Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525916
label
House Floor Speech Vice President Residence, March 16, 1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525916
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
House Floor Speech Vice President Residence, March 16, 1966
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Housing
Public buildings
Soldiers
Vice-Presidents
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525916
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-03-31
month
3
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-03-01
month
3
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
8c1f1c02eac45c0c
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D19, folder "House Floor Speech Vice President
Residence, March 16, 1966" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech
File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D19 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Speech to be delivered by House Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford on House Floor,
Wednesday, March 16, 1966.
Contents are for release az 12 noon Wednesday Bill not introduced thistind
Mr. Speaker:
It's been a long time since the people of this country thought of their
vice-president as a Throttlebottom--a shadow of a man neither to be seen nor heard.
Now, it's true that sometimes the present vice-president kind of fades into
the woodwork but we all know the reason for that. About this business of not being
heard--well, that certainly doesn't apply to our good friend, Hubert. Nobody can
choke him off except one man.
In this country today we recognize the office of vice-president as one of
significance, an position from which an individual can render great service to the
American people.
And so I believe, Mr. Speaker, that as an elective official ranking second only
to the president of the United States, the vice-president should have a house fur-
nished him by the taxpayers. It should be a house of which the people can be
proud. It should be a residence fully befitting the stature of the individual who,
with his family, occupies it as the No. 2 man in the country.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is a time to build and a time to mark time on a
project of this kind. I say this is no time to be building a $750,000 mansion for
the vice-president--and my opposition has nothing to do with the merits of the
project itself or the individual occupying the office.
I would like to ask the supporters of this authorization bill: By what logic
do they advocate the spending of $750,000 on a residence for the vice-president
when the secretary of defense has sidetracked 8,500 units of urgently needed mili-
tary family housing authorized and funded by Congress in 1965 for construction
this fiscal year?
In a press release dated last December 20, Secretary McNamara said the Defense
FORD LIBRARY
(More)
Floor Speech
-2-
March 16, 1966
Department was deferring $620 million worth of military construction, including
$160 million for the 8,500 military family housing units.
What was Bob McNamara saying by this action? He was declaring that it was
vital to this nation to refuse to spend not only $460 million in funds earmarked
for general military construction but also $160 million tagged for housing the
families of our men in uniform.
While he did not use the word, inflation-and perhaps he avoided it
deliberately--McNamara left no doubt he feared the deferred projects might have
put extra push behind the already high cost of building in this country.
Only yesterday, McNamara said he will not ask Congress for any new military
family housing construction for fiscal 1967. Instead he proposed leasing 13,075
housing units over the next two fiscal years.
I say we are experiencing a more heated inflationary situation than we were
in December, 1965, and the prospects are that the cost of living will be spiraling
more in the months ahead. I say it doesn't make sense in times like these to be
spending $750,000 of the people's money on a house for the vice-president.
If the vice-president were asked today how he feels about the project, I have
great doubts he would want to go ahead with it knowing that some of our servicemen
and their families are living in what amounts to slum quarters.
Bob McNamara last January 26 told the Subcommittee on Military Construction
Appropriations that the 8,500 family housing units he had frozen were "justified"
but he was putting off construction just the same.
McNamara added in direct testimony: "We think it wise to defer the start of
that construction until there is less pressure on our total construction industry
in this country."
Let's assume the vice-president's house is, to use McNamara's word, "justified."
Is this the time to build it--when we're fighting a multi-billion-dollar war in
Viet Nam and trying to dampen the fires of inflation at home?
Should we cut the school lunch and school milk programs but build a three-
quarter million dollar house for the vice-president?
(More)
Floor Speech
-3-
March 16, 1966
Should we cut agricultural extension programs and reduce support funds for our
land grant colleges but construct a handsome house for the vice-president?
Bob McNamara put a hold order on 8,500 places for our servicemen and their
families to live while saying this construction was "justified."
Other Defense Department officials also testified the military housing was
desparately needed. Unless we think they are given to telling fairy stories, we
have to believe them.
J. J. Reed, deputy assistant secretary of defense for family housing, on
May 25, 1965, pleaded with the military construction appropriations subcommittee
to provide funds for all 12,500 family housing units then sought by the Defense
Department for fiscal 1966.
He said the program was urgent because: (1) "Decent living conditions
create a better military man; (2) The Nation has an obligation to provide decent
living conditions for the family of the military man who has pledged to risk his
life for the common defense; and (3) Decent living conditions make a military
career more attractive--it assists the military forces to retain qualified
personnel in competition with higher paying civilian careers."
Despite this justification for building all 12,500 housing units, Bob McNamara
shelved 8,500 of them for an indefinite time.
Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Ignatius declared in testimony before the
subcommittee April 13, 1965: "In lieu of our request for 12,100 units in fiscal
year 1964, only 7,500 were funded (by Congress). Last year (calendar year 1964),
the Congress funded only 8,250 units as opposed to our request for 12,500 units.
In view of the level of funding for new units that has been approved in the past
two years, it is now apparent that it is impossible, without a 'crash' building
program, for the (Defense) Department to obtain its objective within the original
five-year program."
Ignatius said the Defense Department would have to build 12,500 family
housing units annually over a six-year period to meet the needs of its men.
Those plans have been crippled by McNamara's hold order on 8,500 units of
family housing for our men in uniform.
(More)
Floor Speech
-4-
March 16, 1966
Certainly the vice-president and the nation will not suffer if the proposed
vice-presidential residence is left on the drawing board along with the family
construction program for our servicemen.
#######
See Statement
Proposed Statement on S.2394, A Bill That Authorizes An Official Residence
for the Vice President of the United States
The Republican Policy Committee is opposed to S.2394 as it has been reported
from the Committee on Public Works. Under the provisions of this bill the Administrator
of the General Services Administration would be authorized to plan, design, construct,
furnish and maintain an official residence for the Vice President on the grounds of
the U.S. Naval Observatory. The type of "residence" that may be contemplated is
reflected in the Senate report which states: "by establishing this official
residence for the Vice President, we will also be providing for the American people
another great national monument, surpassed only by the White House and the Capitol
itself."
This bill, and the mansion it would provide for the Vice President, is just
one more illustration of the Johnson Administration's "business as usual" attitude.
Although faced with a massive war in Viet Nam and a serious inflationary situation
at home, the Johnson Administration has refused to place any priorities on spending.
The need for such priorities is reflected in the fact that last year alone the cost
of living rose over 2 percent and in January of this year it rose 0.5 percent.
Thus, if this rate continues throughout the year, it would amount to 6 percent
annually. Moreover, the cost of the war in Viet Nam is continuing to escalate,
domestic spending is at an all-time high and the National debt now stands at a
record-breaking $322 billion.
It is also significant that although the Administration is pressing for the
construction of an expensive residence for the Vice President, it is, at the same
time, calling for a reduction in: (1) housing for military personnel, (2) the
low-cost milk and lunch program for school children, (3) the National Defense Act
loan program for college students, (4) the federal impacted area school assistance
FORD 3 LIBRARY 076839
program, and (5) grants for land grant colleges. We believe a sensible policy
of first things first would reverse this order and place the Vice President's
mansion at the bottom of the expenditure list, or, in the alternative, at the
top of a list containing items to be eliminated or postponed.
Certainly, under the present circumstances every effort should be made to
reduce non-essential government spending. Congress can take the first step in
imposing fiscal restraint on a spendthrift Administration by defeating this bill.
FROM THE OFFICE OF
JAMES C. CLEVELAND
2
2nd Congressional District, N. H.
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
1506 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BLDG.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
WASHINGTON REPORT #5
DISTRICT OFFICE:
136 NORTH MAIN STREET
TEL.: 225-5206
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03300
TEL.: 224-4187
FOR RELEASE THURSDAY, MARCH 17th, 1966
VIETNAM "DEBATE" CLOUDS ISSUE FURTHER
The great debate in the Congress, intended to throw light on the issue of Viet Nam,
seems to have clouded the issue further. The debate did bring into sharp focus the deep
and disturbing division of opinion within the majority party. The debate occurred chiefly
in the Senate and centered around the $4.8 billion authorization bill for the war. In the
end, all but two Senators voted for it. In the House, there was not much debate; the vote
was 392-4. Here again, there was confusion, however. The Speaker announced that he con-
sidered a vote for the bill a square endorsement of the President's Viet Nam policy.
Seventy-eight Democrats apparently differed, and filed a statement setting forth their
position.
In spite of these overwhelming votes, however, the divisions remain and the "debate"
itself has served mostly to add to the confusion in the public mind. For example, when
Senator Robert Kennedy of New York proposed that our side offer the Communist Viet Cong
"a share of the responsibility" in the future government of South Viet Nam, the Administra-
tion, in a matter of hours, jumped on the proposal hard, bringing its biggest guns to bear:
Press Secretary Moyers, recently departed Presidential adviser McGeorge Bundy, Vice Presi-
dent Humphrey, and foreign aid chief David Bell. Some thought this was over-reacting to the
Senator's proposal. About 12 hours later, General Taylor, an impressive spokesman for the
Administration, blandly announced that the Senator and the Administration were not really
far apart at all. It is very hard for members of Congress, who are close to the scene, to
follow this sort of thing. News media appeared baffled by the affair and I don't see how
the public can be any less SO. Worse than this, is that our enemies may read into the con-
fusion more than is really there and find cause for rejoicing and redoubled efforts on the
battlefield. Ambassador Harriman has testified to this, along with other high authorities
in the government. Ironically, all this could result in a longer war.
FOREIGN AID SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIZATION
I voted for the $415 million foreign-aid supplemental fund, including the amendment
that was adopted to bar any of the funds from being used to aid nations trading with North
Viet Nam unless the President specifically finds that such a bar would be counter to the
national interest.
FORD
1917
(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE)
10
EXPANDING FEDERAL CONTROL OF EDUCATION
A disturbing pattern is beginning to emerge from the Administration's budget requests
for education. While it is seeking to expand education programs involving Federal control,
it is seeking to reduce or eliminate a number of long-standing, traditional programs of
direct aid which involve little or no Federal control. These targets for cutbacks include:
1. Aid to impacted areas where for years the Federal Government has paid compensa-
tion to school districts in areas where there are Federal installations adding to
the burden of school districts and removing property from the tax polls.
2. A $20 million reduction in the School Lunch Program.
3. An $80 million reduction in the School Milk Program.
4. Deep cuts in funds for Land-Grant Colleges, such as the University of New Hampshire.
5. Destruction of the direct student-loan program run by colleges and universities,
substituting insured bank loans subject to Federal standards and control.
One can object to each of these proposals on various grcunds. Collectively, however, they
tend to draw tighter into the hands of Washington the reins of academic power. I do not
think this is healthy for the long-rance future of American education, which draws much
strength from freedom and diversity. I shall oppose them.
SENATOR COTTON LEADS FIGHT FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
Senator Cotton has won the everlasting thanks of older persons who, through no fault
of their own, did not become eligible for Social Security benefits during their working
years. With Senator Prouty of Vermont, he led a successful fight in the Senate to make all
persons over 70 who are not now in the Social Security System eligible for minimum benefits.
Although a House-Senate conference committee later raised the age to 72 and exempted those
receiving government pensions, railroad retirement benefits or public relief, the measure is
still an important start in the right direction, which I enthusiastically support. Senator
Cotton has shown that a minority, even though heavily outhumbered, can win a battle once in
a while when the cause is a good one.
TO MAKE A POINT: A POEM
In the present make-up in Congress, however, the Minority most often has an uphill
fight on its hands to make a point. I recently turned to verse to express supplemental
views in a Public Works Committee Report on a bill to build a mansion for the Vice Presi-
dent. While this may be desirable for the future, I feel that this is not an appropriate
time to build a million-dollar mansion for a Federal official. The budget is out of balance;
we are fighting a war; inflation is threatening, etc. I am told this is the first time in
history that a formal committee report has been in verse (30 stanzas and 13 footnotes).
A couple of verses follow. If you would like to have the whole thing, let me know.
But while boys who fight for freedom
Are poorly housed and chill,
Is it right to build a mansion,
A frill up on a hill?
While the dollar fades before us
And inflation robs the poor,
We should build and spend with true restraint
So the dollar may endure.
REPUbLiCAN national committee
COMMENT
RADIO NEWS
1625 EYE STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
AREA CODE 202 628-6800
FOR RELEASE
MONDAY A. M.'S
MARCH 14, 1966
VICE PRESIDENTIAL MANSION HAS SHAKY FOUNDATION
Congressman Bob Wilson (R-Calif.), a member of the House
Armed Services Committee, today questioned how the great society
can afford a mansion for the Vice President while at the same time
calling decent military housing inflationary.
Representative Wilson aired his views on COMMENT, the weekly
radio news program of the Republican National Committee.
The following is the text of the Congressman's remarks:
"I am disturbed that the Johnson/Humphrey Administration
places no urgency upon proper housing for the families of servicemen,
yet is pushing a bill to construct a house for Vice President Hubert
Humphrey costing three quarters of a million dollars.
"Last September Congress provided funds for military housing
that was sorely needed for service families. Yet, in December, the
Secretary of Defense arbitrarily cancelled our appropriation for such
military housing. Appearing before the Armed Services Committee
the Secretary claimed that such unilateral action was taken because of
budget demands.
"Why should we concern ourselves about furnishing an expensive
house for the Vice President when the Secretary of Defense refuses to
use the funds we have already appropriated to provide proper housing for
our fighting men? If such housing for our servicemen is to be deferred
because of budget limitations and inflationary pressures, then why can't the
same principles apply to the very expensive house planned for the Vice
President?
"
LIBRARI
-30-
COMMENT
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
RADIO NEWS
1625 EYE STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
AREA CODE 202 628-6800
FOR RELEASE:
SUNDAY
MARCH 6, 1966
WHY THE RUSH TO BE PLUSH?
House Republican Whip Leslie Arends of Illinois, a member of
the House Armed Services Committee, commented on the Johnson
Administration's attempt to push through Congress a bill for construction
of a $750,000 house for the Vice President.
Representative Arends aired his views on COMMENT, the weekly
radio news program of the Republican National Committee.
The following is the text of the Congressman's remarks:
"There is no emergency from the point of view of the Administration
with respect to furnishing proper housing for our servicemen. Last
September the Congress provided funds for military housing sorely needed.
Some of our servicemen have been living in little more than barns, even
in tents.
"Last December the Secretary of Defense arbitrarily shelved
our appropriation for military housing. In testimony before our Committee
the Defense Department claimed that this unilateral action was taken because
of other budget demands and that the expenditure would add to the inflationary
pressures.
"I concur in the desirability of furnishing proper housing for our
Vice President. But why the rush? And I should like to ask this question:
why should we at this time concern ourselves about furnishing an expensive
house for the Vice President, admittedly needed, when the Secretary of
Defense refuses to use the funds we have already appropriated to furnish
proper housing for our fighting men? If proper housing for our servicemen
is to be deferred because of budget limitations and inflation pressures,
why should not the same principle apply in connection with an expensive
house for the Vice President?"
-30-
File
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Speech to be delivered by House Republican Leader Gerald R. Ford on House Floor,
Wednesday, March 16, 1966.
Contents are for release at 12 noon Wednesday.
Mr. Speaker:
It's been a long time since the people of this country thought of their
vice-president as a Throttlebottom--a shadow of a man neither to be seen nor heard.
Now, it's true that sometimes the present vice-president kind of fades into
the woodwork but we all know the reason for that. About this business of not being
heard--well, that certainly doesn't apply to our good friend, Hubert. Nobody can
choke him off except one man.
In this country today we recognize the office of vice-president as one of
significance, an position from which an individual can render great service to the
American people.
And so I believe, Mr. Speaker, that as an elective official ranking second only
to the president of the United States, the vice-president should have a house fur-
nished him by the taxpayers. It should be a house of which the people can be
proud. It should be a residence fully befitting the stature of the individual who,
with his family, occupies it as the No. 2 man in the country.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is a time to build and a time to mark time on a
project of this kind. I say this is no time to be building a $750,000 mansion for
the vice-president--and my opposition has nothing to do with the merits of the
project itself or the individual occupying the office.
I would like to ask the supporters of this authorization bill: By what logic
do they advocate the spending of $750,000 on a residence for the vice-president
when the secretary of defense has sidetracked 8,500 units of urgently needed mili-
tary family housing authorized and funded by Congress in 1965 for construction
this fiscal year?
In a press release dated last December 20, Secretary McNamara said the Defense
R.FORD. LIBRARY
(More)
Floor Speech
-2-
March 16, 1966
Department was deferring $620 million worth of military construction, including
$160 million for the 8,500 military family housing units.
What was Bob McNamara saying by this action? He was declaring that it was
vital to this nation to refuse to spend not only $460 million in funds earmarked
for general military construction but also $160 million tagged for housing the
families of our men in uniform.
While he did not use the word, inflation--and perhaps he avoided it
deliberately--McNamara left no doubt he feared the deferred projects might have
put extra push behind the already high cost of building in this country.
Only yesterday, McNamara said he will not ask Congress for any new military
family housing construction for fiscal 1967. Instead he proposed leasing 13,075
housing units over the next two fiscal years.
I say we are experiencing a more heated inflationary situation than we were
in December, 1965, and the prospects are that the cost of living will be spiraling
more in the months ahead. I say it doesn't make sense in times like these to be
spending $750,000 of the people's money on a house for the vice-president.
If the vice-president were asked today how he feels about the project, I have
great doubts he would want to go ahead with it knowing that some of our servicemen
and their families are living in what amounts to slum quarters.
Bob McNamara last January 26 told the Subcommittee on Military Construction
Appropriations that the 8,500 family housing units he had frozen were "justified"
but he was putting off construction just the same.
McNamara added in direct testimony: "We think it wise to defer the start of
that construction until there is less pressure on our total construction industry
in this country."
Let's assume the vice-president's house is, to use McNamara's word, "justified."
Is this the time to build it--when we're fighting a multi-billion-dollar war in
Viet Nam and trying to dampen the fires of inflation at home?
Should we cut the school lunch and school milk programs but build a three-
quarter million dollar house for the vice-president?
(More)
Floor Speech
-3-
March 16, 1966
Should we cut agricultural extension programs and reduce support funds for our
land grant colleges but construct a handsome house for the vice-president?
Bob McNamara put a hold order on 8,500 places for our servicemen and their
families to live while saying this construction was "justified."
Other Defense Department officials also testified the military housing was
desparately needed. Unless we think they are given to telling fairy stories, we
have to believe them.
J. J. Reed, deputy assistant secretary of defense for family housing, on
May 25, 1965, pleaded with the military construction appropriations subcommittee
to provide funds for all 12,500 family housing units then sought by the Defense
Department for fiscal 1966.
He said the program was urgent because: (1) "Decent living conditions
create a better military man; (2) The Nation has an obligation to provide decent
living conditions for the family of the military man who has pledged to risk his
life for the common defense; and (3) Decent living conditions make a military
career more attractive--it assists the military forces to retain qualified
personnel in competition with higher paying civilian careers."
Despite this justification for building all 12,500 housing units, Bob McNamara
shelved 8,500 of them for an indefinite time.
Assistant Defense Secretary Paul Ignatius declared in testimony before the
subcommittee April 13, 1965: "In lieu of our request for 12,100 units in fiscal
year 1964, only 7,500 were funded (by Congress). Last year (calendar year 1964),
the Congress funded only 8,250 units as opposed to our request for 12,500 units.
In view of the level of funding for new units that has been approved in the past
two years, it is now apparent that it is impossible, without a 'crash' building
program, for the (Defense) Department to obtain its objective within the original
five-year program."
Ignatius said the Defense Department would have to build 12,500 family
housing units annually over a six-year period to meet the needs of its men.
Those plans have been crippled by McNamara's hold order on 8,500 units of
family housing for our men in uniform.
(More)
Floor Speech
-4-
March 16, 1966
Certainly the vice-president and the nation will not suffer if the proposed
vice-presidential residence is left on the drawing board along with the family
construction program for our servicemen.
# # # # # # #
Congre ssman Ford
House Floor Speech, Wednesday, March 16,1966
Mr. Speaker:
Simxxx
As an elective official ranking seconds only to the president of the
United States, the vise-president should have a house furnished him by the
people of the nation. It should be a house of which the people can be proud.
It should be a residence fully befitting the stature of the man, who with
his family, occupies it as the No. 2 man in the country.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is a time to build and ntix a time to mark
time on a project of this kind. 1 say this is no time to be building a
$750,000 mension for the viee-president-and my opposition has nothing to
do with the merits of the project itself,
orthouthisidual occupying Throffice,
I would like to ask the supporters of this authorisation bill: Ry what
logie do they advocate the spending of $750,000 on a residence for the
vise-president when the secretary of defense has 8,500 units
urgently needed
of/military MX family housing authorised by Congress in 1965
for construction this fiscal year?
In a press release dated last Dec. 20, Secretary MoMamara said the
Defense Department was deferring $620 million mait worth of military
construction, including $160 million for the 8,500 military family housing
units.
What Vas Bob Mollamaranx saying by this action? He was deelaring that it
was vital to this nation to refuse to spend not only
$460 million in funds * earmarked for general military construction but even
$160 million tagged for housing the families of our men in uniform.
DERALD: FORD LIBRARY
P. 2 Floor Speech, March 16, 1966
While he did not use the word, inflation--and perhaps he avoided#$ it
dsliberately--MeNsmara left no doubt he feared the deferred projects might have
put extra push behind the already high cost of building in this country.
Only yesterday, MoNamera said he will not ask Congress for any new
military family housing construction for fiscal 1967. Instead he propesed
leasing 13,075 housing units over the next two fiscal years.
I say we are experiencing a more heated inflationary situation than
we were in December, 1965, andex the prospects are that the cost of living will
be spiraling more in the months shead. I say it doesn't make sense in times
like these to be spending $750,000 of the people's money on a house for
the vice-president.
If the vise-president were asked today how he feels about the project, I
have great doubts he would want to go shoad with it knowing that some of our
LIBRARY
servicemen and their families are living in what amounts to slum quarters.
Bob McNamara last Jan. 26 told the Subcommittee on (ilitary Construction
-
Approximx Appropriations the 8,500 family housing units he had frogen were
"justifieds" but he was putting off construction just the same. Nessatdrekix
The MoNamara added in xxdirect testinomy: "Wo think it wise to defer
the start of that construction until there is less pressure on our total
construdtion industry in this country."
Ist's assume the vice-president's house is, to use MoNamara's word,
#justified." Is this # the time to build it--when we'ye rigx fighting a
multi-billion-dollar was in Vist Name and trying to dampen the fires of
inflation at home?
P. 3 Floor Speech March 16, 1966
Should we cut the school lunch and school milk programs but build
a three-quarter million dollar house for the vice-president?
Should we eut agricultural extension programs and reduce support funds
for our land grant colleges but construct a handsome house for the
vice-president?
Beb BY Mollamara put a hold order on 8,500 places for our
servicemen andikadxtheir families to live while saying this construction was
"justified."
Other alu Defense Department officials also testified anota the
military housing was desperately needed. Unle SS we think they are given to
telling fairy stories, we have to believe them.
J. J. Reed, deputy assistant secretary of defense for family housing,
1945)
anzing pleaded with the military construction apprepriations subcommitter
to provide funds for all 12,500 family housing units then sought by the
Defense Department for fiscal 1966.
He said the program was metax urgent becauses (1) "Becent living
conditions create a better military man; (2) The Nation has an obligation to
provide decent living conditions for the family of the military man who has
ple dged to risk his life for the common defense; and (3) Decent living
conditions make a military career more attracgive--it assists the military
forces to retain qualified personnel in competition with higher paying
civilian careers."
Despite this justification for building all 12,500 housing units,
QERALD FORD LIBRARY
- P. 4-710or Speech, March 16, 1966
AusdixBufx
Assistmt Defense Secretary Paul Ignatius declared in testineny before
the subcommittee April 13, 1965: "In lieu of our request for 12,100 units
in fiscal year 1964, only 7,500 were funded (by Congress). Last yearsx (calendar
year 1964), the Congre SB fundedonly 8,250 units as opposed to our request for
12,500 units. In view of the level of funding for now units that has been
approved in the past two years, it is now apparent that therex it is impossible,
) without a
'crash' building program, for the (Defense) Department to obtain its objective
within the original five-year program."
Ignatius said the Defense Department would have to build
12,500 insur family housing units over a six-year period to NKM met
the needs of its men.
Those plans have been crippled by Mollumara's hold order on 8,500
units of family housing for our mon in uniform.
Certainly the vice-president and the nation will not suffer if the
proposed vice-presidential residence is left on the drawing board along with
the familyma construction program for our servicemen.##
end speech