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 Lyndon Johnson.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525583
label
Ford Press Releases - Transcript Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership ("Ev and Jerry" Shows), 1965
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525583
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Transcript Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership ("Ev and Jerry" Shows), 1965
description
This file contains Lyndon Johnson.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Washington (D.C.)
Republican National Committee (U.S.)
Apportionment
Great Society
Home rule
Intergovernmental relations
Legislation
Poverty programs
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525583
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1965-10-31
month
10
year
1965
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
9c23943dbb3ce1f9
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D9, folder "Ford Press Releases - Transcript
Joint Senate-House Republican Leadership ("Ev and Jerry" Shows), 1965" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
To Jerry Ford
FROM ROBERT HUMPHREYS X3700
For your information, there
are only 3 copies made be-
sides the original of the
Joint Leadership press con-
ference transcripts. The
original and the tape are
kept at the National Commit-
tee; your office, Senator
Dirksen's office and my of-
fice get the other 3 copies.
Further FYI, these are not
available until 24 hours
after the press conference
but we always make them
available to the press when
they want to visit my of-
fice and look at the trans-
cripts.
Digitized from Box D9 of The Ford Congressional Papers:
Press Secretary and Speech File at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
SENATOR DIRKSEN - REPRESENTATIVE FORD
January 11, 1965
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, first, just let me
say HAPPY NEW YEAR. It's a little belated, but I think it is still
in order. We're glad to see you and I hope that at each succeeding
Press Conference that we have this room filled. I'm like the preacher -
I don't like to see any empty benches when I prepare to hurl some
assorted homilies and preschments at you. So, here we go.
When defeat comes to a major political party in this country,
invariably 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
uneasiness. Many suggestions, both formal and informal, for action pour
from numerous sources.
We, the members of the Joint Senate-House Republican Leader-
ship. are fully cognisant 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 recognised party leaders, numerous paths that we might follow.
Always, certain basic facts have emerged:
First, that the only elected Republican officials of the
Federal Establishment are the Republican members of the United States
AALD AUVUNIT
2
Senate and the House of Representatives. Obviously and beyond dispute,
they will guide Republican Party policy at the mtional level in the
absence of a Republican President and Vice President by the record they
write in 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 the 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 consensus
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.
GENALD FORD
3
STATEMENT BY REP. FORD: May I say at the outset that it's
& real pleasure and a privilege to be here and I hope to get better
acquainted and see all of you more frequently.
I think it's obvious that Senator Dirksen and I haven't
formal statement
deliberately papered the House this morning. We propose to give the ages
Republican Party a unified leadership Is 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 establishment 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 Officer and Administrator of the new Republican
Coordinating Committee, and through the National Republican Committee
to provide such staff assistance and funds as may be necessary. Mr. Burch
himself suggested we regard this role an implicit responsibility for him
or for whomever 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 the 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
4
issues. The recruiting sources for these task forces, which would
report to the Joint Leadership, are clearly delineated on the organi-
sation chart which we are making public today.
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 convinced
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 goal is results and we intend to achieve them.
5
QUESTION: Does your statement mean now that Dean Burch
will not be replaced as Republican National Chairman?
REP. FORD: This Republican Coordinating Committee was
established without any relationship to that contest that may or may
not take place in Chicago in January. The statement, I think, speaks
for itself in this regard.
QUESTION: What effect do you think the statement will have
on the contest?
REP. FORD: I don't believe it will have any impact one way
or another.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, in what ways does this Coordinating
Committee change the role of the Republican National Committee?
REP. FORD: It doesn't have any impact on the responsibilities
of the Republican National Committee. This is an attempt by the Joint
Senate-House Leadership to better coordinate the efforts of all of the
segments of the Republican Party...The former Presidential nominees, the
Governors, and Joint Senate-House Leadership.
QUESTION: Does this mean a new job for Dean Burch, or if
he leaves, the chairmanship of the National Committee will also go to
his successor?
REP. FORD: The statement clearly covers that. This will be
an added responsibility of the Republican National Chairman.
QUESTION: Did Mr. Burch sit in on the meeting this morning?
REP. FORD: Yes, Mr. Burch - as the Republican National
Chairman - has in the past - did attend our Joint Leadership Meeting... a
FORD
6
National Chairman in the future, of course, will do the same.
QUESTION: Does he gà along with this -
REP. FORD: Yes, he has agreed that this is a constructive
step to better coordinate our activities.
QUESTION: Mr. Burch, General Eisenhower has... (LAUGHTER)
(I'll try again!)
Mr. Ford, General Eisenhower has suggested that there should
be a new structuring of the Party. Do you know if Dean has given his
approval to this restructuring?
REP. FORD: I believe that he is informed as to the content.
Whether or not he has specifically approved the chart which has been
distributed, I couldn't tell you.
QUESTION: Has the Republican Governors Association given
this at least indirect sanction?
REP. FORD: Well they, of course, at their conference in
Denver a month or 80 ago did come up with a suggestion of a meeting with
legislative leaders. This is a more specific approach, I think, and it's
a broader appr each than the one suggested by the governors.
QUESTION: How do you expect to give the Republican Party
the new image here with this organisation if you put at the top of it
a man whom half the Party is trying to repudiate as a symbol of
Goldwaterism?
REP. FORD: The Repubaican National Chairman is the proper
person to handle the Coordinating Committee. Ah. the Republican National
Chairman, regardless of the person who occupies that post, in my
judgment, ought to handle that responsibility.
7
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Let me amplify a little. Sam, when we set
up the Joint Leadership, we didn't want to take the Chairman from either
the House or the Senate or have it alternated. As a result, it was agreed
that the Republican National Chairman could serve as the Moderator and
we regard him as a Moderator only for purposes of recognition of those
who are at the meeting and to keep it moving. So the fact that Mr. Bursh
was present this morning is in line with the pattern and format that
we're established a long time ago. He IS the Republican National Chair-
man. The leadership is in being. There isn't any reason why he shouldn't
be there and carry on his accustomed duty as the Moderator.
Now, if for any reason, he should be displaced, whoever the
new Chairman might be will serve in that same role. So there is nothing
strange about this at all. We're just continuing a pattern that was
established when Eisenhower left the White House.
QUESTION: Well, Senator, this seems to be upgrading Mr. Burch.
Do you see this as an attempt to rescue him?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: John, this has no effect on it whatsoever.
There was no allusion to Mr. Burch or to the meeting in Chicago in
January. There was no discussion about it. We just carry on a pattern
that has been established a long time ago. And whoever might be the
National Chairman, we will go on exactly as we have before. So there is
no upgrading, there is no downgrading, and we do not mean for a moment
to have any impact upon the deliberations of the National Committee
men and Committee women on the 22nd of January.
QUESTION: Is there any indication that he intends to
resign?
8
SENATOR DIRKSEN: None whatsoever. And may I just dispose
of all that speculation by saying that at no time this morning was it
discussed, there was no allusion to it, we carried on the meeting in
the regular pattern that has always obtained.
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen, the formation on this new
Republican Coordinating group implies that while it may recommend
up to
policy, it will still be unkux the Joint Senate-Nouse Leadership
to decide if those recommendations will be accepted. Is that right?
SENATOR DIRKSHN: Well, the fact of the matter is that
policy finally is determined by the way you vote in the House and the
Senate... that's really the Party image. Somebody used the word a
moment ago... I think we wuld B have done a little more with the image
in the form of a record in other days, if you know what I mann. And
BO, the record, of course, will be actually Party policy in action.
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: You're alluding to Paul Butler's operation
when he set up an Advisory Committee. This is a Coordinating Committee
that is designed to pull Personnel and Task Forces together under a
leadership... and then the last word must necessarily be ours. Now,
how far Paul Butler went in trying to impose the views of the Advisory
Committee upon their leadership, I do not know. I know what the
attitude of the leadership was because their leadership, let me make it
plain, because it was expressed to me in eloquent terms a good many
times in a certain room in the Capitol when I sat down with a very
distinguished gentleman who at that time was leader of the Senate.
9
QUESTION: Senator, all the functions of the Coordinating
Committee. aren't they functions which ordinarily would be carried out
by the National Committee?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Definitely not. First of all, the National
Committee is the operating body between conventions. So much of its
function is administrative in character and it hasn't undertaken to
establish policy
QUESTION: This was not establishing policy but coordinating -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, we are coordinating effort here
at every level of the Party. Now if you look on that chart, you'll
notice that we make provision for & task force, the idea there is that
you secure people in the Party and out of the Party who have peculiar
knowledge on any given subject that is going to be a matter of some
controversy when it comes to both the House and the Senate.
QUESTION: (EVERYBODY TALKS AT ONCE)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Now, wait a minute one at a time
QUESTION: Senator, who are the five Republican Governors
SENATOR DIRKSEN:
has not been determined and probably
that ought to be determined by the Governors Association itself.
QUESTION: Senator, what specific projects would you like to
see these task forces do within 6 to 9 months, say?
SENATOR DIRKSMN: Well, I don't propose to enumerate them.
If I did, I'd probably have to read you the State of the Union Message.
But I'll just give you one. Wright Patman will introduce a proposal very
shortly with respect to our gold reserve. Now that is a matter that is
10
going to brook some real controversy and it's a field where you've got to
find people who have expert knowledge - and there you have an example
of where you can well recruit a task force for purposes of measuring
the impact of that policy 9 whether it's good or bad for the country,
intrinsically or psychologically, and give us the benefit of their advice.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: They will recommend, of course, to the
Joint Leadership, because obviously we're going to have to do the
voting. we have to make the determination, and it's got to come to us.
QUESTION:
spokesmen for this Coordinating Committee
Will the National Chairman be the spokesman?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: He will be spokesman. certainly, in a
sense... in first appointing personnel, appointing task forces,
accepting recommendations and so forth, and generally keeping the thing
into a good, cohesive administrative pattern.
QUESTION: How soon do you expect it to be functioning?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, you will notice in Congressman
Ford's statement that the invitation to the National Chairman to make
these invitations is almost immediate.
QUESTION: Senator, is 1t true that the "HV and Jerry Show"
is due for a limited engagement...ve won't be seeing you much any more?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Why, Roger, you'll probably be seeing us
a lot more maybe... (LAUGHTER).. well, wait a minute, let me finish.
Because if the President is anxious to have a Short Session and get the
boys out of the trenches, so to speak, that means that it will be a
11
working Session and that means that we'll have a lot of things to talk
to you about and statements to be made on policy matters.
QUESTION: Is it Representative Ford's intention to have
weekly "Ev and Jerry?"
SENATOR DIRKSEN: It's our JOINT intention to do so.
QUESTION: Have you thought of any new angles of the program,
Senator?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Now, don't you go saying "TOM AND JERRYJ"
(LAUGHTER)
REPRESENTATIVE FORD: Roger, may I answer at least in part
your question. I want to be very clear. Senator Dirksen and I have
worked together in the past, we will certainly work together in the future.
We will very specifically have Joint Leadership Meetings in the future..
they will be periodic and they will cover the matters of dual interest
to both the House and the Senate. On the other hand, the House leadership
will undoubtedly hold some periodic meetings and it's quite possible
that we'll invite you all to join us at those particular meetings.
QUESTION:Mr. Ford, doesn't the idea of the task forces of
the Coordinating Committee ruffle a little the task forces your new
leadership in the House is creating?
REP. FORD: Not at all. They certainly shouldn't be in
conflict. I would hope and trust they would coordinate their efforts.
I don't think we'll do any duplication because I'm on this particular
Coordinating Committee and I think I'll have something to say about the
task forces that we have as far as the House is concerned.
12
QUESTION: To name a specific example. You already have a
task force working on a Republican alternative on Medicare. Does this
mean the Republican Coordinating Committee would not touch Medicare,
then?
REP. FORD: This decision hasn't been made. We had the
minority members of the House Committee on Ways and Means, who are the
authorities in this field, now working on alternatives as far as Medicare
is concerned. This is something that might come up very quickly in
the House... I would doubt that this particular Coerdinating Committee
task force would have time, under the circumstances, to tackless that
problem.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford,when you have a conflict come up in the
Coerdinating Committee... how much weight is given to the Congressional
Representative who represents the National Committee, the Presidential
nominees and any other persons involved?
REP. FORD: I think the final judgment as to whether we accept
in part or in whole the recommendations will depend upon what the members
of the House and Senate themselves feel ** concerning the task force
reports.
QUESTION: Can you tell us who you recommend for the House
Whip and the House -
REP. FORD: No decision has been made by me at this time
on that problem.
QUESTION: I'm not clear about this thing yet. Is this
merely a proposal, or is this an accomplished fact? If the Governors
have not yet agreed to this, if the former Presidential candidates have
13
not yet agreed to serve, is this just a proposal -
SENATOR DIRESEN: Well, Jeffry, the statement is clear.
QUESTION: Not to me -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We have on this day initiated a proposed
mechanism. This don't spring Phoenix-like out of the atmosphere, full-
blown overnight... we were setting this thing in motion today.
QUESTION: But it hasn't been cleared in advance from the
other groups -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: There have been informal discussions, but
that doesn't mean that all has been settled. But it will be settled,
we hope in reasonably short order.
QUESTION: May I follow with another question. Despite what
you said about the National Committee's administrative function, officially
it is the governing body of the Party. Don't you think the members of
the National Committee will be offended to have no membership on this
other than the Chairman sitting as the umpire of the meeting?
SENATOR DIRESEN: Well, the Chairman will represent the
National Committee, and I expect if that is the desire, you can add to it,
if you like. But we're initiating this proposal now. There will be some
suggestions, I'm sure, as to whether it ought to be enlarged in one
respect or another, but you can't quite say this is & fully accomplished
fact as it stands on the paper, because any proposition of this kind
is obviously subject to adjustment.
QUESTION: Do I understand you correctly to say that Dean
Burch will name the personnel of the task forces?
14
SENATOR DIRKSEN: If he were the National Chairman and
after consultation with every interested body here, you would hit upon
somebody you would want on the task force.
and frankly, that is going
to offer no great difficulty, it never has
QUESTION: Senator, this report says the Republican
National Committee will finance this Coordinating Committee. What is to
prevent them from outting off the money from any proposals that don't
fit in with their Goldwater
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Oh, I suppose if they were a capricious and
arbitrary group they might think along that line, but I anticipate no
such action. I anticipate no such attitude, as a matter of fact.
Because, if that were the case, certainly this wouldn't become a very
coordinating body, but that's the proper source from which it ought to
be financed.
QUESTION: final power kyt by putting them in charge
of the purse strings?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, they aren't in final power so far as
purse strings are concerned, because if, perchance, that question should
ever arise (and frankly, I can't even imagine it with my feeble imagination)
other efforts would be made to finance, and that shouldn't be too difficult.
Having had four years of experience on the Senatorial Campaign Committee
as its Chairman, I never ran into any difficulties on that score, and
QUESTION: Do you have any idea, Sir, how much it will
cost
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I do. And I'll answer that by saying
a substantial sum is going to be allocated for this purpose.
15
QUESTION: About task forces... will you have one on
foreign policy, or will you have one on Viet-Nam... and all down
the line?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, it's hard to tell how many you
will have, but I fancy there'll be quite a number, because we expect,
of course, to pick people on these task forces who have expert
knowledge in the field, and one man may have expert knowledge in
that field, another in the fiscal field, another in the educational
field, another in the labor field... BO in propertion as we need them,
we'll have them set up.
QUESTION: Senator, will they be pretty such ad hoc
committees, or task forces, or will they be continuing -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: John, you'll have to tell me what "ad hoe"
means
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: The public doesn't know and I don't know.
QUESTION: What happened to the idea we were kicking around
here last month... shadow Cabinet -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Shadow Cabinet?
QUESTION: We were talking about that last month -
SENATOR DIRESEN: Andy. I haven't even heard of the Shadow
Cabinet. Are you speaking now of the legislative branch, or the
executive branch?
QUESTION: Well, a Shadow Cabinet for the Executive Branch -
made up of leading Republican statesmen.
16
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I've seen it alluded to... but insofar as I
know, nothing has happened in that field.
QUESTION: Senator, will National Defense be a subject for
your task force, or -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No. I think it would be a proper subject for
a task force, because it would involve, first of all, the expenditure,
the disposition of your various Defense components, the taking out of
being these bases that is a matter of some controversy now, the emerging
of the National Guard and Reserve components... you've got a good many
things in the Defense field to which you can invite a task force that
has some expert knowledge.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: May I say to you that the National
Committeeman and the National Committeewoman of Illinois are Party
officials and they are selected at the National Convention by the
delegates. Far be it from me to undertake to usurp their powers or to
impose my judgment and my will upon them. And for good measure, let me
point it up finally by saying I have not even talked to either one as
to what their disposition is.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied with the present Chairman?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I said I have not imposed my
disposition and, therefore, I would not by word or deed, by action or
whisper... (LAUGHTER) undertake to influence the deliberations at
Chicago.
QUESTION: Senator, would you see such a Committee eliminate
any need for a Mackinaw Island type of policy?
17
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, we had only one Mackinaw Island
conference, and I was there. I can say in the light of hindsight that,
first, it was too large. secondly. it was too far afield, third, it
was too difficult to get to, and fourth, the results were so diffused
when we got through that I had some doubts about its value.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, we could have held it in Saigon..
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No. the statement is clear on that point.
We have heard these expressions of the needs of the Republican Party
as it prepares for 1966 and beyond, and we believe some action is
necessary and this is our method to impart vigor and strength and
knowledge into the operations of the Party.
QUESTION: Thank you.
LIBRARY
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
SENATOR DIRKSKN - REPRESENTATIVE FORD
March 18, 1965
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD: In a series of messages
to 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 locality
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 herioc answer is, of course, the one now being set forth almost
daily by the Johnson Administration, which is: 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 progress
is iggored.
GERALD ADVENIT FORD
2
Federalised schools, text books, and teachers, Federalized
soning, building codes, health centers, and transportation, Federalized
libraries, laboratories, auditoriums and theaters - - all these and much
more are now in prespect 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 don't believe it. The Johnson
program has been so disguised by platitu des and Madison Avenue adjectives
that its real aim has not been recognised. 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 the road is complete Federal control.
GERALD
3
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN: May I say by way of prelude
that both of these statements are somewhat general in character, but it
is done for a purpose. It is by way of establishing a predicate for
statements to follow that will be more specific. We've done a good deal
of research work and developed background data and now, from time to
time, it will follow almost the format that is used when the President,
for instance, sends down his State of the Union Message and then follows
up with specific messages on a great many fields of activity.
The unveiling of President Johnson's "Great Society" makes
it starkly clear that the Federal government has only begun to grow in
size and in power and in cost.
The central thesis of the "Great Society" is that bigger and
bigger 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 government today? The answer is simply: It's
enormous.
Here are some smples 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.
GERALD LIQUARY
4
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... I re-emphasise the amount... $3.8 billion... to $13.6
billion for 1966 - - and that's only a space of 10 years, but it's an
increase of 260 percent. Federal funds now amount to 14 percent of
the 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 the states themselves, and that includes the five
biggest in the Union - - California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois
and Ohio.
To all this we are now going to add President Johnson's
"Great Society." There is no conceivable way to estimate the future
cost. The sky's the limit.
The President has already told us that balancing the budget
"too quickly" can be "self-defenting." Thus the President and the
nation, or 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 in wartime or in peacetime if the "Great Society"
expands as projected. It is time ALL Americans took a hard look at the
hard facts.
5
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Oh. not state employees... it was a question
of residence.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I thought so - and my staff thought 80 -
and it must have been an inadvertance, although there are others who
felt it was deleted. But when you have 15 or 20 people around the
table and you're talking in groups and talking in concert, sometimes
those little slips happen. But, in any event, it can be easily cured...
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Oh, no... Oh, no... not for one moment,
and I hope you make that perfectly clear.
QUESTION: ... the intention is they should be state residents -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, Tony, the logic from my point of
view is simply this: That if you took an examiner from one state and
sent him to another state under Civil Service auspices where the problem
really was... how easy it would be to accuse you of carpetbagging, and
that's just one of those things that I. for one, do not like to inherit.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, it could be. Now, it goes back to
just a little misunderstanding, but I shall try to cure it, of course,
in the Committee itself when we take up the bill.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Dick, that whole matter was pretty
thoroughly discussed and, of course, I think you can cite the scripture
6
inorder to establish the point... but to what extent that takes place,
I don't know. But that would have been notably true if, for instance, we
had let that provision stand... that among others he could appoint, or
the Civil Service Commission could finger and add an additional duty to
Federal Employees. And I cited the fact you might ask a rural mail
carrier in a small community... Well, he's got so many patrons. Suppose
they met him out in front at the box when he Game by and said if this is
what you're going to do, so far as I'm concerned you're just off of my
list and if I were you I'd just get right with the Lord and I would resign
as an Examiner.. so, you see, that element CAN come into the picture.
QUESTION: Senator, can you say what it is you plan to do
in Committee?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I have suggested that we hold
hearings in the full Committee - rather than in Sub-committee. And I
earnestly hope that view will prevail. That will shorten the time some-
what, it will give every member of the Committee who wishes to attend
a chance to hear ALL of the testimony.
QUESTION: Senator, I'm sorry... I mean with regard to the
state residency requirement. You said it can be easily cured -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Oh! Well, it can be easily cured provided
that is the will of & majority of the Committee.
QUESTION: Can I ask Mr. Ford if he supports the bill that
Senator Dirksen has -
REP. FORD: I think it's appropriate to say first that
we all know the President, when he spoke to us Monday night, said he was
QEBALO FORD LIBRARY
7
sending up a law... if that were the case, it wouldn't make any
difference whether I introduced a bill or not.
I'm not introducing a bill... on the other hand, I think my
record and the record of the Republicans in the House is clear... we
bulieve there MUST be legislation, effective legislation, passed early,
so that we can get the target of the Republican Party, which is all
people registered to vote in all 50 states by 1966.
Now, the Republicans in the House - early in the Session -
introduced some 20 bills to ensure the right of all citizens of all
states to register and vote. We have appointed a Republican Task Force
in the House that has been working on legislation. I have been in
consultation with Senator Dirksen almost daily and Congressman McCulloch,
the Senior Republican on the Committee on the Judiciary, has likewise
been consulting constantly with Senator Dirksen.
We believe that we can develop a bill within the framework of
this legislation and we think the House ought to work its will on whatever
legislation we can come up with to achieve the purpose that we believe in.
QUESTION:
...
there have been some rumbles that some House
Republicans don't agree with this approach... 50 percent is too high...
REP. FORD: There is no substantial disagreement with the
bill, although we think we ought to work our OWN will along with the
members of the Democratic Party in the House and, as you know, hearings
started today... the Republicans urged that hearings be held early...
and we didn't object to their not being held when the House was sitting.
So we're in favor of inmediate action for an effective bill.
8
QUESTION: ... you have reservations... will you be a little
more specific
REP. FORD: At this point I think it's better that I don't
pinpoint any areas where there might be disagreement. The members of the
Committee on the Judiciary on our side will work their will in the
Committee hearings and we on the floor.
I think the most important thing is that Senator Dirksen
and I - along with the House Republicans and the Senate Republicans - are
urging immediate action on legislation which will attack the problem
effectively in every state of the Union.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Let me amplify... You should remember that
they do not have dual sponsorship in the House as we do in the Senate.
So there is no particular point in introducing a great quantity of bills
that are identic in text... when one bill is introduced, that is enough.
In the Senate, however, you can get as many co-sponsors as
are willing to 80 on a bill and that puts it in a considerably different
frame.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, wouldn't it help speed immediate action
if you had a specific proposal from the Republican side?
REP. FORD: I don't think so. They do have the bill that
was sent up by the President and Attorney General Katsenbach... this is
the vehicle upon which hearings are being held. After they've had
testimony from the proponents... opponents... then the Committee will
work its will and they have "a" vehicle plus some 20 Republican proposals
that have been in the mill since January 4th. I think there's ample basis
9
upon which a good piece of legislation can evolve.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, are you concerned with all this
bipartisanship the Republicans may lose some of the pàlitical threat
for this legislation?
REP. FORD: I'm not at all concerned about that as long as
we get GOOD legislation. If we have the right kind of legislation, the
Republicans AND the Democrate will get appropriate rewards.
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: (Interrupts) I want to... let me answer
Bill Theis by saying that a similar question was addressed. I think,
to Thomas Jefferson and after discussing. he said: "The approbation
which may have been long denied will be forthooming."
So it's not a question of credit, it's a question of getting
a job done.
Sam had a question -
QUESTION: ...It has been charged (I think even in such a
conservative journal as the WALL STREET JOURNAL) that the Republican
alternatives to the "Great Society" are vastly more costly, would take
much more money out of the Treasury...
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Who said that? (LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: THE WALL STREET JOURNAL!
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Oh, no. now... you said it was in the
VALL STREET JOURNAL ... authoritative publication. Now... (Senator
and Questioner talking at once) Now, whose by-line was it?
QUESTION: ... the schools. (LAUGHTER) ... the school
bill will be vastly more expensive than the Administration school bill.
10
Medicare more expensive than the hospital care... and the Regional
Rehabilitation Aid Program promoted by the Republicans will be more
expensive. I'm not saying this is so... I say the charge has been made...
now, what is the answer?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, Sam, I ought to put you on the stand
and avail myself of all evidenciary rules and then we would come to grips
with this. Because we're just dealing with a lot of figures in thin air,
which I do not accept as authoritative at all. After 17 years on the
Apprepriations Committee of the House and Senate, I can tell you that
when you break these figures down they come out rather differently, and
so I'm not going to be in the position of generalising until I see
a specific, because it makes all the difference in the world. And I
say that without my tongue in my cheek and without forfeiting my high
regard for that very eminent newspaper, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
(LAUGHTER)
REP. FORD: Senator, I would like to respond to Sam's
comment. If you take the Administration's so-called "Medicare" Bill
and provide the same benefits that the Byrnes proposal does, the
Administration proposal - with the same benefits - would be at least
a third more costly... the Republican Byrnes proposal... because it is
not mandatory, it is not compulsery... and because something like
20 percent of the people will avail themselves of the option not to
belong, the cost will be substantially less if the Byrnes proposal were
enacted into law.
GERALD
11
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRESEN: You mean for... well, for enactment of
the bill, or for concluding deliberations in the Senate...
QUESTION: Either one -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, let me just spell out... If we take
the full time and from Monday until April 9 - excluding Saturdays and
Sundays - is actually 15 working days. Now assume it comes back on the
calendar and it will come back because this motion is going to be agreed
to by the Senate.
Now you could set it the following Monday - that would be
10. 11, 12, I suppose - and then you reason from there on. And I must
be so frank as to confess a slight difficulty. because early in the
year - back in January - we agreed upon a recess peried for Easter, which
begins on the 18th after the close of business and runs, I believe,
until the 21st. Now, I'd probably have to fortify mysèlf on the card
and see...
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: That's right... conclusion of business on
April 15 until noon, Wednesday, April 21. Now from the 12th...
say, Monday to the Rh... is three days. Can you finish in that time...
and having announced this 80 long ago, are we really at liberty
where members have made their plans for speeches and all the other
attributes of this business, to cancel out the Easter Recess? I have
some grave doubts about it - nor de I believe that Easter period is
going to be fateful. Because I appraise the temper of the Senate... I do
12
not believe there will be a filibuster... I do not believe there will
be even what I am pleased to refer to suphemistically as "extended
discussion." I think the fever is in the air and they're going to dispose
of this matter and it won't take too long. But I'm afraid I'd be a
prophet without honor in my own country if I tried to tell you that on
a given date we're going to finish action on the bill.
QUESTION: You're apt to be here all summer -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I'm confident that we're not.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Louder -
QUESTION: Saturday being the first day of spring, do you
have any comment on that? (LAUGHTER)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I have only one comment. I have
discovered that tulip bulbs don't do very well if you have to use a
pickare to put them in. (LAUGHTER) And 80 I'm afraid that feeling of
nostalgia I get everytime I see a hyacinth pop his bold little head
above the soil... is not going to be requited and I shall be a very
impatient person.
But I will say to you where all the world can hear... that
after these long sessions in my office day after day... getting out
sometimes at midnight... that I could use a little rest.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Senator, if by some chance there were a
filibuster, how long would it go on?
SENATOR DIRESEN: Oh, I'd rather not speculate on 1t
because I do not believe it's going to be necessary. but we'll come
to that bridge and cross it when necessary.
TRanscript
JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
Senator Dirksen - Representative Ford
May 20, 1965
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN: Why, John, you ought to
feel my muscle. That hospital makes a bun out of no. Well, gentlemen,
if you're ready, I'm ready:
From the time the President decided to send forces into
the Dominican Republic to protect lives and to thwart the danger of
a Communist take-over in that country, the Republicans in Congress
have given him their support.
Support of the President's action in the circumstances does
NOT, however, imply blanket approval of the 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 proper-
tions before acting. It has been reluctant to provide leadership to
make the Organisation of American States an effective agency for the
defense and development of the Western Hemisphere.
Iven now, in its reaction to events in the Dominican
Republic, the Administration is not manifesting awareness of the extent
and the danger of Gastre-exported Communist subversion in at least
a half a dosen countries dozen Am rican nations. In the past
three years, many thousands of citizens of other Latin American
countries have received para-military and ideological training in
a
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 be n renewed emphasis by Cuba on the use of
violence to obtain 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 the Havana meeting of Latin American Communist leaders in
November of 1964.
Clearly there is a need now for vigerous 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 replayed in other Latin American nations.
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE FORD: ... on May 20, 1902,
Cuba assumed the status of an independent Republic with the inauguration
of its first president.
On this anniversary. we call for the reestablishment of
Cuban independence. Since late 1960 the present government of Cuba has
been a military, economic,politionl vassal of the Soviet Union. Today
3
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 n campaign of terrorism, sabotage, subversion, and
sporadic warfare against their neighbors, disturbing the peace of the
hemisphere and threatening the security of all Americas.
The policy objective of the present Administration toward
the Communist government of Cuba has been mmbiguous. At times it has
been described as "to get rid of the Castro regime and of Soviet
Communist influence in Cuba." So Mr. Johnson declared at Midland,
Texas on September 30, 1962. At other times it has been dexcribed
as "to isolate Ouba... to frustrate its efforts to destroy free govern-
ments and to expose the weakness of Communism so that all can see."
So it was formulated by President Johnson on April 20, 1964.
The tragic events in the Dominican Republica are a forceful
reminder that neither objective has been attained. Cuba has not been
isclated, nor is it rid of Castro and the Soviet Communist influence.
Cuba today 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
Hemisphere" clouds the purposes of the 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
regine and the prevention of the export of Communism from Duba should
GERALD AMOUNT
4
be pursued more vigorously as an immediate objective. But the ultimate
objective can be nothing less than the elimination of the Communist
government in Ouba and the restoration of independence under a government
freely elected by the Cuban people.
This objective is dictated by policies subscribed to by all
the nations of the hemisphere in Caracas in 1954. The Caracas Declaration
stated, M... the demination 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 the political independence of
the American States, endangering the peace of America... #
In compliance with this Declaration, or doctrine, President
Eisenhower said on July 9, 1960, Nor will the United States in
conformity with its treaty obligations, permit the establishment of a
regine dominated by international Communism in the Western Hemisphere."
It is time to reaffirm this as our national purpose and the
purpose of the other American states.
4
q: Mr. Ford, are you asking the United States military
to intervene in Cuba to overthrow Castro and, if not, how would you
propose that the Castro regine be eliminated?
FORD: This is a matter of the highest policy formulation
in our government. The Republican Leadership of the House and the
Senate have some constructive suggestions which we would be delighted
to present to President Johnson.
I might point out that at the meeting two weeks ago last
Sunday at the White House, some suggestions were made by Republicans
that resulted in the Administration making recommendations to Congress,
including the request for additional military appropriation. This was
a Republican suggestion and we would be more than willing - and are
very anxious - to sit down with the President and make specific
suggestions to the Administration to achieve the objectives that we
have indicated in our statements.
We feel that because of the importance of this whole policy
matter that these suggestions should not be discussed in public but
should be given to the President personally and we as Republicans
are anxious and willing to do so.
Q: Your statement seems to imply that all of the events of
the Dominican Republic
...
be
Castro. (NOTE: Question not
clear... voice almost inaudible.)
FORD: Well, it's perfectly obvious to anyone that Castro is
the fire-starter, he's the arsonist in the whole Caribbean area. And
until you take steps to isolate and eliminate the arsenist, we are not
5
going to have peace in the future in the Caribbean.
Q: Do you think if there were no Castro there would be
no Dominican revolt?
FORD: I'm convinced that if Castro hadn't taken over in
Cuba and carried out the kind of subversion that he's carried out -
as indicated in Senator Dirkmen's statement and mine - we wouldn't
have the kind of troubles we're having in the Caribbean today, including
the Dominican Republic.
Q: Congressman, are you proposing a blockade perhaps - by
the OAS - of Cuba?
FORD: The Republicans... within the last year... on two
occasions and more immediately within the last three weeks - have
recommended that an OAS joint force be set up for immediate availability
to move in on an OAS basis to meet the threats of the kind that
developed in the Dominican Republic. This is one suggestion that's on
the record and we think it would be constructive at this time. The
Administration has gone along with this and is trying to achieveit.
I
would persenally endorse it very strongly.
Q: How would you isolate Castre... (NOTE: Rest of
question not clear.)
FORD: To get back to the answer that I made a few minutes
ago. We DO have specific recommendations, but they are of a major
policy determination. and we think it can be most constructively
achieved by personal consultation and recommendation with President
Johnson.
6
Q: ... your access to the White House. Is there anything
keeping you from going to t he President?
FORD: Well, we've been invited down there several times
to consult on foreign pelicy matters. Unfortunately - on some
occasions - it's been a consultation subsequent to a determination
of policy. We think it would be far more constructive if we were
brought in prior to the determination of policy. This was one of the
major objections, if you may remember. that was voiced a few years
ago by the late Senator Vandenberg... he didn't feel that we as
Republicans should assume a responsibility for a policy determination
after the fact, and we think in this instance we could be helpful
prior to.
Q: Well, Mr. Ford, have you asked for a session with the
President to give these proposals?
FORD: We have not as yet, but we intend to by this method
and other means - to make this suggestion.
Q3 (Not clear)
FORD: I can reply to that by saying that every Republican
in the House of Representatives and every Republican in the Senate
voted for the additional $700 million dellars in military appropriations.
The only "No" votes were 7 in the House - all Democrate - and 3 in the
Senate - all Democrats. So the Republicans, even though a very small
number, may have had a question or two, did go along as a show of
unanimous support for the President's request for additional military
appropriations.
BERALD FORD FIBRAN.
7
QZ (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, whatever the situation in the Dominican
Republic requires for the purpose of restoring stability and meeting
the Communist threat down there, that of course is something for the
Executive Branch to do. And whatever they do in that field, I concur
with.
Now you are raising a question here about what we can do
with respect to the Cuban situation. You know, the old Mark Twain
story that you befriend a homeless dog and he won't bite you; you
befriend a homeless man, or one who is down on his uppers, and maybe
he will. That's the difference between a man and a dog.
Well, I see that crop out now because the Argentine Chamber
of Deputies only this week has assailed us and refuses to join in the
OAS effort, and in addition, the Chamber in Venezuela can't even make
up its mind. All right, think of all the aid and comfort and help
they've had from the United States. It's just about time that we re-
examine our premises in this matter, and if that's all the gratitude,
all the appreciation, all the assistance we're going to have, then I
think it's up to us to let the American people know - and also to make
a determination of that matter. The idea of handing 1t out with your
right hand and getting a slap from the other side has no appeal to me
and that runs through this entire foréign aid program.
So let's take a little realistic look and see and what we
can expect from OAS and whether they're willing to come forward now
with assistance to the United States.
GERALD 1998017
8
Q: May I ask a question along that? Do you view the
Ford-MoCulloch (?) substitute as a threat to the Dirksem-Mansfield
Bill of Rights Bill? (NOTE: Not too clear.)
DIRKSEN: Did you say a "threat?"
Q: Yes.
DIRESEN: (Laughs a little) Well, I haven't the slighest
idea. I think it's going to be offered by Senator Tower, and it
commends itself to some members of the Senate - how many. I do not
know. We're getting quite a bill stacked up there in the Senate...
if they adopt any more amendments - and particularly when I'm away
from the roost. (LAUGHTER)
Q: Well, but do you feel that you can defeat the Tower
Amendment...
-
DIRKSEN: Well, Sam, that I don,t know. It depends.
It'll get some votes on our side of the aisle. It was discussed at the
policy luncheon the other day and I know that it commends itself to
some of our members. Now I've made no nose count, consequently, I
can't tell you how the vote would go.
Q: But you ARE opposed to the -
DIRESEN: Well, I am opposed to it, of course. How could I
do other? After all... this substitute is partly my handiwork.
Q: (Not clear)
DIRKSMN: Oh, I doubt it very much. We'll have to do
whatever events call for, and I don't think of it in the frame of a
dictatership - either from the right or from the left.
Q: (Not clear)
GERALD AVERGIT
9
DERKSEN: Well, we think the Administration has been wanting
in some respects. We think its uptake has been slow and that ought to
be improved, and we say that because this is the dominant country on
this hemisphere. I still believe - even if others take exception - that
there IS such a thing as & Monroe Doctrine and that the establishment
of a Communist-dominated government on this hemisphere is alien to the
pelicy that we pursued since 1823.
Q: Senator, what good news did you get at the hospital?
DIRKSEN: Well, the good news is that they found exactly
nothing. NO I languish when these functional failures come on, but I
must say that the rest did me some good. But I'm not going to tell
you any further stories about the hospital. (LAUGHTER)
Q: Do you have the vote for cloture?
DERKSEN: I saw the petition this morning. There are 26
names presently. I rather think at this stage - if the cloture petition
is filed on Friday ? that there will be sufficient votes on Monday
because the Senate, frankly, is quite weary of having this measure
before it any longer. They're adding nothing constructive nor does the
discussion from here on out add anything particularly to the enlighten-
ment of the Senate or of the country. or for that matter, of you.
Q: Senator Dirksen, do you think an OAS military force...
(Note: rest of question not clear.)
DIRKSEN: Well, I think 60, because we feel a real kinship
to all the Republica in this hemisphere, and we can best serve by having
an OAS force. The amazing thing is that that matter has not been pursued
with vigor before.
JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
SENATOR DIRKSEN - REPRESENTATIVE FORD
June 18, 1965
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN: To date, the Republicans
in Congress have publicly supported the Administration's policy
toward South Vietnam in the belief that it was in harmony with that
enunciated by the Congress in Joint Resolution.
That objective, as defined last August, was "assisting
the peoples of Southeast Asia to protect their freedom."
Now doubt is raised about this objective by recent remarks
of the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate.
In a speech, timed so as to make it appear that it had Presidential
approval, Senator Fulbright and some other Democrate may wish to
redefine the objective for which American troops are being committed
to conflict in South Vietnam in ever-increasing numbers.
The Senator calls for a"negotiated settlement involving
major concessions by both sides."
Any who talk of concessions by the United States have an
obligation to specify the kinds of concessions which they are prepared
to advocate. They have an obligation, too, to indicate the limits
beyond which concessions cannot be made.
Senator Fulbright suggests the Geneva Agreements of 1954
"in all their specifications" as abasis for settling the conflict
in Vietnam. But this Agreement, as Secretary Rusk-acknowledged in
GERALD LIVERSE
2
1962, contained a fatal flaw in providing veto power to the
Communist member of the international commission established to
supervise the execution of the terms of the Geneva settlement.
This mistake must be avoided in any future peace settle-
ment. So must the mistake of establishing a coalition government
with Communist participation for South Vietnam. Bitter experience
should have taught us that such a coalition merely defers a
Communist takeover.
To conclude an agreement with such previsions would
vielate the President's promise of April 7 "That we will not withdraw
under the cloak of a meaningless agreement."
We hope for negotiations among representatives of
responsible sovereign governments which will both end the fighting
in South Vietnam and preserve the independence of that nation.
The United States cannot, without violating its word, settle for
less. The meaningless Laotian settlement of 1962 should be a lesson
to us at this time.
LIBRARY
3
STATEMENT BY REPRESENTATIVE GERALD R. FORD: or all the
things that Senator Fulbright had to say, none was more revealing
than his criticism of the Eisenhower Administration for encouraging
the South Vietnamese government to refuse th permit the holding of a
nationwide election in Vietnam in 1956.
The refusal was amply justified if only because the kind
of election envisaged by the Geneva Agreement of 1954 - a free
election - could not have been held. Anyone who thinks that a free
election was possible in Communist North Vietnam knows little of how
Communists operate and could have fallen into a Moscow-Peiping trap.
The criticism boils down to a complaint that the United
States government failed to exert pressure on the South Vietnamese
to surrender to the Communists nine years ago.
Such was not the policy then - and veiled suggestions that
it be the policy today should be emphatically repudiated.
The United States could not agree today - - any more than in
1956 - to legitimizing Communist control of all of Vietnam by a device
of a Communist-style election.
The Eisenhower Administration labored to build out of
chaos in South Vietnam & durable economy, a progressive social order.
and military strength.
That it achieved a considerable neasure of success was
attested to by several of Senator Fulbright's collengues.
In February of 1960, Senator Mansfield's Subcommittee o
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported (and I quote):
4
"By any measure, Vietnam has made great progress under President
Ngo Dinh Dieg in the improvement of internal security, in the
creation of the forms and institutions efpopularly responsible
government, where before few existed, and in the advancement of
the welfare of the people of Vietnam."
Finally, a major policy paper, issued by the State
Department in December of 1961. stated flatly that (and I quote):
"The years 1956 to 1960 produced something close to an economic
miracle in South Vietnam.
:
It is a report of progress over a
few brief years equalled by few young countries."
Any attempt to equate overall conditions, including
the U. S. Military commitment in South Vietnam in 1960, with
conditions there today - is a crude distortion of history.
5
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
FORD: I wouldn't say that we repudiate the Geneva
accords (?). but we simply believe that if they are to be carried
out, they must be carried out affirmatively and effectively and
not result in a Communist domination of South Vietnam OR North
Vietnam.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
FORD: I think it depends upon the definition of
"free elections." Free elections from our point of view would mean
the kind of elections where the Communists would not be able to
by pressure of one sort or another actually result in the take-
over of Vietnam. A Communist definition of free elections is
quite different. They would by one means or another actually
not permit a free election - they never have in any instances where
elections have been held. and I'm sure they wouldn't in this
circumstance.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, your colleague in the House
Republican Leadership, Representative Laird, has recently said that
the Republicans are dangereusly close to breaking with the
Administration on Vistnamese policy. How would you... would you
care in any way to associate yourself with that statement?
FORD: The Eisenhower-Dulles policy in reference to
South Vietnam never envisaged large-scale, ground warfare in South-
east Asia, including South Vietnam. I agree with that policy,
Mr. Laird agrees with that policy. The Republicans today do support
GERALD FORD wine,
6
a strong, firm policy against Communist aggression in Southeast
Asia. I agree wholeheartedly with that. But this does not mean
under any circumstances that we give to any President - Mr. Johnson
or otherwise - carte blanche authority in the future. We believe that
the American people, members of the Congress, both Democrat and
Republican, ought to be fully informed as to our objectives, and
what our policy will be in the future. And as long as the American
people are properly informed and members of the House are given full
opportunity to express themselves, to know the background, we will
stand with the President where such a policy is carried out.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, in the absence of large ground
troops, how would you hope to carry out any firm policy?
FORD: I would raise questions whether we..... (NOTE:
tape blank for a few seconds here.)
...
to achieve certain
military objectives. I think we ought to raise the question whether
or not we are maximising the utilisation of our allies in Southeast
Asia for the achievement of opposing Communist aggression in
Vietnam.
QUESTION: The Geneva Agreement had a provision that
no country would build up its forces... and President Eisenhower
kept that from '54 to '60... the forces were built up by Kennedy
and Johnson. Do you consider this a mistake?
FORD: The Geneva Accord did provide that neither side
should bring in more weapons, should bring in more troops... the
7
Hisenhower-Dulles policy was to keep our forces and our equipment at
the level that existed in 1954.
Of course, the Communists did violate that Agreement
from the very outset. They brought in more troops, they brought in
more veapons, and they placed in jeopardy as a result the South
Vietnamese Government and our own ferces.
In May of 1961 there was a distinct change in our
policy in South Vietnam. At that time we had appreximately
500 U.S. Military Advisers in South Vietnam. Since that time -
since that change of policy - wehave built up to the present
position where we now have approximately 60,000 or more or less -
U. S. Military Personnel there.
It seems to me that the President has to take what
steps are necessary to protect our own military forces in South
Vietnam. And since the Communists have violated from the first
instance, I think this was a necessary step.
QUESTION: Congressman, you raised the question of the
effective use of our air and sea pewer. How do you react to Senator
Goldwater's statement that perhaps Hanoi ought to be considered as
a target?
FORD: These particular recommendations I think have to
be related to what our military advisers - the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Westmoreland and others - have recommended as to what is
the particular target or targets that ought to be attacked. But
GERALD FORD
8
overall I would say we ought to raise the question whether or not
we have as effectively as possible used our military power where we
have an overwhelming superiority.
QUESTION: Are you suggesting a sea blockade for one
thing - or are you suggesting Nationalist Chinese troops
might be brought in as an Allied force, or what do you mean by
"maximising" Allied support?
FORD: I think it's a question that ought to be very
significantly considered whether or not we should bring in the
Chinese Nationalist forces, South Korean forces, Philippine forces...
so they can make a contribution against Communist aggression in
all of Southeast Asia.
QUESTION: I would like to ask Senator Dirksen if he
welcomes the impending visit of the Commonwealth Group to
Washington and other capitals.
DIRKSEN: Well, I have no objection at all to receiving
any responsible group coming from severeign powers and manifesting
their interest in a peace in Southeast Asia. However, finally you're
going to have to get back to Hanoi, because that is the government
in question that is causing the real difficulty. It may be
implemented, of course, with weapons from China and from the Soviet
Union, but we have to pin the label of aggression on North Vietnam,
and I tried to make clear here in the statement that we are ready
for negotiation with responsible representatives of responsible
LIBRARY
9
sovereign powers.
Now there's been a hint, of course, that them National
Liberation Front night sit in... well, the National Liberation
Front represents no country, it is not a sovereign power, and the
very idea ought to be repudiated.
There's been discussion in some quarters that Viet Cong
ought to sit at the negetiation table. It represents no government
and it represents no sovereign power, and as & result you can't
deal with people like that who have in mind finally communizing all
of Vietnam if they can bring it about.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
DIRKSEN: Oh, no, I have no question about it at all,
because those are responsible people and they ARE sovereign powers.
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen, do you feel that some sort of
concession must first come from Hano11
DIRKSEN: Well, I think it's got to be initiated by
Hanoi. But they have very steadfastly disdained any interest in what
the President said when he used the term in the Baltimore speech...
about these discussions, unconditional discussions. We'm had no
reaction from Hanoi whatseever, and obviously they being the
aggressors, we have no choice except to keep up the pressure and
carry out the commitment with respect to the freedom and the
independence and the defense of South Vietnam.
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen, Congressman Ford says he supports
the policy of no large-scale ground force there on the part of the
10
U.S. - do you subscribe to that?
DIRKSEN: Well, I don't believe that is exactly what he
said. I think... I think it's a matter that should be discussed
and that has always been my opinion. I've said over and over again
in providing support for the President in his policies, that we ask
always to be consulted, to have a chance to suggest alternatives, and
other methods... when the die is cast. Then you have no choice
except to go along unless you want to exhibit to the world that
you've got a disunited country - - and that's the last thing we dare
do under these circumstances, because that's the very burden of the
propaganda that comes short-wave out of Peiping and also out of
Hanoi.
I had one of the monitored sheets on one of those broad-
casts delivered only 3 weeks ago - the names of a good many Senators
were mentioned. Their quoted remarks were in this broadcast. And
it's the kind of stuff with which they're trying to drench the soldiers
over there at the present time - shake the morale of our people -
and the morale of the Vietnamese as well - and then boost the morale
of the Viet Cong by saying: Stay in there and pitch... it's only
going to be a little while before we shall capitulate.
QUESTION: On another matter, what do you gentlemen think
of the organization sponsored by Senator Goldwater... (Note: rest of
question not clear.)
DIRKSEN: Well, in the first place, I do not know quite
what is envisioned by a "Free" Society... in fact, I'm not so sure
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
11
that I know what is envisioned by the "Great Society" - let alone
the "Great Free Society"..
so until I get a fill-in, I'm
afraid I can't give you a responsive answer. (LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
DIRKSEN: I haven't heard. I have to rely entirely upon
you gentlemen and your dispatches to keep me infermed as to the
direction of the wind.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
FORD: If this organization is harmful or detrimental
to the regular Republican erganisation, I would raise some questions
about it. I'm told that it doesn't in any way whatsoever have the
aim or objective of a third party and they tell us that it can be
helpful in trying to educate people along certain economic and
domestic lines. If that's the purpose and if it's carried out, I
see no harm or detriment to the organisation.
DIRKSEN: I would add only one thought about it and
that is obviously any kind of an organization that is set up has
to have some money. I've said over and over again that in the
political business there is no substitute for money. (LAUGHTER)
And if their goals are high, obviously that takes from your regular
established Republican organisation - established in every state,
in every county. and in every precinct - so that I want to be sure
always that when the party and its troops goes into battle in
November of 1966 that there will be an adequate supply of funds
to sustain us in what we hope will be a victory from top to bottom.
12
QUESTION: Senator Watson was elected as a Goldwater
Republican... (Note: rest of question not clear.)
DIRKSEN: Well, I have not seen the South Carolina ballot,
but I'm pretty sure that they carried the legends "Republican" and
"Democrat." I'm pretty certain that they didn't tag Mr. Watson as
a Goldwater Republican on the ballet, 50 I have to feel that he ran
as a Republican. Now obviously it had 1964 overtones - that
may be sure - but he ran as a Republican and got 70% of the vote -
and I thought that that was quite impressive.
Now you speak of a Federal-Rlection-Control-Bill. I'm
not sure I know what measure you are referring to.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, you mean the bill with which we have been
working here... you say that will dry up the Republican Party..
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: I've heard no such claims and having been
immersed in the thing up to my ears for so long, I put no stock
in it.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
FORD: One of our members - Congressman Callway from
Georgia - went to Saigon, spent four or five days there, just
returned - at his own expense. He is a graduate of West Point,
he came back with some very keen observations, and I think that such a
mission on his part was & constructive effort in this current problem.
FORD & LIBRARY 07V839
13
DIRKSEN: I think it ought to be pointed out that if
perchance a Congressman or a Senator goes to Vietnam - there are
other things besides the military. I'm sure, that might be assessed.
You've got an economic problem, you've got a political problem,
there is the question of stability, and a great many other facets
of the economic life of the country that anyone can take a look at.
You can also appraise, for instance, what progress they're making
in agriculture and whether they're keeping up with rice production -
notwithstanding the number of young Vietnamese that no doubt are
being drafted into the Army. So there are a lot of things that can
be surveyed and I see no harm in it - provided, of course, they don't
undertake to give direction to the military effort as against the
judgment of people who for a lifetime have been schooled in the whole
area of tactics and strategy and military operations.
GERALD
Please return Jones
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
SENATOR DIRKSEN - REPRESENTATIVE FORD
July 15, 1965
STATEMENT BY STWATOR DIRKSEN: Well, ladies and gentlemen,
are you all prepared... and we have your assurance, I take it, that
there's film in that camera - and I trust there will be.
... statement with respect to the passing of Adlai
Stevenson. His transition comes as a shock and as an irreparable
loss to the Republic. He had high talent, and I regarded him
certainly as a man of brilliance and a man of great attainment.
It was not particularly the offices he held, such as the Governor-
ship of Illinois or the Ambassadership to the United Nations, but
rather the fact he was a man of courage, he was an amiable, affable
person, not at all brittle as some would think of him... he had a
great appeal to young Americans and he had a great fidelity to his
ideals and a conviction to fight through to them.
I think Adlai Stevenson will be regarded as one of the
great men of our times. And speaking for the Joint Senate-House
Republican Leadership, we certainly mourn his passing and we take
this manner of extending sympathy to the family.
Now this is an appropriate time to speak of bipartisanship
in foreign policy.
2
Bipartismnship signifies united support by the two major
parties for such pelicy aims and means as are required for the security
of the nation.
A bipartisan foreign policy imposes obligations EX both on
the majority and the minerity parties. For the majority party, it
counsels frequent consultations with the minority as policy is formulated
and access for the minority to information needed to determine the
wisdom of that policy.
On the minority side, it imposes an obligation to avoid
carping about trivia. The minority should avoid the hypecrisy of
complaining about measures which it would favor if it were in a
pesition 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 the enemy.
But bipartisan foreign policy has never meant a cessation
of debate, or criticism, or suggestion. Senator Arthur Vandenberg,
who more than any other public figure in his time personifies bipartisan-
ship, said that bipartisan foreign policy # simply seeks national
security ahead of partisan aivantage." And then he added immediately,
"Every foreign policy must be totally debated... and the 'leyal
opposition' is under special obligation to see that this occurs."
GERALD
3
Debate, then, should be encouraged. Only in the crucible of
full and candid debate can the nation forge a foreign policy which will
lead us to the ends which all Americans seek to attain - namely. peace,
and 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 distortions
and nisrepresentations.
We pray that the national security decisions of the
President may always be wise. If we must agree (Note: Senater Dirksen
says "agree" here - not "disagree").. with any of those decisions,
we shall never question his sincere desire for peace. We expect
that responsible spokesmen for HIS party will credit us with similar
motives.
FORD
4
STATEMENT BY R EP.GERALD R. FORD: 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 stablishment of a coalition government with Communist
participation in control of South Vietnam is incompatible with this
objective.
Evaluenation 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 beyend
any question. But a peace which would turn South Vietnam over to
the Communists - immediately or after some interval - must be forth-
rightly rejected.
Any doubt as to the resoluteness of the United States in
the pursuit of the objective of maintaining the freedom and independence
FORD LIBRARY
5
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 aggressors to negotiate without any pre-comditions,
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 Vistnam under meaningless agreements. We suggest that
the President assure the nation that no agreement will be made which
will make a neckery of sacrifices already suffered by our American
fighting men and the soldiers of South Vietnam.
GERALD FORD VIBRADA
6
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
FORD: The establishment of a coalition government -
QUESTION: (Interrupts - - insudible)
FORD: I think if the President agreed to an agreement
that included those provisions, it would be a meaningless agreement.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: Well, I think the conditions that we have set
forth here are reasonable under the circumstances and would certainly
fall within the definition of the President's definition of a meaning-
less agreement, so we - as I interpret his words and our conditions -
we stand alike. I can't imagine the President making any such agree-
ment that would violate either of these two provisions.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD AND DIRKSHN: Yes,
QUESTION: Is there any inconsistency between the two
statements?
DIRESEN: I see none.
FORD: I don't see any.
QUESTION: Well, Senator, are you satisfied that the
recent criticism by Mr. Ford and Mr. Laird fall within the framework
of bipartisanship that you describe?
DIRKSEN: Well, now, you'll have to particularise the
statements and the criticism that has been made thus far. If you've
got something specific in mind, I can give you a specific answer.
7
QUESTION: There has been a suggestion by Mr. Laird, for
instance, that under certain conditions the Republican support might
be withdrawn.
DIRKSEN: Well, I talked with Mr. Laird about that and I
don't believe he said it in quite that fashion, nor did it have quite
that meaning. And we would be the last if, first, we are consulted -
given a chance to participate in decisions - and be consulted - and
then the decision is made - to do anything to project to the world
a kind of disunity between the parties over here. It's the LAST THING
we would do.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, would you explain what you had in
mind in the 4th paragraph here where you say "the minority should avoid
the hypocrisy of complaining about measures which it would favor if
it were in the position of policy maker." Do you have anything in
mind? (Note: the questioner obviously means "Mr. Dirksen" - as he
is quoting from his statement.)
DIRKSEN: Not particularly, John. We just want to keep
this at a high level and I think you'll agree that generally speaking
we have done so.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, you have indicated - and Mr. Laird
has indicated - that the present decision to increase the U.S. treep
commitments in South Vietnam is a mistake, that you are against that
kind of major increase. Does this statement now indicate you have
changed your mind and now accept that increase...
8
FORD: Not at all. We don t set forth the numbers in
the statement here.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
FORD: Yes, I think in the first paragraph of my state-
ment we indicate that the President has agreed to increase the
commitment of American
...
QUESTION: (Interrupts - not clear)
FORD: My position would be that if an increase is aimed
at protecting our installations and our persennel already there, I
would fully and without any hesitation or qualification Support
the President. But if there is a change in our policy with an increase
of our American ground forces, then I would raise questions and would
hope that the President would call upon the Republican leaders to
make any suggestions we might have.
QUESTION: Would you clarify that change of policy that
you have in mind?
FORD: Well, if it's a policy decision by the President -
and I have no information to that effect - that would be aimed at
getting the United States involved in a large-scale, ground war.
then I would have to raise some questions at that time. whether
we
would support him or not would be predicated upon the circumstances
and the conditions that existed at that particular time.
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen, would you support the
President if we were to use increased troop commitment ... to support
the United States in a large-scale, ground war?
GERALD
9
DIRKSEN: Well, you have to put it in this frame. They
have been so careful about avoiding that word "war" or that we are
at war over there. Now, you can out it as thick or as thin as you
like, but we are in conflict ntt whether we like it or not.
Now, we went there to help the Vietnamese. Our job was
to be aivisers over there. Now it's quite clear from the dispatches
that our own troops are in combat at the present time that IS some-
thing of a change in policy. And all we say is under those circumstances
we ought to be consulted as to precisely what the objectives will be,
what the consequences might be, how far they're going to go, and I
think what happened yesterday and the day before is a rather classic
example - the allegation that our planes went across the lines of Red
China. I don't know whether they did or not, but let's just find
out - give us the details - is there going to be, or is there not
going to be. any sanctuary... how far are they going to go with these
operations - just tell us before these decisions are made - and we're
not going to kick up our heels and cause trouble or show a disunited
front to the world.
But in every case it's a matter of making that information
available.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRESEN: Well, from time to time we have. And that's
all we ask.
QUESTION: Is the implication here that you haven't been
consulted enough?
BERALD FORD
10
DIRKSEN: Well, now, it's quite possible that there will
be an announced change of policy - and I say that not as of knewledge,
that's a pure speculation. But if that's going to be the case, very
well. let's have a meeting of the joint leadership with the President
and with his advisers and let's get a clear idea. For how are we going
to tell the people back home exactly where we're going in a conflict
costing lives that is 12,000 miles away?
QUESTION: Well, are you suggesting there has been a change
of policy about which you have not been consulted?
DIRKSEN: Oh, no, I haven't, John. I said IF there is a
change...
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: I just e valuate the facts and say, well, they're
engaged in fighting - they're not advisers.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, I have a personal opinion that there is
something of a change.
QUESTION: Well, Senator, do you mean if there is a
determination to commit large additional U.S. forces to a ground war
that the Republicans should be consulted?
DIRKSEN: Certainly Bo! We're expected to supply the
money, we're expected to supply the e uipment and materiel, and everything
else that you need, to fight an action of that kind. Why SHOULDN'T
we be aivised? That's not something that you just pour across a
committee table behind closed doors for a limited number of people in
11
the House and in the Senate.
QUESTION: Well, Senator, when you tell the American
peaple exactly what you're going to do, don't you also tell the
enemy what you're going to do?
DIRKSEN: Well, I think we have been rather carefully
guarded in that matter.
QUESTION: (Interrupts) ... (Note: first part of question
not clear) ... you said the American people ought to be told. How
do you tell the American people what we're going to do without telling
the enemy?
DIRKSEN: Haven't we done it pretty well within a broad
frame? Without over conveying any military secrets?
QUESTION: (Asks something about a settlement.)
#
FORD: Well, as long as that agreement resulted in South
Vietnam being free from agression from the North, or internal subversion
generated from the North, that type of a settlement, I think, would be
satisfactory. But one of the mandatory provisions would be that the
Viet Cong both externally and internally would abide by the independence
of South Vietnam.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: That has not been discussed with us.
QUESTION: Do you think that's something ought to be
discussed with you?
DIRKSEN: Well, when you call out reserves in large
numbers, it's going to require money and there's going to have to be
LIBRARY GERALD &
12
a procurement program. I think we should be consulted and I anticipate
that we probably will be.
QUESTION: (Note - two reporters talk at same time)
DIRKSEN: Wait a minute - one at a time.
QUESTION: Do you have a position - as of now - on calling
up reserves?
DIRKSEN: No. and for a very good reason. That is in the
I
field of military judgment and what they may require. I don t know
what Westmoreland (?) requires over there. He may make a very good case
for "X" number or "Y" number... but the case has to be made and
justified, so it's a military judgment... and we try very carefully
to avoid making any military judgments up here lest there be some
impression that we're trying to run the war, and that's the very LAST
THING that we would -
QUESTION: (Interrupts) (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Yes, I think the President has a very considerable
latitude in that field under existing law.
QUESTION: Mr.Ford, do you subscribe to Senator Dirksen's
unwillingness to be critical of the military judgment at the present time?
FORD: I haven't been oritical of the President's military
judgment... I think the Republicans have a right under a true b1-
partisan policy in this critical period to make suggestions from time
to time. And this has been done in the past when Senator Johnson
was in the Senate in 1954 when he was very critical and made some
suggestions at the time of Dien Bien Phu... this was done by the late
GERALD ANNURIT
13
Senator Arthur Vandenberg in 1946 or '47 at the time of Yalta... in
other words, we fan't be silenced, we can't give a complete and total
blank check in perpetuity. The Republicans have an obligation to ask
questions, to make suggestions, and if we do that, if we're accorded
that privilege, then I think we can stand shoulder to shoulder with the
President.
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen indicates that he would exclude
military judgment ... from criticism. (Note: this is the gist of
what the question is - not the complete question.)
FORD: I think you have to take the Senator's comment in
the context of the question which was asked. The question was: whether
we need reservists called up. This is a purely military question as
to whether or not we have enough men on active duty to pretect our
position militarily. This is purely a military question.
QUESTION: (Two reporters speak at once.)
DERKSEN: One at a time... (LAUGHS) Who's talking?
QUESTION: Wouldn't that also be a military decision - whether
bomb the missile bases... (Note: rest of question not clear.)
FORD: I think this is a mixture of a military policy and
a policy that involves, perhaps, the State Department. I have
consistently said we should intensify our air strikes in North Vietnam
against significant military targets. I believe that the 5 or 6
S AM-sites in North Vietnam are significant military targets. Now
when the President gets a recommendation like that, or for any target
from the Pentagon, he weighs that recommendation with the recommendations
BRARY
14
from the Department of State - those decisions are more than purely
military determinations. And my recommendation is in the same light
of the same context.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, do you personally feel we should call
up reserves at a time when you obviously feel we're not making maximum
use of our air and sea power?
FORD: In this area I would rely on the judgment of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. They can tell us whether under the current
military circumstances - or the foreseeable conditions - whether or
not they need additional Army, Mayy. or Air Force reservists called
up for active duty.
QUESTION: (Asks about settlement... how do you reach a
situation where the Communists will be willing to negotiate and accept
a settlement invoiting a coalition government.)
FORD: The Administration's policy at the present time
is aimed at making it so costly for the Viet Cong by our air attacks
and by our operations on the sea that they will stop or cease their
ground activity in South Vietnam. It seems to me that basically this
is good policy, but I do raise the question whether we have adequately
intensified our air attacks against significant military targets in
North Vietnam and whether we have fully utilised the potential of our
Havy in preventing, for example, the flow of military supplies into
the ports of North Vietnam.
QUESTION: Do you think that through air attacks and use of
sea power that we can get them to the conference table?
15
FORD: Well, the Administration at the present time
is apparently following that policy. I think this is the basis
upon which they are carrying on our actions in South and North
Vietnam.
DIRKSEN: Well, lot me... After all,
I felt MacArthur was pretty right when he said "There is no substitute
for victory." And secondly, if you want a classic example of how
you can mess up a conference, just remember that we sent Averell
Harriman out to Laos and look what we got as a bargain. That one you
can interpret for yourself.
QUESTION: Senator, who were you quoting when you said
"There is no substitute for victory."
DIRKSEN: MacArthur.
QUESTION: (Two reporters speak at once.)
DIRKSEN: Well, wait a minute, let's have one -
QUESTION: (Again they speak at same time.)
DIRKSEN: Wait a minute, Richard. (LAUGHTER) Open
the door, Richard. (LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Senator, do you agree with Representative
Ford that we should be stepping up our air raids in North Vistnam?
DIRKSEN: Well, if there's a necessity for it, a military
necessity, yes. Now... there canbe a variety of reasons for it.
I caught a reason from a young f ellow who was in my office late last
week. He's been over there for a year. I said I understand those
B-52 attacks weren't very effective. Well, he said, maybe not in one
GERALD LIBRARY
16
respect, but you'd be B urprised what those big boys coming over did
for the morale - net only for the American troops, but of the
Vietnamese troops as well.
So you might not have had a shattering of all of these
underground passage-ways, but you had a very distinctive psycholegical
effect.
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen -
DIRKSEN: Yes, Richard. (LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Do you find any fault whatsoever with the way
President Johnson has conducted the war up to now?
DIRKSEN: I don't helieve I have, as a matter of fact.
And I don't
well, let me amplify. And we have to assume, of
course, that every hour on the hour - - if that's the way it is -
CIA gives him a r eport, the Joint Chiefs give him a report... there's
constant communication between Saigon and Washington. The President
knows what's going on, he certainly MUST, and they're having these
constant conferences here, so surely whatever decisions are made,
whatever actions are taken, are based upon the facts from hour to
hour and day to day. And I just have to assume that the Commander-
in-Chief is acting with the advice of the best advisers he can find.
And we didn't train these people on the Joint Chiefs in vain for a
period of 30 or 40 years.
if they don't know, then I ask you,
Richard, how should a humble shavetail - who served in World War I - -
have the answer to a military question.
QUESTION: May I ask Mr. Ford to address himself to this
same question.
LIBRARY
17
FORD: I strongly support the President's actions in
meeting Communist aggression in South Vietnam. I do raise some
questions and have made some suggestions for intensification of
the air superiority that we have against significant military
targets in North Vietnam - and I also believe we can more effectively
utilise our sea power in the same area. But basically I fully agree
with the President's firmness against Communist aggression in that
area.
QUESTION: You have talked about the possibility of
the changing nature of the war. What troop level... (Note: rest
of question not clear.)
hesitate
FORD: Ray, I would to pick a figure. I think it's
a basic question of whether or not there has been a policy decision
to do more than use our ground forces primarily for the protection
of personnel... (Note: not clear at this point).. there - and the
protection of our bases.
The other policy would be movement and commitment of
substantial numbers of U.S. forces on the ground for the purpose
of changing the nature of the war. As far as I know as of the
moment, there has been no decision in that regard.
QUESTION: Are you opposed to such a decision?
FORD: As Senator Dirksen said a few moments ago, if
there is to be & change from the present policy to a large-scale,
ground warfare commitment, the President ought to have a Joint
Meeting of the Republican and Democratic legislative leaders so that
18
all the facts can be laid out on the table as to the need and as
to the necessity - - until that is done, I can make no commitment one
way or another. The circumstances could change tomorrow. There
are circumstances that get beyond our control - beyond the control
of the President - but I DO raise the question that we ought to be
sautious in this regard before making any basic change or decision.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
FORD: If there are any such changes, I for one have
not been consulted.
QUESTION: (Inaudible - bells ringing)
DIRKSEN: .... except we are not on the Commission.
The Commission consists of an Indian, a Canadian, and a Pole (9).
And that's just exactly what's wrong... with that Commission that
is headquartered in Cambodia.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: No. the one that was negotiated subsequently...
that inter-allied commission they have over there came almost
immediately out of the Geneva Pact of 1954.
QUESTION: (Asks a question about Averell Harriman.)
DIRKSEN: Oh, woll, Averell Harriman is a friend of mine.
(LAUGHTER) (EVERYBODY TALKS AT ONCE)
QUESTION: (Says something about Geneva Pact of 1954...)
DIRKSEN: Frankly, I think he was. And they approached
it with a "Hi-Eo." But of course it came a
....
Let me make one suggestion here. I had a retired General
in the other day. He says the thing to do out there is to wheel out
19
of mothballs these other battleships we've got - they that will
throw a thousand-pound shell a matter of 20 miles - and put them in
the China Sea and the Tonkin Bay and you're going to get a range that
will really fix 'em.
Now, that's an offices speaking who's wedded to one type
of war.
I was a wagon-seldier during the war. You ask no?
I'd say, well, let's pulverise them with 75-mm... and then let's
get up to 155mm howitser. You ask an Infantry General... he'd say,
why you couldn't begin to win a war unless you had the dough boys
sloggin' in there - and hold the ground inch by inch as you take it.
Well, that was that placement warfare thatw went through in World
War I.
Now you ask somebody who was in the Air Service... he's
say, Oh, that's a lot of stuff. That's just old hat. What you need
to do is pound 'em from the air.
So you get many of these decisions depending upon a
military point of view - and I suppose it's only because they've
been associated with that particular branch of the service.
We're not going to make military decisions for all the
branches, because I'm going to getmixed up between missiles and
howitzers and small arms and basookas and all the rest
QUESTION: Senator, I want to ask you one question.
(Points out the difference between what Ford wants and Dirksen
wants - militarily.)
20
DIRKSEN: Well, I don't recommend - - or not recommend.
If the President thinks that's the thing to do, very well. He's
the Commander-in-Chief. If on the basis of the information available
to him - that is NOT available to us - who am I to challenge his
judgment?
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: Well, I would expect that if there is a basic
change in decision - in policy - that we should be consulted... ahead
of time... given an opportunity to make suggestions and recommendations.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Oh, well, if you put it in this light - we don't
expect the President to call us down there morning, noon, and night.
After all, these judgments are developed through consultation and
when the time comes, I'm pretty confident that he will summon the
leadership and say, all right, here it is on the basis of new evidence -
perhaps new objectives - and whatever else enters into the picture.
QUESTION: Gerry, you singled out two types of settlement
which you say would not be a cceptable. Do you have some reason to
think that either of those two types of settlement is in the air -
or do you think something like this is about to happen?
FORD: I have no evidence that either are inminent, but
we feel it's important that these observations be made for the
benefit of the President and the benefit of the American people.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, how are we going to bring it to a
conclusion if we don't gain a victory. What's the alternative? To
21
ease out a little at a time - or to pull 'em out at once - or to
fight on through - or to put a holding force on the 17th Parallel
and say, well, we'll set up some permanent establishments here and
we're just going to be here for quite a long time. So bring in the
kitchenware and whatever is needed for a long period of housekeeping.
Is there any other alternative except to fight it through to a
victorious conclusion?
And besides, don't forget for a moment that the prestige
and the face of this country is involved in all of Southeast Asia.
What do you think they would think in Malaysia, in
Indonesia, in the Philippines, as a matter of fact, or in New Guinea
or Australia, or in Burma, about the United States... turned out to
be a "paper tiger" after all. What happens then to our prestige?
Our line, our present line, runs from Indochina to Korea... you'll
then pull your line, your Pacific perimiter in, and it'll be from
Alaska to Hawaii - and then WHEN will it be pulled in and be from
Alaska to some point in South America - and then you're within
shooting distance of San Francisco.
QUESTION: Senator, we have said repeatedly. - our
government has said repeatedly - - any number of times - that we seek
a negotiated peace, have been extremely careful not to use the words
"total victory". -
DIRKSEN: I didn't say anything about "total victory" -
I just say a "victory" and - well, a victory could be the initiative
on their part to ask for a truce - and you still don't have a total
LIDRARY
22
victory. But we could consider it a victory. That's why we used the
word "truce" as well as "treaty" in this statement. We don't want
that mistake to be made because you make a "truce" that's conditional
or you've got the wrong people around the table and you'd just as will
kiss it goodbye. Because you're on the first rung of the ladder.
QUESTION: Senator, on another subject -
DIRKSEN: First, was that a record vote? You don't
even care about missing... (LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: You say - are they? I don't know but if they
do, I'll be there.
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
SENATOR DIRKSEN - REPRESENTATIVE FORD
July 22, 1965
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD: 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
of the government.
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
will act on this important change of policy with only two hours debate
and that no opportunities will be given to offer meaningful amendments.
If the House is not to sacrifice its self-respect, it will
vote down the proposal that shuts its mouth, plugs its ears, closes
its eyes and swallows the Johnson's Administration's prescription
without adequate debate and without opportunity 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
GERALD
2
repeal of Section 14(b) on its merits. The Administration has
engaged in a cynical type of log-rolling on this important 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 Congressmen to vote for repeal of 14(b) against their convictions
in order to get a farm bill.
If the coalition which the Administration is rustlessly
trying to put together is successful, how can Congress be considered
to act as an independent branch of the government?
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN: Good morning, laddes and
gentlemen.
A strange thing happened to the proposed constitutional
amendment on apportionment 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 of representation 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 representation
of the interest of urban areas in state legislative bodies. I welcome
GERALD
3
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 node 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 in every state by Federal fiat
regardless of the dusires 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. Frequently. or 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 suchre 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 district
lines 80 as to spread the minority population thinly over a number of
districts.
simply
The issue which the proposed amendment presents is/this:
4
Shall we allow the people to make the decision about the
basis of representation in one house of their le gislature, or shall we
impose a decision on them whether they want it or not?
We propose to fight this... MERT this issue... and fight
every step of the way to preserge our Federal-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.
GERAL
5
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Tony, I never abandoned any hope.
QUESTION: (Asks something about Senator Javits and the
amendment.)
DIRESEN: I do not quite know what you mean by the word
"whammy." Now if you tell me what you mean...
(Voice says: "How
do you spell it?"
DIRKSEN: Well... maybe my friend isn't - what shall I
say - an ethnological (1) scholar... and probably he knows how to
spell "whammy."
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DREKSEN: Well, I had a little visit with Senator Javits
yesterday and I think we understand each other quite well. And as you
well know, I've long followed a principle that there is no insurmountable
obstacle in this world and who knows - what will happen?
QUESTION: How do you propose to surmount this obstacle?
DIRKSEN: Oh... I don't want to telegraph my punch right
now. I prefer to wait until that time comes.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSIN: Well, who knows? It would be on the floor of the
Senate or in the Senate Judiciary Committee - one of the two.
QUESTION: Senator, do you think it would be necessary of
inadvisable to keep the Congress in session - past Labor Day - in
view of the Vietnam situation?
DIRKSEN: That I cannot say. I can say this, I believe:
that, first, it's generally conceded that that situation has been
GERALD
6
deteriorated. If that were not so, there would be no occasion to send
additional contingents of troops into Vietnam.
Secondly, you're confronted with the problem of Presidential
authority, or authority in the Commander in Chief, to determine what
should be done - that's his problem under the circumstances, and that
involves many things. Does it require more troops? Does it require
additional authority? Does he need additional money?
Now as I understand the existing law, the President can
declare an emergency and under that declaration he is presently
empowered to call up as many as a million reserves.
Now, what he wants to do beyond that remains to be seen.
QUESTION: Would you like to see the passage of a
Congressional declaration of emergency before calling up reserves?
DIRKSEN: Well, I do not pass upon that matter now, largely
because it would be too difficult to measure its impact. We had a
discussion of this whole matter in the Joint Leadership this morning
and Congressman Ford has taken & particularly active interest in this
matter and he may want to say a word on this with respect to the
number of reserves that were called up in the Eisenhower Administration
as distinguished from any other Administration.
So I invite Gerry now to say a word about that, if he likes.
FORD: It seems to me that the burden of proof on whether
reserves should be called up, whether enlistments should be extended,
and whether there should be increased draft calls, should be placed
squarely on the Secretary of Defense and the Administration.
7
I have in my hand here a pamphlet put out last week by
the Defense Department and on the last page the Secretafy of Defense
sets forth military strength increases since January 1961. He points
out there's been a 45% increase in the number of combat ready divisions.
He points out that there's been a 51% increase in the number of Air
Force Fighter Squadrons. The Secretary of Defense speaks about a
500% increase in the number of scrties which our fighter aircraft can
fly with modern ammunition. The Secretary of Defense says there has
been a thousand percent increase in special forces trained for counter-
insurgency.
I think we ought to ask the question - in view of all of
these improvements in the Department of Defense since January of 1961 -
why is it necessary to call up reservists to extend enlistments and to
increase the draft?
And I might point out in addition
in the 8 years of the
Eisenhower Administration, we had the crisis in Quemoy and Matsu; we
had the crisis in Lebanon; we had a Berlin crisis. And not once in the
Eisenhower Administration were any reservists called up to meet these
crises. I further point out that since January of 1961 under this
Administration there have been 2 cases where reservists have been called
up for active duty - - in the case of Berlin in 1961. 150,000 reservists
were called to active duty.. and in the case of the Cuban Missile
Crisis, this Administration called up 15,000 reservists to active duty.
There must be some explanation why in four and a half years we've
Already had two call-ups and probably a third, particularly in Aight
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
8
of these proclaimed increases in our military capability.
QUESTION: Congressman Ford, what in your view now should
be the policy goals of the Administration in respedt to the fighting
in Vietnam? In other words, what should the American people be told
that they're fighting for?
FORD: I think the American people should be told that
they're fighting actually communist aggression in South Vietnam.
And if communist aggression prevails in South Vietnam, it will be
very likely that similar Communist aggression will be attempted
elsewhere throughout the world.
DIRKSEN: But a further answer... Andy. first of all,
if as we suspect this situation is rapidly deteriorating, certainly we
ought to be told on the basis of the very latest CIA and other
intelligence reports precisely what it is and precisely what our
military experts think ought to be done. We make no pretense that
we're experts, or we deal in the field of policy. But once given that
basic information up to the last hour that it's available, I think we
could come to the proper conclusions and could state not only more
readily but more pointedly what ought to be told to the American people.
And we have in mind always that it's their youngsters that are going
to be sent out there and some of them not come back. And that's a
serious business in anybody's book.
QUESTION: If the reservists are to be called up, should
the President ask Congress to authorise it, or should he use the
emergency powers that he now has?
9
FORD: I personally think that the President should ask
the Congress for authority - even though he does have some authority
at the present time to declare an emergency and to take some action.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, are you suggesting that you might
oppose...
FORD: I didn' t say that I was going to oppose, but the
burden of proof is on the Secretary of Defense to justify in light of
all of the claimed improvements in the Department of Defense since
January of 1961.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, there again, as I indicated a moment ago,
what is the last word over there? How far HAS THE SITUATION deteriorated?
And not the least of the problems is the question of available materiel
and equipment.
QUESTION: Are they short of this?
DIRKSEN: Well, arethey? You pick these things up in the
air and I know that one Senate subcommittee at least is *king a good
look at it. It has disclosed nothing as yet - nor have I been so
curious as to go about and ask what they've found until they've
completed their work. But I know that a search is being made in that
field.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, I just wanted to ask your Suppose
the President calls up the reserves.. should he seek authority from
Congress?
10
FORD: The answer is the President ought to request the
Congress to approve a call-up of reserves.. the President ought to
come before the Congress and before the American people, pointing out
within the confines of security what the circumstances are. And if
he asks the Congress for this authority, it will give the members of
the House AND the Senate the opportunity to ask these questions:
Why in view of all of these improvements in the Defense Department
do we have to have a call-up of reserves for the third time in four and
a half years?
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, why do you shrink from the use of
ground forces in Vietnam? (Note: rest of question not clear.)
FORD: Not at all - not at all. Because we have an air
superiority; we have a naval superiority. If we use this superiority
more effectively than we have in the past, it ought to be more
convincing to the enemy than engage them in the kind of warfare where
they may have (and I underline may have) a superiority.
QUESTION: Didn't we have complete air and naval superiority
in Korea in 1950 and yet we retreated 400 miles - lost 9 straight
battles - and didn't regain an inch of it until we landed ground troops?
FORD: Yes, but we also stepped up our air activity in
North Korea at the same time that the ground forces were shipped in.
DIRKSEN: I ought to amplify a little by simply saying
that we do not shrink from doing whatever the situation calls for.
But we ought to be informed. We ought to be told exactly what that
situation is, and I think within the Aimits of security that you pointed
11
out - the American people ought to be alerted to the gravity of this
thing. because this is for keeps.
QUESTION: May I get back to 14 (b). How unified will the
House Republicans be.
FORD: Well, the first vote will come Monday on the
gag rule which is now proposed, and I feel in opposing the gag rule
the Republicans will be highly unified. If we can defeat the gag
rule, then we can open up the debate and the consideration to amendments
which we think are meaningful and constructive. If we can do that,
we will be very much more unified than we will be under the gag rule
which the Administration is proposing.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD NXXXXXX: It's open to amendment, but the kind of amendments
that can be offered are severely restricted by the rule of germaineness
they're strictly limited to the very confining areas proposed in the
bill. And we feel an important issue such as this ought to have 6 hours
of debate rather than the 2 proposed in the Rule, and we think that
the opportunity to offer debate. I mean to offer amendments, should be
opened up so that we can really do some meaningful work in trying to
improve the situation.
QUESTION: Whatare the amendments you have in mind?
FORD: Well, there will be a wide variety of amendments.
I can think of 4 or 5... Congressman Robert Griffin among others will
undoubtedly propose some amendments that will limit the union dues
to the economic issues between labor and management. I understand
12
Congresswoman Mith Green has an amendment that involves
conscientious objectors who for reasons of their religious faith
don't want to belong in a compulsery way to a labor organisation.
There are a number of other amendments - I only mention
two.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: Well, it's very obvious to anyone who walks around
the Office Building on the House side of the Capitol that there are
people who want repeal of 14(b) who are going to city congressmen and
saying: You have to vote for this omnibus agriculture bill even
though it will impose a bread tax in order for us to get agridultural
congressmen to vote for Section 14(b) repeal. The mobs are moving
around the House Office Building trying to put together this cynical
combination.
QUESTION: (Asks something about the White House)
FORD: I'm sure they are very active in trying to put
together this combination.
QUESTION: Who are some of the people active in
FORD: Well, I have a letter here from the Farmers Union,
for example, that is urging all Congressmen... I'm certain it's aimed
at Congressmen from farm areas... to vote for the repeal of Section
14(b). And some of my labor friends are around talking to city
Congressmen urging them to vote for the bread tax in order to achieve
the repeal of Section 14(b).
QUESTION: Senater Ford, does that mean the Republican
Party is against the farm program?
FORD: We have taken no policy position on it yet in
the
13
the House of Representatives.
QUESTION: You're attacking the so-called "bread tax."
FORD: We're attacking this one provision in the omnibus
farm bill at this point.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: Well, I don't want to mention them by name, but
if you wander around the House Office Building it's very obtious who
they are.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: I think it's very fair to say that the House Committee
on Rules this year has brought forth rules on every controversial
proposal that the Administration has requested action. They've brought
out the Voting Rights Bill with no problem: they've brought out the
Education Bill promptly. There isn't a single instance this year
where the House Rules Committee has blecked the consideration of
controversial legislation, and I'm certain this year that the Rules
Committee would have brought out a rule on Section 14(b) - and if
they had, they would have given adequate time for debate, they would
have drafted the rule so that meaningful, constructive amendments
could be offered, but this gag rule proposal is so restrictive as to
time for debate and for the kind of amendment that it ought to be
defeated.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: I'm confident that the Rules Committee would have
brought out a rule, but the Administration obviously wanted to try the
FORD
14
21-day-rule... and the first instance we've had the 24-day-rule
application, we have a gag rule. I think it's somewhat paradoxical
that this is the first development.
QUESTION: Congressmank in any event, if it comes to a
showdown and we're not able to amend a proposition (?)... would you
vote for repeal of the 14(b) clause?
FORD: I personally have long been opposed to the repeal of
Section 14(b). I feel that each state ought to have the right, the
oppertunity, to make the decision itself on this controversial issue.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: We'r8 in the process now, Sam, of taking a whip
check.
QUESTION: Well, you said ... unified earlier.
FORD: I'm sure it will be but to answer the specifics, I
can't give you an answer to that.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, in talking about Secretary McNamara,
are you suggesting that he has weakened the Defense Department rather
than strengthened it?
FORD: No, I simply took his own figures, which indicate
that he's made all of these improvements in the last four and a half
years. Now if this is true, why do they have to extend enlistments,
call up reservists, and increase the draft calls? The questions ought
to be asked. These are substantial improvements... they had probably
$9 $40 to $50 billion in increased appropriations in the last four and
a half years in the Department of Defense. In light of all of these
15
improvements, additional money, they certainly ought to be asked -
and they ought to assume the burden of proof - to justify this call-
up of reserves.
QUESTION: Does Senator Dirksen share your view that
President Johnson ought to come to Congress before dalling up
reservists?
FORD: I hesitate to speak for him. I suspect that he
does, but I would rather not answer the question directly on his
behalf.
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
SENATOR DIRKSEN
August 5. 1965
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Ladies and gentlemen, if they have film
in those cameras and you've got ink in your fountain pens, we'd better
get started.
You know. the cost of living is always & significant issue
because it strikes every man, woman, and child in the country.
Now the most recent figures on the cost of living convey
a rather disheartening bit of news. For the third month in a row
a substantial increase in living costs is registered. The increase to
date in 1965 has been four times the increase during the same period
in 1964.
In the month of June it showed the biggest increase in
23 months. Food prices alone rose 2% The meat, poultry. and fish
group were up 10% from last year.
Food store prices in the Washington area bring these
statistics to life. For instance, in one chain s tore since June of
1964 the cost of smoked ham has risen from 43 cents per pound to
59 cents per pound. st another chain store, the past thirteen months
have seen a rise in the cost of rib steaks of 22 cents a pound, while
boneless chuck roast has zoomed from 49 cents per pound to 85 cents
per pound. Pork chops, succulent pork chops and incidentally my
GERALD
2
favorite food, have nearly doubled in price - from 69 cents per
pound in June of '64 to teday's price of $1.19 cents. The same store
in the same period has seen bacon more than doubled in price. from
49 cents to $1.05 cents per pound.
There are signs of continued pressure 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. And 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 312 per cent. And that
will tend to push prices up even more.
Now in spite of these disquieting signs, the press reports
that "Administration spokesmen said they were not worried by the
recent surge of consumer prices." These sentiments are certainly not
shared by the American housewife, or the wage earner with a family,
or the poor, or the retired, or the people who are in the fixed income
groups. Perhaps the President should be reminded of that portion of
the State of the Union Message in which he said, "Our continued
prosperity demands continued price stability."
This inflationary trend offsets the billions being
expended on the highly publicised war on poverty.
3
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD: It is now more than
four years since the Council of Economic Advisers set an unemployment
level of 4 per cent as the "interin goal" of the Administration. It is
now more than three years since Hubert Humphrey declared and I quote,
"I predict that by the end of the coming calendar year - by December 31,
1962 - the problem of unemployment 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 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, unemployment remains an unsolved problem. Unlike past
periods of upowing 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 ferce.
Employment of youth promises to be n more difficult problem
within the next few years because of the substantial increases in the
4
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
that age each year.
Spending programs by the score have been offered as
Unfortunately,
panaceas for unemployment. /They have not attained the Administration's
stated goal.
We see here a repetition 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 unemployment.
The Administration stands indicted by its obvious failure
in dealing with this critical problem.
GENALD LISBANY
5
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen, over the last year many
Senators - Republimans and some Democrate - complained about low
cattle prices - beef and also lamb. Has any of this price increase
been finding its way into the pockets of those people?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, since the figures indicate there's
been an increase in food prices, one would have to assume that it
includes meat, and I think I mentioned there the meat, poultry, and
fish group - so there has been an increase there.
QUESTION: Is it going to the cattle raisers?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I have not spelled it out that far.
I see these charts, but the charts can either be purposeful or they
can be meaningless - it depends on who makes them and whether all
factors are taken into account.
I want to add something to what Congressman Ford just
said... about this unemployment matter.
It's rather interesting that the Administration does
not break down its figures and give the people of the country a
real picture of what this unemployment situation is like.
Now, if they'll bother to analyze it a little, they'll
find that the heads of households - very stable people - you can get
an unemployment rate as low as 2.3 per cent. But it's when you get
into the youth groups that it jumps up to 15%, 16% and 17%.. and
THERE is a real problem.
Now, part of that is due to lack of training and at the
time we considered the overall tax bill, they were toying with the
6
idea of double-time for overtime - meaning thereought to be a shop
committee on which there was representation from labor, management
AND the government - to evaluate jobs and see whether or not they
would have to pay double-time for overtime because maybe people were
available for those jobs.
We had testimony on the other side to indicate it would
cost management sore to train new people than it took to pay time and
& half - and there's your real difficulty in the unemployment picture.
Now as you get more youngsters in the country, this is
going to become more aggravating.
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen. I'd like to ask a question on
another matter. What are you going to do about re-appertionment now?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I thought I indicated in various
statements on the floor of the Senate and elsewhere that when I
fight on the basis of principle I fight for keeps. And one heat
doesn't constitute the winner of a race. So this was just the first
heat.
Now I propose to do exactly what I've done before. If
there is an appropriate vehicle to which I can append this proposal
that I've submitted, frankly, I intend to do it. And I don't believe
there should be any hiatus in the matter.
QUESTION: Have you decided yetwhich vehicle will be
appropriate -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Not definitely - - nor do I want to
announce it so far in advance when I do. But I see a vehicle in the
LIBRARY
7
offing... and I do have my eye on it and I'm giving it ample
consideration.
QUESTION: 14(b)...
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, Richard... (LAUGHTER)... if this
were in a court room I'd have to ask the judge to sustain my objection
on the ground that that's a leading question. (EVERYONE TALKS AT
ONCE)
What did you say?
QUESTION: Where do you expect to get the extra votes?
You had 57... you need something like 7 more...
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I must say that you represent the
press media - all of whom are most generous with their headlines...
because it's beginning to energise the country and I believe they're
beginning to understand what the focal issue really is. And they will
communicate their sentiments, of course, to their public servants -
meaning us.
REP. FORD: It's my understanding, Senator, that the
Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary suspended hearings
on this proposed anendment this morning in the House Committee on the
Juliciary. Congressman Bill McCullech - and I subscribe to his
decision - has violently objected. Because he and I both feel this
matter should be brought from the Committee on the Judiciary in the
House and brought to the floor of the House as it was to the Senate
for favorable action.
SENATOR DIRESEN: I hope you'll tell the distinguished
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee for me that I think his
8
action is rather premature. And you night add that it's rather
anticipatory.
QUESTION: Congressman Ford, do you have anything to
add on the statement who said what to whom at the White House...
REP. FORD: Well... (LAUGHTER)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Now hold on to your hats... (LAUGHTER)
REP. FORD: Frankly, I do, Bill. And I will read an
unsolicited letter which was received this morning from one of you
in the news media and I'll let the letter speak for itself. Its address
"Golden Winds Cottage, Newfound Lake, Bristol, New Hampshire. August 3.
1965.
"Rep. Gerald Ford
U. S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.
Dear Gerry:
I have learned belatedly, here in the distant
reaches of New Hampshire, of the President's wholly unfair
criticism - presumably of you - of an alleged violation
of confidence concerning the alleged contents and influence
of Senator Mansfield's statement, read at the White House
briefing on Vietnam.
I was one of your guests at the background
luncheen. It was I who asked about the Manefield statement.
I said I had learned that Senator Mansfield had read a
two-page statement critical of Vietnam at the White House
meeting and asked you for the details. Your only comment,
as I recall it, was that the statement seemed to you to be
longer than two pages. Beyond this statement and your
remark that you noticed Ambassadoe Henry Cabet Lodge
sitting silently nearby, you vouchsafed no details of
Mansfield's statement.
You
said
nothing...
and I repeat nothing... to
the effect that Senator Manafield argued against calling
up the reserves or that this had any influence on the
Presid ent's decision.
9
I was struck at the luncheon by your great
sense of national responsibility when you told us that
though you had advocated a different course in Vietnam
from the President's, you wre going to support our
Commander-in-Chief in the decisions that he had made.
The President has been ill-informed - perhaps
by insocurate or tendentious reporting by some newsmen.
Please feel free to make this letter public or to send a
copy to the President.
Sincerely,
(s) Sam
Samuel Shaffer"
May I add one other comment which I also think
will speak for itself:
"The President
The White House
Dear Mr. President:
The enclosed unsolicited letter was received in
my office this morning from a mutual friend,
Mr. Sam Shaffer. With his approval I am forward-
ing this letter to you and making it public.
In light of the events of the past week, if you
were referring to me, I must respectfully request
a conference with you to determine on what basis
you were erroneeusly informed as to my views.
Warmest personal regards.
Sincerely.
(a) Gerald R. Ford
10
And may I anticipate one question which I expect will be
asked:
If I am invited to the White House as the Republican leader
of the House - for any other White House conference on Vietnam or
otherwise - of course I will accept. Because this problem in Vietnam
is an American problem and the Republican Party and I will do our
utmost to help solve it.
But may I add this footnote:
Attendance at any White House meeting of that sort will
not prevent me from making constructive suggestions or recommendations
or criticiams when I think the policy decisions are wrong. Attendance
at a White House conference does not muffle the leyal oppesition. It
will not silence it if we feel that for the good of America a different
course of action must be taken.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
REP. FORD: The letter was delivered to the White House
approximately at 1:30 this afternooon.
(Everybody talks at once.)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: You all know Sam Shaffer, don't you?
QUESTION: ... on the House Minority Leader - and then
pays courtesy calls on the Senate Minority Leader.
REP. FORD: You'll have to ask the President for his
comment on that.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRESEN: Are you speaking of the courtesy call?
Could you perchance be speaking about an impromptu - rather unexpected
11
visit - to my office by the President last night? Well, all I can
say is: the dog came in first and then ane the .... (DROWNED
OUT
BY LAUGHTER)
Now whether the dog came in just as a security measure,
I don't know. (LAUGHTER) But in any event, we were in my office -
the Majority Leader was there - he was talking to the President - he
put me on the line and I talked to the President... and he indicated
that if we stayed a little while he might drop in for a visit. And he
did, indeed, and he Vas there within 15 minutes after we were talking
on the phone. It was a little like old times - when we used to sit
either in his office or in my office and discuss the affairs of the
day. Now and then we'd examine a clipping together and... he just sort
of added a little tone to the day. So it was QUITE uhexpected...
I
think he was there roughly about an hour... se not having had so much
as lunch (as I described on the Senate Floor) I was getting hungry
about that time and finally got some dinner about 11 o'clock last night.
Now you are all clustered around the door. I have a
question: How did you find out that he was in the
?
Because it wasn't until a little bit 'til you even had the cameras
set up. Bo... somebody must have seen him come. I'm sure my wire
wasn't tapped - with the other end up in the Press Gallery. Se...
(LAUGHS A LITTLE) I get curious. Tony, maybe you could resolve
my curiosity.
TONY: I had gone home -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: You had gone home.
12
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen, as an astute political observer,
do you detect any White House attempt to divide the Senate and House
Republican leadership?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Oh, definitely not... nor could it be
done. Our fidelity to the Party and to the Party principles and
purposes is such and cemented by unabiding friendship... that that could
not be brought about under any circumstances. And I salute my friend
Gerry Ford... for his courage and the devotion he has to the business of
the Party and the business of the country, which comes foremost.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, indeed I don't. I've been asked
about it. I said I had no comment. I didn t know because no names were
mentioned and I couldn't tell who might be the target of these
observations. So under the circumstances I was in no position to make
a comment.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
RNP. FORD: I said my attendance at a White House
conference... would not preclude me from making constructive suggestions,
or recommendations, or, on the other hand, would not preclude me from
being critical if I thought the wrong decisions had been made.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
REP. FORD: Both...
QUESTION: (Not clear)
RMP. FORD: I think again you'll have to ask the
President about that.
13
QUESTION: Any indication?
REP. FORD: I've had no communication from the President...
other than in the newspapers on Monday.
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen, were you present at the
briefing at which Representative Ford was alleged to have received
information... that he later gave out.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Yes, sir, I was present.
QUESTION: Do you feel he has broken any confidence -
SENATOR DIRKSEN: What
QUESTION: Representative Ford.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, you heard Sam Shaffer's letter
read which was -
QUESTION: (Inaudible comment)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No. but it was responsive ... Gerry's
amswer was responsive to San Shaffer's question... and frankly, I have
no recollection whatsoever that Gerry made any comment beyond those
that were set out in that letter.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, can we go back to prices? How would
the Republicans bring down the prices of these things?
REP. FORD: Well, I would defer to Senator Dirksen
who read that statement, but it seems to me that during the Eisenhower
Administration we never had any sharp rise of this sort... that
robbed the housewife (including my own wife) who tried to buy a few
pounds of beef cocasionally for the benefit of the Ford family.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, now, the real answer lies in
the whole monetary picture. Because if by prefligate spending you
14
begin to fill the bloodstream with money beyond the goods content that
we have, obviously you're going to cheapen the dollar and it's going to
take more cheaper dollars to buy the same amount of goods. And I
share I think with the Governer... Chairman of the Federal Reserve
Board...
and others... the rather classical definition of how you
bring about inflation. And it's & fiscal and a monetary problem -
that's where it begins. That's where Britain's inflation begins...
and they're having their troubles now. Japan is having its troubles.
And we'll have our troubles if we continue to dump this money in untold
sums into the economic bloodstream of the country. And besides, I
can't help but feel from the results that I've perceived so far that
involved
there is a tremendous amount of waste and extravagance xxxxxx - and
that only aggravates it.
QUESTION: Senator, did the President yesterday offer to
help you on your next go-'round on apportionment?
SENATOR DIRESEN: He didn't precisely suggest that he
was going to help. We did have a little colloquy about it and he said
I carried out my promise to you and I didn't interfere. Well, I said,
I know but interfering on my side is one thing... interfering on the
8
opposition side is quite another... and I didn t want you to carry it
quite that far.
QUESTION: Senator, did you get any kind of offer that
he would call Hubert off on the next go-'round?
SENATOR DIRESEN: I didn't even ask him about that.
But Hubert had a very healthy smile and a very vigorous laugh... and I
GERALD
15
know he fully appreciated the situation.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No. No, this was when he came into
the Chamber. (everybody TALKS) You saw how bluff and hearty it was.
(LAUGHTER)
THE JOINT SENATE-HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
SENATOR DIRKSEN - REPRESENTATIVE FORD
September 9, 1965
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, ladies and gentlemen,
I presume your pencils are poised, there is film in the camera, and
we're prepared to go to work. There is a sign here that says: "Please
talk into the mikes." Now - do you hear it back there? You don't?
That's good.
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 BO basic to
federal-state relations. Several Senators have promised extended
discussion of the subject, and clearly the votes for cloture will not
be forthcoming.
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
relations with management and management's relations with labor. If the
GERALD
2
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 laber-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 with 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.
BRARI
3
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD: The 89th Congress has passed
several bills increasing the flow of federal funds available for education.
It has added a out in excise taxes to a reduction of income tax rates in
1964.
Because of Administration opposition, the Congress has not,
however, provided tax relief specifically directed toward lightening the
burden of higher education.
More than 5 million students will settle on the campuses of
colleges and universities throughout the United States this month. In
the course of the next 5 years, college enrollment is expected to increase
by an additional 11 million students.
The average cost of a year of higher education at a public
institution 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 private institutions
in the next decade.
The cost of goingto college is a severe strain on the resources of
most of the 5million 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 scholarships
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.
LIBRARY
4
The most effective and direct method of lightening the burden
of college expenses for all 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.
GERALD
5
QUESTION: (About 14(b) - but not clear)
DIRKSEN: Not particularly, Roger. that is to say, I cannot speak
with authority as to whether it will or will not. I have to assume
that it is part of the President's program and of course I can say this
much at least... out of our conversations of several weeks ago, when I
raised the question and suggested that 14(b) be thrown overboard. his
answer was that he was committed. That's all that was said except I
said "WE'RE committed also." And if that's the case, then astruggle will
ensus. I said, "Mr. President, I have no secrets. I think we can put
at least 25 or more right up on the fighting line at all times in order
to keep this thing from coming to a vote - in this session if we have to."
QUESTION: Is there some doubt in your mind as to the strength
of this commitment - for the repeal of 14(b)?
DIRKSEN: Well, when the President says he's committed, I have no
reason to doubt his statement. Now I can add one thing to it: I picked
up a rumour (and it was only a rumeur) this morning that perhaps 14(b)
might be motioned up before the rest of the Administration program was
completed. I think I'm at liberty to say that I discussed it with the
Majority Leader this noon and he said the rumour is entirely unfounded,
we will go ahead with the program, and 14(b) will come right at the tail
end.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSNN: Well, I don't like to dignify rumours by identifying a
person or a place. But it came at least from a very responsible member
of the Senate. Now where he got it, I don't know. I can only identify
6
him to this extent and say that he was a member of my party.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: You say -
QUESTION: (Still not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, my expectation, of course, is founded on
conversation no later than 12:30 this noon with the Majority Leader -
that it will come along at the tail end of the procession.
QUESTION: (Two reporters talk at once)
DIRKSEN: Bill, I didn't get that entirely -
QUESTION:
... bringing it up last increases the possibility it
could be dumped -
DIRKSEN: Well, I would think so. Everybody is aware of the fact
that the adjournment contagion is in the air. I don't know how long the
House will have to stay here. If I remember my House Rule Book correctly
and knowing there's been great pressure for Home Rule for the District of
Columbia, it cannot come up until the 27th and Gerry, if I'm correct -
at least this is the way it used to work - if it wasn't finished on
District Day it had to go over to the next District Day. And in the days
when I was Chairman of the House District Committee, we had only two
District Days each month - and if you didn't finish on the first day.
it went over for at least two weeks. So - if the 27th is the first day
and the drive is sustained in order to enact this into law (now that the
Senate has passed the Home Rule Bill). then just measure 14 days from
the 27th and it does give some substance to these predictions and
prophecies that we'll be here until the middle of October. And it could
of course be later.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
7
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen -
DIRKSEN: Yes sir, Dick.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: You say - am I the manager?
QUESTION: Yes, sir.
DIRKSEN: Oh, I would think that there would be a. manager on
both sides of the aisle. In fact, I'm quite sure of it. And carry that
a little further - we're going to have a little meeting sometime today
by members on both sides of the aisle in order to perfect our so-called
management format and get ready for the fray. It will be conducted some-
what like a military operation - we'll have our captains, we'll have
our daily monitors, and everybody will be fortified with speeches. and
we'll be ready to carry on without any difficulty.
QUESTION: What's your rank, sir? (LAUGHTER)
DIRKSEN: You say "my rank?" Well, Reger, the only rank I over
had was... I started as a Private First Class - later I became a Sergeant
at an Artillery School in France - and I was commissioned on the Western
Front and became a shavetail, a Second Lieutenant to you.
QUESTION: ... leading the filibuster, is that right? Or one of
the leaders of the filibuster?
DIRKSEN: Well, I'll be one of the leaders. Now what rank that
gives, I don't know. Of course I might rate 5 stars - who knows?
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Is Senator Russell one of the leaders, too?
FORD LIBRARY
8
DIRKSEN: Well, you know that Senator Russell has not been
unduly active during this session and for a very good reason. I was in
the hospital at the time he was there and he was just recovering from
a tracheotomy - very serious - but we were hospital mates and so we had a
chance to confer, to talk, become better a equainted than ever before.
And he is husbanding his strength and has not unduly expended his energies
and rightly 80 - until he has completely recovered.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Oh, yes, but John, I never used the word "filibuster."
You notice in this statement I speak something about extended discussion..
it's a far nicer phrase.
QUESTION: (Asks something about the Democrat troops.)
DIRKSEN: Oh, I don't want to disclose the number but I can tell
you this - about an equal number from both B ides.
QUESTION: Senator, you seem to state in your statement here that
if 14(b) would come to a vote. you folks would lose (1). What about that?
DIRKSEN: oh, my dear, I never confess that I'm going to lose.
First look at all the brickbats you threw at me on apportionment of state
legislatures. I know that you had me as they said in the early days of
World War I #
# - sunk without a trace. But
it's on the Calendar. I teld you that word "defeat" and "loss" was
chopped out of my dictionary long ago.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN, Repeat
BERALD
9
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Oh, that's on cloture.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well - enough.
QUESTION: To what extent does your statement in this forum
commit the Senate and the House Leadership to a filibuster of 14(b)?
DIRKSEN: Oh, but John, we're not committed to a filibuster.
We're committed to inform the country. Don't you remember - Thomas
Jefferson once said about public responsibility of public officials:
"To inform the minds of the people and then abide by their judgment."
so what we're trying to do is to inform the country.
QUESTION: (Not clear... asks something about benefits by having
it put off until next year.)
DIRKSEN: Yes, but Roger... if you had taken a count of the
polls, you will note that # entiment with respect to 14(b) - against its
repeal - has been increasing... I won't say by leaps and bounds... but
it has been increasing 8 teadily in every poll that I've seen.
QUESTION: (Two reporters speak at once.)
DIRKSEN: Wait a minute - one at a time.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: We don't repudiate labor. You'd be surprised at the
number of rankpand-file union people who arë in our corner against repeal
of 14(b).
QUESTION: (Not clear)
10
DIRKSEN: Well, you can interpret that in a good many ways.
But, you see, the President and I are long-time, close, intimate friends.
And I certainly have some notion and some knowledge about his drive, his
aggressiveness - to get things done - and the word "defeat" doesn't
easily appear in his lexicon either. And sometimes he has to impress his
will as vigorously as he can if it's on the Program and he feels
committed. And so we in return have to adept an equally vigerous
aggressive stance and try to impress our will and, of course, inform the
country - - because this is still the people's government.
QUESTION: Senator, have you yet been invited by the President or
anyone in the Administration for a bi-partisan Conference on the India-
Pakistan conflict?
DIRKSEN: No
QUESTION: Do you anticipate -
DIRKSEN: Well, I assume it's of real serious dimensions - and
there may be such & thing as a conference in order to indicate what action
the Administration contemplates or should take, but having no actual
knowledge of it I can't answer you otherwise.
QUESTION: ... pretty well agreed what should be done as of this
moment -
DIRKSEN: You say they're agreed?
QUESTION: You are agreeing with the Administration the way it's
been handled BO far?
DIRKSEN: Yes, the Administration hasn't done very much. I see
U Thant has been sent out there for whatever that's worth. But you've got
11
to get a full appraisal of it and all the facts before a judgment can
be rendered and before you can lay out a course of action.
QUESTION: Do you share Senator Mansfield's feeling that there
should not be any unilateral action but we should act with the United
Nations?
DIRKSEN: Well, I think up to a point that's quite true, but
suppose the United Nations falls down and suppose this becomes the
crucible out of which World War III can be spawned. And you get no
action out of U.N. Then what? Can you then escape unilateral action?
QUESTION: Senator, back to 14(b). Can you estimate how long
it will be before the Senate finishes its present business and gets to
14(b)?
DIRKSEN: Well, if it comes at the tail end, you can size up
about like this: I would guess that the Farm Bill would take perhaps
until next Tuesday: it will be followed by a highway bill; and then
they'll call up the Immigration Bill - how much discussion there'll be
I do not know - there is opposition to the Immigration Bill and I presume
there will be a number of amendments. Now if an effort is made to remove
the Western Hemisphere ceiling, it's going to precipitate a lot of
discussion. And you could conceivably run until the end of the week.
And now thereafter we have other things.
The sugar bill will be coming from the House but this morning
in Senate Finance Committee there was a request - and in fact a command -
for a hearing - so we'll have hearings on the sugar bill. There was a
demand for hearings on this Canadian Agreement dealing with auto parts
and auto specialties and that will take 2 days next week. Then, of course,
GERALD LISBARY
12
you've got the Foreign Aid Appropriation Bill and they just started
hearings on it yesterday morning. It may take a little longer now
in view of this Pakistan-India imbroglie. I do not know but I would
assume that would be the case. Now there may be some other things and I'm
thinking of course of Home Rule over in the House, because if that's going
to trues up the House, obviously we're going to be here to do business,
but it'll be at the end of this parade where 14(b) will logically come.
QUESTION: You spoke of the Immigration Bill - certain to be a
number of amendments of it. In addition to the one Senator Ervin has
brought up - what other amendments do you anticipate?
DIRKSEN: Well, I don't know. I know amendments were prepared
and ready in the Senate Judiciary Committee to be offered if it became
necessary.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Not particularly - - that is. insofar as I know.
There were some to more particularise the functions of the Secretary of
Labor with respect to an influx of people and its impact on our employ-
ment situation. That was one. He would have to make a survey twice a
year to determine what skills were required and in what areas in order to
more specifically identify what he should do - and then make a report
to the Secretary of State. That is one, for example, and there are others
along the same line.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, using the word "committed" Dick - as I suppose
you do - we're not committed to aid to anybody, as a matter of fact. This
GERALD LIMITED
13
becomes a very practical situation and you know that China - like an evil
spectre - is in the background. So - will that add to the complications
out there and will 1t complicate our problems in Vietnam? It's all in
that same general area of the world. And it might very well do so.
QUESTION:( Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, I have no particular present position on it,
Jack. There are so many controversies in that bill, I haven't even gotten
around to that one. It makes a good bargaining piece, I must say, but
you think in terms of the Maritime Unions and others who are so insistent
that shipments at least to the extent of 50% be made in American bottoms..
now that has great appal whether or not they want to keep it, whether or
not remove it, whether there's a quid pro quo for it at the moment, I
can't say. That's a very bewildering bill to say the least. Now I'm
thinking around the periphery - - after a while I'll get to the heart of
the matter - particularly with respect to feed grains and to a dairy
provision which was not included in a Senate version of the bill. A good
deal of feeling on that, but I presume the greatest fight will come on
cotton and I'm frank to say that Senators are lobbying each other right
now, because there will be a major amendment offered and how it'll hit off,
I don't know.
QUESTION: (Not ale ar)
DIRESEN: We'll try to contrive an agreement on Monday. I think
I'm at liberty to say that there will be no session on Saturday. We'll
come in earlier - say, 10 o'clock tomorrow - probably have a chance to
dispose of a good many minor amendments, whether they'll hold these major
GENALD
LIBRARY
14
items until Monday, I'm not sure, but an effort will be made to get a
time limit on the bill and also all amendments proposed after the time
limit has been adopted.
QUESTION: You won't be voting on amendments tomorrow?
DIRKSEN: There could very well be - I don't know how long it
will take for the general speeches to run, but I would gather that
everybody who had a particular commodity would want to say something
about it and that probably would extend the afternoon and a portion of
tomorrow.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: The Home Rule Bill, I think, will not come before the
House on Monday, next Monday, which is District Day... we have a number of
21-day rules available. I'm told that the Speaker has said they will be
recognised and there will be no consideration of the District Home Rule
Bill on Monday. It is eligible under the discharge petition on Monday,
September 27th. I presume it will come up then, although I am told
that that Monday is a Jewish Holiday and an effort may be made to
put it over a day or perhaps for another two weeks. Ky own position is
that I will not vote for a Home Rule Bill as long as the automatic
payment provision is in it, I have many reservations about the storge
de-Matching provision in the Senate Bill... unless there are substantial
changes of this nature. it's my intention to vote against the bill.
QUESTION: Are there others from your party with you - how
many do you suppose from the Republican Party ?
FORD: I think a great many Republica ns are waiting to see
what the content of the bill is. We haven't made a Whip check as to
RARY
15
the number that will vote for it if these changes are made.
QUESTION: Representative Ford, Senator Morton seemed to speak
pessimistically about Republican chances next year...
FORD: It's my observation from speaking in some 27 states since
January 4th that we have a good opportunity to pick up a substantial number
of House seats in the next election. I would say a minimum of 30 and it
could go as high as 50 or more.
QUESTION: (Asks something about financing of college education.)
FORD: Well, a good many people who have children in college
do not make a great deal of money and as a result this particular proposal
will be very helpful to a large mumber of families that have one or more
children in schools of higher education. The Higher Miucation Act does
help those who are in need and who are qualified shoelastically... this
particular prevision will help a tremendous number of students going to
public or private institutions - people who are not in a high income
brackst under any circumstances.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORDs I presume the rationale is that we have the authority
to by legislative action to turn these specific responsibilities
over to the District of Columbia.
QUESTION: (Reading)... "in all cases whatsoever"... how would
you interpret this?
FORD: Well, literally. I presume the argument can be made
that we cannot abdicate our responsibilities, but I think it just as
logically can be argued that if we pass a Home Rule Bill, we have
AUVURIT
16
assumed our authority to legislate in this way and they. the people
in the District of Columbia, can carry out the responsibilities under
the Nome Rule Bill. As I understand it, at least under some of the
bills, the House and the Senate would have some additional authority
with review and certainly if the matter of payment isinvelved, we would
exercise a continuing responsibility in this area.
DIRKSEN: I think the word of the Constitution is not "legialation"
but "juriediction" and I don't think that inhibite a delegation of power
for the purposes of... interest of the public.
QUESTION: Senator Dirkson, do you share Mr. Ford's feeling about
the automatic pay raise in the Home Rule Bill?
DIRKSEN: Well, I've been through that mill for years and years.
Including the time when I was Chairman on the Committee on the District of
Columbia in the House. That lump sum that we used to include in the
Appropriation Bill for the District ranged in my time from as low as
$9 million to as high, I think, as $27 million, but if I understand the
evaluation formula in the present bill, they propose to evaluate all the
Federal property in the District of Columbia for the purpose of
determining how much property is dispossessed for tax purposes. Now if
that's put in the hands of the District Assessor, he might very
conceivably evaluate the grounds where the White House stands, the
structure, what's in it, the Capitol, Rock Creek Park, all the buildings
that are here... and you may come up with & very astronomical total.
But the difficulty will be this: the Assessor may well come up with a
figure that is automatic in nature, but it'll still require an
appropriation to cover it and will the Congressional hackles then come up -
17
well, that's a fight we haven't gone through with as yet.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: I was really going around Robin Hood's Barn... and
landing in Rock Creek Park! (LAUGHTER)
GERALO FORD LIBRARY
THE JOINT SENATE_HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP
SENATOR DIRKSEN - REPRESENTATIVE FORD
September 30. 1965
STATEMENT BY SENATOR DIRKSEN: If you are ready... if the
cameras are ready. we'll start.
Republicans have long been engaged in a determined and
effective campaign to broaden the 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 (measured in terms
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
families 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
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
ANVUE
2
efforts with their vast increase in Federal spending and their sizable
bireaucracy accelerate the rate of reduction of the numbers of those
in the lowest-income brackets. This question has become obscured in a
paper blissard of press releases from the White House and the Office of
Economic Opportunity which provide some measurement of the effort of
very
real
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
how
camps have been established, and/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 the 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 of course too early to pass final judgment on the
effectiveness of the anti-poverty program. The evidence available at
the present time makes it appear that very definitely the program has
not proved itself.
3
STATEMENT BY REP. FORD: There are several glaring
weaknesses in the anti-poverty program.
The Administration of the program is chaotic, to say the
least. It is headed by a part-time director and a staff of temperary
personnel who simultaneously decided to desert as the first skirmishes
of the war on poverty were hardly under way. The Office of Economic
Opportunity is top heavy with high salared executives. In this agency,
one out of every 18 employees receives a salary in excess of $19,000
a year. In contrast, in the Defense Department. one of 1,000 employees
is paid more than $19,000 per annum.
The program as administered treats elected State and local
officials with cavalier disdain. Though ... or through 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 centralising programs of the
current administration, is a very dangerous trend.
Disregard of State and local governments and their elected
officials has made the term "war" an apt title for the poverty pregram.
In altogether 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 for personal advantage. The poor
are treated as the spoils in this conflict. They do not participate
in the decisions on what should be done for them or to them.
GERALD,
4
Enough evidence has come to light to raise serious doubts
about the Job Corps program. Instances of criminal and immoral
behavior suggest inadequate selection for trainees and a breakiown of
discipline. There is & 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 today.
The poverty program needs basic reform and a tightening
of administrative practices. Whatever benefits that can be realised
from this program can be attained less wastefully by clearer definition
of the objectives, by more careful structuring of programs, by cooperation
with State and lecal governments, and by elimination of consideration
of partisan political advantage.
SERALD
LIBRARY
5
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: They are very much in shape. All the captains
of the day have been selected, all the speakers for each day have been
selected, the time has been properly divided between the majority and
minority side and we are prepared to do battle and to do it with vigor.
The Senate will operate as it has always operated... there will be no
long sessions. I say that on the basis of my conversation with the
majority leader yesterday and the day before.
Insofar as I can tell now, there will be no Saturday
session the first week. There could be Saturday sessions later, but in
any event, we are thoroughly structured if that's a good word. Now to
carry on and to carry on for a long time.
And let me emphasize that on occasions I've heard it said
that we were bluffing. If anybody's got any idea we're bluffing, you
can dismiss it from your minds right now. This is serious business, this
is a matter of principle and conviction with me and with others - and we
mean to fight it out. And by way of implementation I have here a
memorandum and a letter signed by 70 Republican members of the House.
I read you only the last paragraph because they are 80 definitely in
our corner:
"We therefore with you luck and if success means remaining
here until the snow flies - or later - that's all right, too. The
importance of this issue clearly transcends any personal desires for
the adjournment of Congress."
So WE mean business and THEY mean business - and that's it.
6
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Nowk John, you wouldn't want me to disclose that
here, would you? Well, because you'll be looking over the balustrade
of the Press Gallery and every day you will notice who the captain is
and you'll know who the speakers are. And besides, I'm not in the habit
of telegraphing my punches well in advance.
QUESTION: This is not a clandestine operation - - (LAUGHTER)
DIRKSEN: Well, it couldn't be clandestine when it's going
to be out there on the Senate Floor and I apprehend as the public under-
stands what it's all about that those galleries will be filled day
after day. So there isn't anything clandestine in a goldfish bowl
the size of the Senate Chamber.
QUESTION: How long -
DIRKSEN: Well, we can last a long time.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DRIKSEN: I didn't hear it.
QUESTION: Do you have the support of the Republican Whip?
DIRKSEN: Well, I'd have to run through this list of names..
(LAUGHTER) I have the support of the minority leader... in the House
of Representatives.
FORD: I have signed this letter to Senator Dirksen.
Les Arends has signed the letter... and all of the House Republican
leadership are endorsing the action of Senator Dirksen and his treops.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: To whom?
7
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: The General is going to be right out there on
the first day leading the ferces. And Andy. I wish you'd change that
word
"extended"... we ought to think of a new term. Let's call it
"attenuated"
(LAUGHTER)
somehow it just moves and moves and moves.
QUESTION: How about the word "filibuster?"
DIRKSEN: Well, San, you know that I never use the word
"filibuster." I know it has some connotations that seem sinister to
some people and I've never engaged in a filibuster. This is an
informative effort to advise the country what the equities are in this
thing and we mean to see that they're advised and I'm going to entreat
you now to be sure to record the debate fully andfhirly and put them
out on the wire for the entire country. And I trust you can tell your
publishers to keep it right on the front page every day because an
effort at information merits that kind of consideration.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: There will be live quorums at the end of every
attenuated discussion. (LAUGHTER) Andy, get accustomed to that word.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, you know, I don't make any deals on
principle and if it's wrong in September it is also wrong in January.
And therefore there will be no change in stance in January. We'll
fight it out on the same lines.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
8
DIRKSEN: Well, my dear, let me give you a little background.
You see, at the time we had up Home Rule in the House, I was the
Chairman of the House District Committee. I set up a subcommittee
under the chairmanship of Congressman Auchincloss of New Jersey..
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, wait a minute. You see, you always have to
have the necessary background to come to a proper conclusion. (LAUGHTER)
Now, we did get the Home Rule bill to the floor but I
remember that District Monday when there were 13 quorum calls and
under House rules, the District has only two days a month - and if you
do not finish on a given day, it goes over until the next District
day. We had substantially the same result thereafter and we could see
very clearly that we were not going to get a Home Rule bill, although I
made a real endeavor.
Now, when the Senate Home Rule bill came up. notwithstanding
its imperfections and defects, I gave it a vote. Yes, and there were a
lot of things in it in which I did not concur.
Now you ask about what will happen from this point on
since the House by a very substantial margin adopted this Sisk
substitute. I'm not thoroughly familiar with it, although I'm
familiar with some of its major provisions. And I would think that
it would require the wisdom of a Solomon to put those two bills to-
gether and to bring about & conference report. And if it can be done,
I shall stand in a state of wonderment and marvel **** at the wisdom
and ingenuity of the lawnskers.
9
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, that I cannot tell you. I can tell you
this much: (because I have no secrets)
Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts
has talked to me about it several times. I advised him that it had to
take the normal course for nominations. First, it must be set up. it
must be published in the Congressional Record at least 6 days before
anything's done. That gives the public notice. Then it is referred to
the Judiciary Committee. Then, in turn, to & subcommittee - usually 3
members of the Judiciary. They'll then set the day for the hearings.
Now I understand - and I have to rely mainly on what I've
seen in your stories in the press - that the American Bar will oppose
the nomination. I understand that the American Judicature Society
will oppose the nomination. I understood that the Massachusetts Bar
is opposed. Now - beyond that - there isn't much comment I can make,
because from then on you have to wait for the candidate to present him-
self to the subcommittee and there he'll have his day in court - those
who are opposed will have their day - this subcommittee will then have
to determine what kind of a recommendation, if any, to make to the full
committee.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, I'm always cheered when it goes down, but
frankly I've been doing a little work in that field. Now, when you talk
about the cost of living, just don't pick out a succulent pork chop
that you can sink a molar into, or even a juicy chunk of sirloin. Get
the whole ball of wax - and that will include rent, it will include
10
clothing, it will include hardware, it will include drugs, it will
include food - and you take a look at that and I think it presents a
different picture and that we ARE in a state of inflation and the
more we expend on projects and procurement where you don't generate
consumer goods, the more accelerated that inflation will become. You
can all it "crawling" you can call it "creeping" you could cal 1 it
"inching" inflation, you can call it "galloping" inflation, but what-
ever term you call it, it is still inflation. And I made a statement
in the Record only day before yesterday on which I think you might
very profitably refresh yourself.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: I think the War on Poverty ought to have a full-time
director. I doubt if any person can handle the multitude of problems
in the Peace Corps and the War on Poverty simultaneously. And with all
the difficulties that are arising, all the adverse publicity that is
developing as far as War on Poverty is concerned, it seems to me that we
ought to get the best man on a full-time basis for that purpose.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: I wish he would make a decision which program he
would like to run, or the President would make that decision for him.
DIRKSEN: Well, let me male one addition in answer to that.
When you commit $5 billion, founr-hundred million for a 3-year period
to a director or administrator in government - remembering, of course,
that these are tampayer's funds - if that doesn't merit a single-minded,
11
single-purpose, single director- to discharge that obligation - then I
can think of nothing that will ever merit the complete time and
attention of a single capable person to administer.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
DIRKSEN: Well, Bill, lot 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 organisation
which operates on & secret basis to achieve political goals. Way back
know
in Lincoln's day. as you remember, they had the "No 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 Seciety is seeking to do - and frankly not a single
12
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 1sn'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)
to
FORD: I would subscribe wholeheartedly with 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 Birbh 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 organisation that takes its orders from the top
and therefore there is no place for that organization in the Republican
Party.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: I think it's well to point out, if I might, that
the Democratic Party votes for the Sisk Bill were, I think, 120... almost
13
half of the Democrate who voted yesterday on the Sisk Bill voted for
the Sisk Bill. So the Democratic Party made a substantial contribution
to the success of the Sisk Bill.
The Republican Policy Committee statement in the House
called for 3 important safeguards in Home Rule:
One, we said there had to be non-partisan elections.
Secondly, we said there had to be annual review of the
Federal contribution to the District of Columbia. We said there had
to be protection for the 28,000 or 30,000 government employees of the
District of Columbia. We said there had to be the Hatch Act in effect
in the District of Columbia - if there was Home Rule.
These requirements in my judgment were not met in the Sisk
Bill - and for that reason I voted against the Sisk Bill and I think
these were the reasons that most of the Republicans did vote that way.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: Well, I suppose they...
QUESTION: (Interruption)
FORD: I voted that way because I did not believe the
Sisk Bill met the requirements of the House Republican Policy Committee's
statement. I suspect the 120 Democrats supported the Sisk Bill -
amendment or substitute offered by the Northern Democrate - followed that
line against the wishes of President Johnson because of their own
feelings concerning the proper way to proceed in the Home Rule dispute.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
14
FORD: Well, I think all of you know - and Senator Dirksen
said - the two bills, the one passed by the House and the one passed by
the Senate - are diametrically opposed. It will take the wisdom of
Solomon to try to put this patchwork together. I don't eary the
responsibilities nhe of those who are appointed to the conference
committee from the House and Senate in trying to work out a solution.
I don't say it's impossible, but it's mighty improbable that they can
come up with something that is satisfactory.
LIBRARY
GOP LEADERSHIP PRESS CONFERENCE
October 23, 1965
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Bo here goes for the last presentation
that we shall make to you this year... with the exception, I suppose,
of what we will have to say when the Coordinating Committee comes to
Washington in December. (Note: Comment made from audience - not clear.)
Well, Mr. Bill, I'm not quite sure. (LAUGHTER) I think
the President overlooked me a little last night. I guide him a good
deal on the telephone and I suppose I kept him so busy that he couldn't
tell me what he had in mind for next year. I believe he told Gerry
and after Gerry got it all down, I began to suffer from writer's cramp.
(LAUGHTER)
Well, let's see what we have here this morning. You
gentlemen with those machines... are fully prepared... thank you, sir.
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 an echo, not a choice.
A move of the 89th Congress would be like an episode of
the old-time serial which always ended as the heroine was pushed off
the 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
2
next year will you know whether 14(b) of Taft-Hartley is ground to bits
under the Administration's locomotive or whether the Reappertionment
Amendment survives its fall off the cliff.
We would aution those who judge the work of this session
which just wheesed 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 serious deficiencies in the legislation enacted this year.
Senator Manafield 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." That was the Majority Leader speaking to Arthur Kroch of
the New York Times.
It is highly significant that Senator Manafield, in reviewing
the work of this session before the Democrat Conference, would 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
correct the mistakes of the first session.
3
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD: 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 act as a co-equal
branch of the government, the integrity of state and local governments
is undermined, and the public interest is often jeopardised.
The Executive branch becomes unchecked, careless and arrogant.
Arrogant is a strong word, but there is 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 proc edures 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 choice, 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 either explanation or debate.
Protest has been heard from both sides of the aisle.
Democratic Congresswoman Green, of Oregon, early in the session,
condemned and I quote "the determined effort to silence those who are
in disagreement." Many other Democrats have spoken out in similar terms
in frustration and futility.
4
When either House of the Congress acts in this way, it
abdicates its responsibility. 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 farereaching
programs without concern for the views of responsible state and local
officials or the effect of Federal action on 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 predigal 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 Administration. 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
operation.
5
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: Well, when Hale Bogge and I talked to him to ask
whether there was any more in the way of messages, he seemed to have a
summary of the things he thought hadn't been done... I can't recall all
the specifics... but he did indicate that there were some things we had
not done that he hoped we would have and that we probably would be urged
to do in the next Congress. He listed - Oh, I would say - 8 or 10
things that in his opinion should have been done that fell by the way-
side. I must say that they didn't seem too significant in the overall -
compared to the tunnage of legislation which was dropped on our doorsteps
and which the Congress approved during this past session.
QUESTION: (Not clear)
FORD: I ...well, he did speak about the truth in lending,
the truth in packaging kgislation..
QUESTION: ...14(b) -
FORD: I don't think he spoke very emphatically about that,
but I think the fact that he suffered some difficulties in the last week
or so in this regard may have indicated that he was not talking too
emphatically about that right now.
QUESTION: What about Home Rule? Did he mention that?
FORD: It's my recollection that he did.
QUESTION: Is there any question that in your 3rd paragraph
of your prepared statement here referring to Judge Morrissey - when you
talked about a man totally devoid of qualifications for the Federal
position?
FORD VIRBARA
6
FORD: I think that fits the picture. uh... quite well.
But on the record as to the qualifications, I would defer to Senator
Dirksen who is on the Committee on the Judiciary in the Senate and who
knows the history far more in detail than do I.
QUESTION: There is no doubt this is the case you're referring
to, though -
FORD: I think that's right.
QUESTION: Senator Dirksen, as the critic and reviewer of this
Congress, would you give it 4 stars - or 3 - or two and a half?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I'd have to divide it up into segments, I
think. Take, for instance, this question of overlap. Instead of 3 or 4
or 2}... probably a half star. Take, for instance, the overlap in the
Public Works and Development Act with Appalachia. or take the overlap of
Appalachia with the Federal Aid Program.. and that's particularly true
in the field of highways in public health. Then take the overlap in
respect of elementary and secondary education aimed at low-income areas
where it overlaps with the educational attributes of the War on Poverty.
Now in that field I don't know that it rates any stars
particularly because it only means that these things were hastily done
and are going to have to be Sured - unless you're going to have many
governmental agencies all pursuing similar objectives and probably in
many cases the right hand not knowing what the left hand does.
So to try to generalize on a 4-star, 3-star, 2-star basis -
would be, I think, a little difficult.
QUESTION: On this question though - could we go into your
views on Congressional oversights... (Note: rest not clear.)
7
DIRKSEN: It certainly should. There ought to be great
emphasis on lgislative oversight. As a matter of fact, when we passed
the Legislative Reorganization Act in 1966, I served on that Joint
Committee way back in those days in the House. And this business of
oversight received such a great deal of e mphasis. However, there was
no follow-through and it's the one place where the Congress is lacking
in endeavor and secondly, it is too often timid about providing the
necessary funds and the necessary staffs that do a good job.
Now if you want an illustration, I was Chairman of
Agricultural Apprepriations in the House many years ago. It was a
streamlined effort because I didn't have much staff to work with, but
I sent 'em down to the other end of the avenue... right into the
Department of Agriculture. Wickart was the Secretary at that time.
I said I want you to provide him with
space
and with clerical
assistance and when he asks a Bureau Head to come in, I intend that you
send that Bureau Head in there, so that Mr. Orr, who is a dedicated
public servant, gets what he wants. Then I sent 'em out to Alaska
to take a look at what was going on out there and we achieved some
results. We even got some people fired in REA at high level and got
others suspended. It shows what you can do if you're tooled up for the
oversight job. And it needs an abundance of attention.. in the next session.
QUESTION: Have you had any indication whether the White
House will be cooperative about this smoothing out the rough edges of
the legislation passed?
DIRKSEN: Well, John, that's not the question. The Congress to
a coordinate branch of government, it has exclusive power over the purse
LIBRARY
8
under the Constitution... it therefore has a solemn, inescapable duty
to do this job quite aside from what the Executive Branch might think.
QUENTION: Senator, aren't you sort of proud of your own
record in this Congress... what you did on the Voting Rights Bill and
14(b)?
DIRKSEN: Oh, Frank, you know... I'm the modest type.
I don't like to talk about those things but I do experience in those
introspective moments a bit of satisfaction and gratification that
certain things to which I address my energies turned out very well in
the interest of the people. You didn't put down a single word either!
(LAUGHTER)
QUESTION: Senator, what is your fendest memory of this
long session?
DIRKSEN: My what?
QUESTION: Your fondest memory -
DIRKSEN: Oh, you know, sometimes the things that bring little
hurts are fond recollections and I don't like to talk about them.
But I think one of the greatest things about this Congress BO far as
the Senate is concerned is the magnificent cooperation of a very
humble, dedicated Senator by the name of Mike Mansfield who never gets
his eye off the ball of public interest no matter where his trail may
lead. And I salute him for his cooperation and for his determination
to make the Senate a working body as the Constitution of the United
States provided. You couldn't ask for anything more.
9
Senator Dirksen and
QUESTION: (Asks/Representative Ford to single out
specific legislation..
DIRKSEN: Oh, that's a whelly comparative matter and since
in the President's letter to Senator Manafield he mentioned 86 items
for me to reach into thin air and piece out what I think was most
important and the least important... would be a bit difficult.
QUESTION: Not important, necessarily.
DIRESEN: Well, whether it's important or whether it merited
emphasis... of course, it depends on who you ask and what his identity
may be. If you ask the generality of people - particularly those over
65 - they would say to your Social Security and Medicare. If you asked
one group of farmers, they would say the Farm Bill. But if you asked a
much larger group of farmers, they would say "Not at all," because they
were quite opposed to the Farm Bill.
So picking out tops and bottoms is not an easy matter.
QUESTION: is Republican leader - in your opinion - - what was
the worst piece of legislation -
DIRKSEN; You s ay the "worst" thing? Well, it occurs to me
among others that the effort to completely denude the governors of the
50 states of any real veto authority over some of these highly dubious
projects that have been undertaken is a long step toward monolithic
government in this country.
QUESTION: Senator, do you agree with the President that
this is the greatest Congress in the history of the Republic?
DIRKSEN: Well, it depends on what you mean by "greatest."
If you're talking about volume, probably that's the right term... because
10
this was a very preductive grist mill in terms of pages of legislation.
Gerry, did you use the word "tonnage?" I think "tonnage" is a pretty
good term. Let us say 20,000 pages of Administrative and Executive
orders in the Federal Register... 55,000 nominations that came before
the Senate... over 16,000 bills and resolutions introduced in this First
Session of the 89th Congress. Goodness, how lucky the people can doem
themselves when they look at this mountain of legislative brain-children
and discover how few of them percentage-wise actually get on the statute
books. They are to be congratulated But there you're always appraising
in terms of volume.
But I tried to mention that it's not quantity, it's quality.
When I was in grade school I remember those composition books we used
to buy with a couple of large "Que's" on the front page... double "Que"
composition book... quantity, because it had lots of paper in it and
quality, because it was lined and fairly smooth. Well, I just strike
out one of those "Que's"... it's quality that counts.
QUESTION: Mr. Ford, would you respond to that?
FORD: In my appraisal of the best legislation, I would say
the Higher Education Act - with the exception of the Teacher Corps
Provision... would be the best legislation. Probably the worst prevision
enacted by the Congress in this session was the rent subsidy aspect, or
provision, in the Housing Bill. It seems to me the Congress on second
reflection indicated its opposition to both the Teacher Corps and the
Rent Subsidy Program by not appropriating any funds for either program.
11
Both the rent subsidy and the Teacher Corps Provision in the two major
bills would be at the bottom of the list with the Higher Education Bill -
with the one exception - at the top.
I'd like to make this observation if I might. Probably the
most disappointing thing that I experienced in this session of the Congress
was the reaction of far too many of my good Democratic friends on the
other side of the aisle when this volume of messages, this tonnage of
proposed legislation, was shovelled at our doorstep... too many of my good
Democratic friends would not know whether to clap their hands or click
their heels. And the net result was in my judgment - a hip-pocket
Congress - as far as the actions of this Congress were concerned.
QUESTION: Gerry. in view of all this tonnage. evidently
there will be benefits for a lot of different groups in this country.
In view of this, what chance do you think the Republicans have for a come-
back next year?
FORD: I'm very optimistic that in the House races we will
make substantial gains in the '66 elections. I've been in over 30
states since January 4th and my observation is one of optimism. I think
we'll gain a minimum of 30 and it could go substantially higher as a
result of the elections in November of 1966.
QUESTION: If you don't control the White House, you don't
have a legislative working majority on the floor of the Congress, but you
want a record of opposition... write a record that you can bring to the
people and say: This is why you should elect us.
Specifies.
12
FORD: I think there will develop, Andy, because of the
magnitude of the legislation which has been enacted... and because of the
tremendous amount of money that's available to the Executive Branch of
the government... with virtually no restrictions. There will be many,
many opportumities to point out the bad administration under this
Administration. And it will give us an opportunity to point out that
the best asset that President Johnson could have through '67 and '68
would be a good. tough,investigating Republican Congress in the last
two years of his Administration.
DIRESEN: Andy. let me amplify that a little. There's quite
a controvery out on right now with respect to the application of the
provisions of the new Social Security Bill.. that we got out in this
session. There are administrators who are now taking the position
that with this 7%
yes, 7% increase..
that they are entitled to
reduce the assistance rendered to these people in addition to Social
Security by just that amount.
Now when you note the number of Social Security beneficiaries
today, what jto you think they're going to think about it? And when,
for instance, your veterans are penalized under provisions of the Social
Security Act, what do you think they're going to think?
Now it'she impact of these things on the country... that is
going to have the real political effect. It has always been 80 - and
regardless of organization or who occupies what position, whether the
White House or the Congress, the people will do the voting and it's in
13
proportion as they are secially and economically affected that their
votes are going to be conditioned. And that's why already in these
seminars schools are giving a great deal of attention to this subject -
the changes in social, economic and political opinion in this country
now.
I just answered a letter to a University that wanted me to
participate in a seminar on that very subject - and those invitations
are coming in. They are aware of it. And they know changing opinion.
QUESTION: Are you as optimistic relatively as Mr. Ford.
to the Senate as Mr. Ford is to the House?
DIRKSEN: We have a somewhat different picture. In the first
place, ALL House members will be up for re-election. You will have only
one-third of the Senate up. Now you have to rationalize that a little
as to what states are involved, whether they're in the South, West, or
North, and exactly what those factors are. So arithmatically speaking.
we're not in as good shape in the Senate although I'm of the opinion
that we're going to pick up some Senators. Now don't ask me to name the
states because that would be giving away my secret and I've got to have
a few secrets at least.
QUESTION: (Asks a question about Jenner of Illinois...)
DIRKSEN: Well, I'm glad you used the word "spe culation"
because it is a speculation. Albert Jenner in my judgment is one of
the greatest lawyers - trial lawyers or counsels - anywhere in the
United States. And I'm sure he has an extremely lucrative law practice.
Now, anybody who emerges from the crowd a little is subsequently
considered for a political role. When I was out there last they said
BRARI
14
candidate for the United
States Senate. I cannot tell whether that's true or not. But when
the hope begins to rise so does speculation... and 80 does political
ambition. But that will all sort of ease along.
QUESTION: You have a choice -
DIRKSEN: I have no choice. I have no choice at the
moment.
FORD: I would like to say we're going to send you a
Republican senator from the state of Michigan at the next election -
and this would be, I'm sure, a big help. We're got a number of good
candidates including Bob Griffin, who is a potential candidate, and
several others. We'll have at least one more, I'm confident. in '67.
DIRKSHN: Well, Gerry, I've just got to say... knowing what
the situation was in 1950 - the odds were 10 to 1 that I could not come
to the Senate - but strangely enough I got here.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
CHICAGO TRIBUNE, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1965
REPORT FROM WASHINGTON
Ford Making
His Mark as
By Walter Trohan
Head Coach of
CHIEF OF CHICAGO TRIBUNE'S WASHINGTON BUREAU
(Copyright 1965 by the Chicago Tribune)
House G.O.P.
W
ASHINGTON, Oct. 22-Rep. Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr.
IN. Y.1, who has been effective in directing a Republican
[R., Mich.], a former football player who passed up a
educational campaign.
career in pro football for law, is making good as head
On 29 roll call votes only 6.7 per cent of House Republicans
coach of a disorganized squad of Republicans in the House.
deviated from the party majority in their votes as compared
When Ford took over the post of Republican minority leader
to 23 per cent for House Democrats
in the House from veteran Rep. Charles
From his selection as G.O.P. leader by the narrow margin
A. Halleck [Ind.] early this year, there
of six votes, Ford has been tireless in stumping the country in
were fears that his indecision might set
an effort to find personable and attractive young Republicans
his party back even further than the
to seek seats in Congress in 1966. In this he has had the active
voters had in giving the Democrats better
cooperation of Laird and other members of his team.
than a two-to-one margin of control. How-
If the Republicans make gains in the next congressional
ever, Ford has succeeded in building an
election, a good share of the credit will go to Ford and his team.
effective team out of a minority group.
It goes without saying that success will not endear him to
Perhaps no man in Congress can
Johnson, who already has refused to invite him to the White
escalate the temper of President Johnson
House to discuss differences.
as high and as quickly as Ford. He has
made the President eat crow on civil
rights and Viet Nam.
When Johnson accused Republicans of
dragging their feet on civil rights, Ford
Trohan
was quick to show that the G. O.P. con-
sistently has supported civil rights, whereas Johnson opposed
attempts to promote civil rights on 78 per cent of 50 roll calls
during his Senate and House service, and on 100 per cent of
them up to 1957. When the President charged Ford with breaking
the confidence of a top-level White House meeting on Viet Nam,
Ford was able to clear himself and imply that Johnson had
shot from the lip.
Ford Is Annoying, If Not Effective
T
HE PRESIDENT HAS tempted Ford with offers of crumbs
from the Democratic table, but Ford has refused to be di-
verted from his role of opposition leader. Ford consistently has
hit the President for his swal overn Congress.
Johnson doesn't like criticism. In this respect Ford has been
annoying if not effective in view of the heavy majority of 293
Democrats. Many Republicans believe that the President finds
it hard to believe that Ford's opposition is based on conviction
and integrity.
Democrats have been constant in harassment of Ford, which
Republicans suspect is at White House orders. This hasn't
lessened Ford's drive or purpose.
Ford doesn't take kindly to defeat. He played center on the
undefeated Michigan teams of 1932 and 1933 and was voted
the most valuable player on the 1934 squad. He had a taste of
pro football in playing in the 1935 All-Star game, but decided
to go to Yale law school.
He played only a few minutes in the All-Star game, but has
been playing 60 minutes in the House and calling on his G.O.P.
colleagues to do the same. Ford has forged an effective staff of
coaching assistants in Leslie C. Arends [III.], Republican whip;
John J. Rhodes [Ariz.], chairman of the G.O.P. policy commit-
tee; Bob Wilson [Cal.] chairman of the Republican House
campaign committee, and Melvin R. Laird [Wis.], chairman
of the House G.O.P. conference.
Emerging as Behind-the-Scenes Power
B
EHIND THESE ARE men in lesser positions in the G.O.P.
command, but of great influence: Among these are quiet
and soft-spoken Rep. Glenard Lipscomb [Cal.], who is emerging
as a power behind the scenes, and Rep. Charles E. Goodell
hv
LIBRARY