis fact, the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has refused to heed the request of\nHouse Republicans to revise its 1968 Budget, and to cut back on nonessential spend-\ning. It has once again resorted to juggling and gimmickry, evasiveness and fiscal\nsleight-of-hand.\nFollowing the rejection of the earlier request for a $29 billion increase\nin the Debt Ceiling, a member of the Federal Reserve Board cautioned that spending\non the war in Vietnam \"undoubtedly\" would exceed the figure contained in President\nJohnson's Budget.\nAn editorial in the June 11, 1967 New York Times pointedly stated:\n\"There is sound basis for criticizing the Administration's handling\nof the debt. Its estimates for the new fiscal budget are clearly\nunrealistic; spending will be well above estimates, largely because\nof Vietnam, while receipts will be lower, largely because of the\nslowdown in domestic business activity The Administration ought to\npresent a revised Budget.\n(over)\nA June 14, 1967 release by the Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee\nwarned:\n\"The Joint Economic Committee is and has been very much concerned\nabout the state of the economy and the growing prospects that the\nNation faces, the largest Budget deficit since World War II in the\ncoming fiscal year.\nDeficits of these magnitudes, if realized, coming on top of the\nbuilt-in cost-push inflationary pressures caused by wage and price\nincreases over and above the guidelines, would in all probability\nbring about a return of excessively high interest rates and tight\nmoney conditions similar to, if not worse than, last year. This\nis a meat-axe approach to the solution of the problems of the Nation\nwhich could produce great harm to just those sections of the economy\nleast able to bear its burdens, namely, consumers, small businessmen,\nfarmers and home buyers. \"\nAnd on June 15, 1967, the former Commissioner of Internal Revenue in\nthe Johnson-Humphrey Administration predicted that an escalating Budget deficit\nmay require an income tax increase as high as 10% for 1968.\nIn this fiscal crisis, the Pepublican Resolution which would return the\n1968 Budget to the President and request that he indicate the places and amounts\nwhere he believes that reductions can be made, should receive priority consideration.\nTo date the Democratic Leadership has refused to schedule this important measure\neven though the Republican Leadership has introduced a special Discharge Resolution\nunder Rule 27, Section 4 of the Rules of the House of Representatives.\nUntil the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has reviewed and reassessed\nits fiscal policies and forwarded to Congress up-to-date and credible information\nregarding anticipated expenditures and revenues, the requested Debt Ceiling increase\nshould not be granted. The Debt Limit should be continued at the present $336\nbillion level. This will be adequate to finance the Covernment expenditures\nthrough September 30, 1967. The Republican Leadership and the Republican Members\nof the Ways and Means Committee have introduced a bill (H.P. 10661) which would\naccomplish this result. We urge its enactment and the rejection of H.R. 10867.\n--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--\nStatement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.\nJanuary 9, 1968\nThe President currently is working on the fiscal 1969 budget, which as I\nunderstand it will be submitted to the Congress about Jan. 29 in an entirely new\nformat.\nThe new budget ostensibly will be a consolidation of the three budgets\nformerly presented to Congress by the President--the Administrative Budget with\nwhich most of us are familiar, the National Income Accounts Budget and the Cash\nBudget.\nI would sound a note of caution concerning the new budget for fiscal 1969.\nIt should be remembered that the Johnson Administration nas a habit of changing\nthe rules of the game whenever the score starts to against it. Too often in\nthe past we have found the Johnson Administration tending to fuzz up what it\ndoes not conceal and making estimates fantastically far from the mark.\nThe budgetary record of the Johnson Administration has been abysmally poor--\nand the proposed budget for fiscal 1969 must be viewed in the light of that record.\nLet us not forget that President Johnson forecast a fiscal 1968 deficit of\n$8.1 billion in January, 1967, only to raise that deficit estimate in August to\n$23.6 billion with a tax increase and $29 billion without it. Currently, as you\nknow, the outlook is for a $19 to $20 billion fiscal 1968 deficit without a tax\nincrease--pared down as a result of congressional pressure for spending reductions.\nLet us not forget, either, that President Johnson predicted a fiscal 1967\ndeficit of only $1.8 billion in January of 1966 but wound up that fiscal year with\nan actual deficit of $9.9 billions.\nThis scorecard indicates you have to take a Johnson deficit estimate and\nmultiply by at least three.\nThis is President Johnson budgetary record as he persists in pursuing his\nmistaken guns-and-butter policy. Whether looked upon as promises or projections,\nthe most recent annual forecasts made by the President in his budget documents\nappear hardly to be worth the paper they are written on. If a housewife managed\nthe family budget that way, her husband would say she was suffering from a\nCredibility Gap.\nThis is tragicin time when the federal budget--a financial report to the\nAmerican neople--should be looked upon as the most important financial document\nin the world.\nPresident Johnson's budget should be a model of integrity. It affects the\nlives and pocketbooks of all Americans and the financial underpinnings of the\nwestern world. Its standards should be the highest.\nThe Johnson Administration's budgetary record can only fill us with misgivings.\n###\n--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--\nStatement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.\nJanuary 9, 1968\nThe President currently is working on the fiscal 1969 budget, which as I\nunderstand it will be submitted to the Congress about Jan. 29 in an entirely new\nformat.\nThe new budget ostensibly will be a consolidation of the three budgets\nformerly presented to Congress by the President--the Administrative Budget with\nwhich most of us are familiar, the National Income Accounts Budget and the Cash\nBudget.\nI would sound a note of caution concerning the new budget for fiscal 1969.\nIt should be remembered that the Johnson Administration has a habit of changing\nthe rules of the game whenever the score starts to go against it. Too often in\nthe past we have found the Johnson Administration tending to fuzz up what it\ndoes not conceal and making estimates fantastically far from the mark.\nThe budgetary record of the Johnson Administration has been abysmally poor--\nand the proposed budget for fiscal 1969 must be viewed in the light of that record.\nLet us not forget that President Johnson forecast a fiscal 1968 deficit of\n$8.1 billion in January, 1967, only to raise that deficit estimate in August to\n$23.6 billion with a tax increase and $29 billion without it. Currently, as you\nknow, the outlook is for a $19 to $20 billion fiscal 1968 deficit without a tax\nincrease--pared down as a result of congressional pressure for spending reductions.\nLet us not forget, either, that President Johnson predicted a fiscal 1967\ndeficit of only $1.8 billion in January of 1966 but wound up that fiscal year with\nan actual deficit of $9.9 billions.\nThis scorecard indicates you have to take a Johnson deficit estimate and\nmultiply by at least three.\nThis is President Johnson's budgetary record as he persists in pursuing his\nmistaken guns-and-butter policy. Whether looked upon as promises or projections,\nthe most recent annual forecasts made by the President in his budget documents\nappear hardly to be worth the paper they are written on. If a housewife managed\nthe family budget that way, her husband would say she was suffering from a\nCredibility Gap.\nThis is tragic in a time when the federal budget--a financial report to the\nAmerican people--should be looked upon as the most important financial document\nin the world.\nPresident Johnson's budget should be a model of integrity. It affects the\nlives and pocketbooks of all Americans and the financial underpinnings of the\nwestern world. Its standards should be the highest.\nThe Johnson Administration's budgetary record can only fill us with misgivings.\n# # #\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\n--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--\nJanuary 29, 1968\nPresident Johnson is overcommitting the American people in his 1969 budget.\nHe is trying to do too much domestically at a time when the Nation is\nsorely overburdened by the Vietnam War and the people are shouldering a growing\ntax load at the state and local levels.\nThis is the fifth Johnson budget which fails to set spending priorities.\nThat is a mistake. We can move this country ahead even in time of war, but we\nshould do it without pushing the country to the edge of bankruptcy. This\nbudget must be reduced.\nPresident Johnson says he wants to fight inflation but he is going off in\nall directions at once. He talks of taxing more to fight inflation but at the\nsame time he seeks to spend more. There is no joy for the taxpayer in the\nPresident's budget and not much reassurance for the Nation. America deserves\na better deal.\nThe better way to fight inflation and high interest rates is to use\nrestraint in federal spending. There is no belt-tightening in this budget--the\nkind we need to avoid a tax increase.\nJohnson uses the old theme that every bit of his $10.4 billion spending\nincrease is unavoidable and that his budget can't be cut. That's absurd and\nincredible. He said the same about his 1968 budget, yet Congress reduced it\nsubstantially. Small wonder the American people just don't believe this\nAdministration any more. That's the kind of presidential talk that dug and then\nwidened the credibility gap.\nNowhere in this budget is there an attempt to re-tailor federal programs\nand raise the level of efficiency in the federal government.\nThis is an unbelievable budget.\n# # #\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\n--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--\nJanuary 29, 1968\nPresident Johnson is overcommitting the American people in his 1969 budget.\nHe is trying to do too much domestically at a time when the Nation is\nsorely overburdened by the Vietnam War and the people are shouldering a growing\ntax load at the state and local levels.\nThis is the fifth Johnson budget which fails to set spending priorities.\nThat is a mistake. We can move this country ahead even in time of war, but we\nshould do it without pushing the country to the edge of bankruptcy. This\nbudget must be reduced.\nPresident Johnson says he wants to fight inflation but he is going off in\nall directions at once. He talks of taxing more to fight inflation but at the\nsame time he seeks to spend more. There is no joy for the taxpayer in the\nPresident's budget and not much reassurance for the Nation. America deserves\na better deal.\nThe better way to fight inflation and high interest rates is to use\nrestraint in federal spending. There is no belt-tightening in this budget--the\nkind we need to avoid a tax increase.\nJohnson uses the old theme that every bit of his $10.4 billion spending\nincrease is unavoidable and that his budget can't be cut. That's absurd and\nincredible. He said the same about his 1968 budget, yet Congress reduced it\nsubstantially. Small wonder the American people just don't believe this\nAdministration any more. That's the kind of presidential talk that dug and then\nwidened the credibility gap.\nNowhere in this budget is there an attempt to re-tailor federal programs\nand raise the level of efficiency in the federal government.\nThis is an unbelievable budget.\n###\nCONGRESSMAN\nNEWS\nGERALD R. FORD\nHOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER\nRELEASE\n--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--\nFebruary 1, 1968\nPresident Johnson declares in his 1968 Economic Report issued today: \"Now\nrestraint is essential to our economic health.\" I could not agree with him more.\nThe question is what kind of restraint.\nThe President proposes to increase federal spending by $10.4 billion in\nfiscal 1969, to tax the American people an additional $12 billion, to incur a\nfiscal 1969 deficit of $20 to $30 billion without an income tax increase and an\n$8 to $15 billion deficit with one. Where is the restraint?\nThe President says in his Economic Report: \"Sharply rising Federal spending\nwas a strong expansionary force in the economy between mid-1965 and mid-1967.\"\nHe says nothing about the fact that the steep climb in Federal spending during\nthat period was an inflationary force. He says nothing about the fact that\nFederal spending should have been sharply reduced beginning in late 1965 and\nearly 1966 because the economy had become over-heated and a price rise spiral had\nbeen touched off by the Administration's over-expansionary policies.\nSome of the current observations in the President's Economic Report are\nclearly more accurate than his review of the past. He states that \"because of\nthe already high level of defense outlays, total Federal expenditures are too\nlarge to be piled on top of private normal demand without overheating our economy.\nIt is because private demand has now returned to normal after its temporary\nweakness that we now need new measures of fiscal restraint.\"\nI agree with the President that the total expenditures he proposes for fiscal\n1969 are too huge to be piled on top of private spending. His proposed budget\nclearly is inflationary and must be substantially reduced.\nThe President describes demand in the private sector as \"normal.\" We\ncertainly do not need an income tax increase to dampen normal demand. In fact,\nleading economists are predicting that the economy will slow down after mid-year\nwithout a tax increase.\nThe following conclusion is inescapable from the President's own Economic\nReport: The first place that restraint must be applied if the economy is to be\nrestored to health is in the federal government--in the White House itself.\nI applaud the President's appeal for wage and price restraint on the part\nof labor and management. I believe he would be more successful in such efforts\nif he himself would demonstrate a sense of responsibility through genuine\nrestraint in federal spending.\n# # #"
}