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
4525932
label
Republican Women's Conference, Washington, DC, May 5, 1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525932
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Republican Women's Conference, Washington, DC, May 5, 1966
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Great Society
Inflation (Finance)
Poverty programs
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525932
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-05-31
month
5
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-05-01
month
5
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
9c36900d79986b81
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D20, folder "Republican Women's Conference,
Washington, DC, May 5, 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
For immediate release
Complete Tept not used
- Revised
Excepts frome
(See attached.RNC ael)
SPEECH BY HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER GERALD a. FORD BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN
WOMEN'S CONFERENCE - THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 5, 1966.
It is traditional that members of the minority party view with alarm
while those in the majority point with pride. It night also be said--and
indeed it should be pointed out-that the majority party glesses over its
mistakes and seeks to put the best possible face on all of its actions.
As leader of the minority party in the House, I come before you today
not as an alarmist although some will consider it such. I come before you
to give you my assessment of the State of the Union--with the sim of putting
this nation on the pathway to truth.
The Johnson Administration has set for itself the avowed purpose of
building a "Grest Society" in America.
The task of making America great turns on success in both domestic and
foreign policy.
I submit that the Johnson Administration has blundered badly in both
areas and that the American people will in time fully recognise this.
I say that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration stands indicted on four
major counts. Let me spell them out for all to know and ponder.
GERALD ANNUSIT R
Digitized from Box D20 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press (NORE) Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
Count No. 1--This administration has failed to tell the people the
truth about its actions, particularly in foreign affairs.
Count No. 2--This administration is failing to win the poverty war,
running it so badly that the poor themselves are up in arms.
Count No. 3--This administration has failed to maintain price stability,
insisting on expanding federal spending during a wartine boom that involves
the outlay of a billion dollars a month for the war in Vistnam.
Count No. 4--This administration has failed to properly manage our
military and foreign affairs. It is guilty of mistakes and omissions that
add up to mismanagement by any clear definition of the term.
This is a failing administration. It has failed the American people,
failed to deal adequately with both domestic and foreign problems. This is
the current State of the Union.
###
The State of the Union is closely bound up with the war in Vietnam.
The nation is in a state of confusion, and the reasons are obviews. It is
in a dangerous state of drift, of lack of clear purpose, of failure to
perseive national goals.
(MORE)
-3-
STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
Chief reason for this state of confusion is the fussiness with which
the president of the United States is conducting his office. This fussiness,
I believe, is deliberate. In his view, I feel sure, it goes under the name
of smart politics.
It is smart polities, the president apparently feels, to run the country
on a business-as-usual basis. He has, in effect, tucked the Vietrium war in
his pocket along with his polls and has told the American people: Now don't
you worry about a thing; I'll take care of it.
We are at war, but the president doesn't want the people to think about
it too much. The facts are we now have 255,000 Americans fighting on the
ground in a little Asian country halfway around the world, and indications
are the president will send another 50,000 to 100,000 of our young men into
combat there.
We are in a wartine boon, enjoying a false prosperity.
The Johnson-Mumphrey Administration last month boasted that unemployment
had dropped to 3.7 per cent. I - compelled to point out that this statistic
has blood on it. The low unemployment rate stemmed from a menpower shortage.
(MORE)
-4-
STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
The manpower shortage resulted from the wartine boom and the fact that
268,000 Americans were inducted into the Armed Forces during the previous
12 months.
# w *
I want to see an America in which every man or woman seeking e job
can find employment at a decent, living wage in a nation at peace.
n w n
Americans are coming to doubt whether President Johnson's Great Seciety
is a good seciety.
This is because indecision and mistakes in judgment have marked so
many of the administration's actions.
We have slipped ever desper into the morass of the Vietnam War. A
majority of Americans support the why of our involvement in Vietnam. But
it seems equally clear that few Americans understand the how of it.
They don't understand the how of it because the Johnson Administration
has never really leveled with the American people about the Vietnam wer.
The Johnson Administration has never taken the American people into
its confidence. The result has been what United Nations Ambassador
GERALD R.FORD FIBRARY
(MORE)
-5-
STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
Arthur Goldberg called "a crisis of confidence" and what I call an ever-
widening credibility gap.
These are rather famey terms. What do they mean? They mean the people
just don't know what to believe because Johnson Administration officials
have been wrong so many times. Sometimes they don't tell the whole truth.
Sometimes they deliberately mislead. At other times they have simply been
wrong.
Why are the American people becoming more and more uneasy about the
direction in which this nation is headed? It is not easy to shake the
confidence of the people in their government, but Administration officials
are succeeding.
It was Mr. Infallible, Defense Secretary Rebert s. McNamare, who said
in October of 1963 that the bulk of American military forces-then mostly
"advisers"--would be out of Vietnam by the and of 1965. We now have more
than a quarter of a million men there with tens of thousands more slated
to go to war and no end in sight.
It was Lyndon B. Johnson who was the spostle of restraint in discussing
the Victnam War during the 1964 campaign. In 1965 it was President Johnson--
(MORE)
-6-
STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
no longer candidate Johnson--who escalated the war in Vietnam.
It was Lyndon B. Johnson who carefully stage-managed initial escalation
of the Vietnam War by conducting s series of White House conferences last
summer and issuing daily bulletins suggesting that the Reserves and the
National Guard might be called up. He finally informed a relieved nation
that we would step up the Vietnam War but would not call the Reserves and
National Guard.
It was Secretary McNamara who recently denied angrily that the combat
readiness of U.S. forces not already committed to Southeast Asia is greatly
diminished. Yet the facts show there has been a continuous drawdown of
men and material from Burope over a period of more than a year and a half.
It was Mr. Johnson who recently denied that his quickie conference
with Premier By of South Vietnam had kindled political rivalries in that
war-torn country and touched off the recent civil disorders there. His
denial made one of the most respected newsmen in this country shake his
head and wonder in print how Mr. Johnson could blandly reject all the
evidence that his meeting with Ky had indeed led to the civil turmoil.
FORD LIBRARY
(HORE)
-7-
STATE OF UNION SPEECH
It was Undersecretary of State George W. Ball who stated flatly on a
recent nationwide television program that the civil unrest in Vietnam had
not interfered one particle with the conduct of the war. The next day
Assistant Secretary of Defense Arthur Sylvester confirmed that the civil
disorder had definitely slowed the Vietnam war effort. A couple of days
ago, Secretary McNamara reiterated this.
It was President Johnson who announced the landing of U.S. forces in
the Dominican Republic and then told a news conference on June 17, 1965,
that "some 1,500 innocent people were murdered and shot and their heads
cut off." A State Department officer later said that "perhaps our Dominican
embassy can be faulted for relaying unverified third-hand reports" about
mass head-chopping.
Our foreign affairs are being badly handled--mismenaged, if I may use
that word.
There is not really much need for Republicans to point to mismanagement
in supplying our men in Vietnam with the proper weapons and equipment to
earry out their duties fully and at the strategic time,
(MORE)
-8-
STATE OF UNION SPEECH
Leading Democrats in Congress have become alarmed and are digging up
increasing evidence of mismanagement by the Defense Department-mismsnagement
that goes far beyond the bomb shortages I called attention to on April 14.
By this time most Americans are familiar with the fast that the
Defense Department sold more than 7,000 750-pound bombs to a West German
fortilizer firm for $1.70 each in April, 1964-bumbs that cost us $330
originally--and then bought them back for $21 apiece last fall. Secretary
McNamara himself revealed this after I had charged bomb shortages and
mismanagement on April 14.
It is a Democrat, Sen. Ernest Gruening of Alaska, who on May 3 charged
the Defense Department with spending hundreds of millions of dollars to
replace still useful Army equipment and kept the repairable equipment from
going to Vietnam where it was badly needed.
It was San. Gruening who declared that these Defense Department practices
constitute "a fraud on the American people...a fraud on the American taxpayer...
and a fraud on our boys in Vietnam."
It was a Democrat, Sen. John C. Stennis of Mississippi, who recently
warned of a shortage of trained manpower for the Vietnam war and used the
GER
(MORE)
-9-
STATE OF UNION SPEECH
word "mismanagement" on a nationwide television program in discussing his
preparedness subcommittee's findings after a year-long study of the problem.
The Stennis subcommittee's investigation focused primarily on Secretary
McNamara's order of last September 30 - serapping 600 Army Reserve units.
The findings show that only 783 men of the 55,000 whose Reserve units were
abolished chose to join the National Guard. Of the others, 24,000 found
places in continuing Reserve units but the remainder dropped their training.
It was a House Armed Services subcommittee headed by a Demecrat,
Rep. Otis G. Pike of New York, which last February 1 declared that U.S.
foot soldiers "need and are entitled to better (air) support than they have
received" in Vietnam.
It was a Democrat, Rep. Edward Hebert of Louisiana, who said he was
"shocked" to learn that Secretary McNamara had decided to phase out the
B-58 bomber without the support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And it was
Rep. Hebert's subcommittee which recommended congressional review of major
Defense Department decisions on weapons systems for fear that "through
mistaken Executive Branch seal for economy, our nation may be inadvertently
LIBRARY
stripped of its defenses."
(MORE)
-10-
STATE OF UNION SPEECH
These men who have charged the Defense Department with mismenagement
or poor judgment or worse are Democrats, not Republicans. Pentagon officials
probably are telling each other these days: "With friends like these, who
needs enemies?"
I applaud these hard-working Democratic committee chairmen who are
digging up the facts on our conduct of the Vietnam War. They, like me, are
hoping to put the people on the track of the truth.
* * *
While we are fighting the billien-dollar-a-month war in Vietnam, the
cost of living keeps ballooning at home.
During the first three months of this year, consumer prises rose at
the annual rate of 3.6 per cent over the 1957-59 period used as a base.
A Bureau of Labor Statistics official told me privately that it's a
good guess Americans will have from three to five dollars of every hundred
washed out of their earnings this year by inflation.
That's a high price to pay for having a president who is so enamored
of consensus government and smart politics that he refuses to do anything
(MORE)
-11-
STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
about inflation except talk about it. It's a high price to pay for having
a president who tries to browbeat everybody else into holding back on
spending but does nothing about federal spending.
The Federal Reserve Board last December boosted interest rates. Now
it's more expensive for the businessman and the farmer to borrow money, the
increased cost of doing business is reflected in higher prices, and young
married couples are being forced to pay steep interest rates if they borrow
to buy or build a house.
The nation is squeened between higher price tage and the high cost of
credit. The rising cost of living hurts the old folks, those on fixed
insemes, the most. The high cost of credit is hurting the young marrieds.
Thank God if you're in the middle.
What about the poor? How are they faring under the multi-billien-dollar
Johnson Administration program to lead them into the Great Society?
The poor may not be getting poorer, but they're still poor. The promise
of the anti-poverty program has not brought them into the land of plenty.
Is it too early to expect solid results? It is not too early, nor
GERAL is FORD LIBRARY
(MORE)
-12-
STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
it too late to redirect the anti-poverty program into productive channels.
This is what we Republicans propose because we are determined that the
poverty war be won without further wasting of America's substance and its
people.
There has been waste in the Johnson Administration's anti-poverty
program. There have been abuses. There has been lavish spending. Inflated
salaries are being paid to anti-poverty officials, in some instances to the
point where the crack is made: If you want to get rich, join the general
staff of the poverty war.
Perhaps the most glaring example of poverty war waste is the conversion
of a rundown hotel at Charleston, West Virginia, into a women's job corps
center.
The government spent $225,000 to renovate the place, owned by the
Kanawha Hotel Company, and then leased it for $94,800 a year. It just
is owned by a prominent WestV viginia Democratood
happens that the hotel/was used as a Busceratic presidential campaign
headquarters in 1960.
Under the Johnson Administration's poverty war, we have seen poverty
fighters fighting each other and some of the poor rising up against their
(NORE)
-13-
STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
general, Sargent Shriver. It is natural for the frustrated poor to cry out
after expeating so much and getting so little.
The program has been poorly administered. It has been run like a
public relations operation. Inordinate amounts of time and money have been
spent on getting out fancy booklets extelling program accomplishments. At
the same time, management problems have multiplied.
We Republicans want to help the poor. We believe the poverty var as
set up by the Johnson Administration has become unuanageable and needs a new
start.
Going, successful programs like Head Start should be turned over to
other federal agencies. Only the community action program should remain
with the Office of Economic Opportunity, with the requirement that community
action boards include at least ene-third representation of the poor. A
state bonus plan would give additional money to those states matching it
50-50. This would make the states partners in the poverty war.
The compelling need in this nation today is to build a good society
good society
for the employed-but-poor = (-) and to provide good jobs for the unemployed.
(MORE)
-14-
STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH
The compelling need is to build a good seciety at peace with the world
and with itself. We must find an and to war and dispel the nagging
uneasiness that comes with a prosperity built on war. That is the State
of the Union.
# # #
FORD is LIBRARY 038870
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, MAY 5, 1966
SPEECH EXCERPTS--REPUBLICAN WOMEN'S CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON, D. C.
It is traditional that members of the minority party view with alarm while
those in the majority point with pride. It might also be said--and indeed it
should be pointed out--that the majority party glosses over its mistakes and seeks
to put the best possible face on all of its actions.
As leader of the minority party in the House, I come before you today not as
an alarmist although some will consider it such. I come before you to give you my
assessment of the State of the Union--with the aim of putting this nation on the
pathway to truth.
The Johnson Administration has set for itself the avowed purpose of building
a "Great Society" in America.
The task of making America great turns on success in both domestic and foreign
policy.
I submit that the Johnson Administration has blundered badly in both areas and
that the American people will in time fully recognize this.
I say that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration stands indicted on four major
counts. Let me spell them out for all to know and ponder.
Count No. 1--This administration has failed to tell the people the truth about
its actions, particularly in foreign affairs.
Count No. 2--This administration is failing to win the poverty war, running it
so badly that the poor themselves are up in arms.
Count No. 3--This administration has failed to maintain price stability,
insisting on expanding federal spending during a wartime boom that involves the
outlay of a billion dollars a month for the war in Vietnam.
Count No. 4--This administration has failed to properly manage our military
and foreign affairs. It is guilty of mistakes and omissions that add up to
mismanagement by any clear definition of the term.
This is a failing administration. It has failed the American people, failed
to deal adequately with both domestic and foreign problems. This is the current
State of the Union.
###
CURRENT STATE OF UNION
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, MAY 5, 1966
SPEECH EXCERPTS--REPUBLICAN WOMEN'S CONFERENCE, WASHINGTON, D. C.
It is traditional that members of the minority party view with alarm while
those in the majority point with pride. It might also be said--and indeed it
should be pointed out-that the majority party glosses over its mistakes and seeks
to put the best possible face on all of its actions.
As leader of the minority party in the House, I come before you today not as
an alarmist although some will consider it such. I come before you to give you my
assessment of the State of the Union--with the aim of putting this nation on the
pathway to truth.
The Johnson Administration has set for itself the avowed purpose of building
a "Great Society" in America.
The task of making America great turns Cpy success in both domestic and foreign
policy.
I submit that the Johnson Administration has blundered badly in both areas and
that the American people will in time fully recognize this.
I say that the Johnson-Humphrey Administration stands indicted on four major
counts. Let me spell them out for all to know and ponder.
Count No 1--This administration has failed to tell the people the truth about
its actions, particularly in foreign affairs.
Count No. 2--This administration is failing to win the poverty war, running it
so badly that the poor themselves are up in arms.
Count No. 3--This administration has failed to maintain price stability,
insisting on expanding federal spending during a wartime boom that involves the
outlay of a billion dollars a month for the war in Vietnam.
Count No. 4--This administration has failed to properly manage our military
and foreign affairs. It is guilty of mistakes and omissions that add up to
mismanagement by any clear definition of the term.
This is a failing administration. It has failed the American people, failed
to deal adequately with both domestic and foreign problems. This is the current
State of the Union.
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
May 5, 1966
FOR RELEASE: UPON DELIVERY
EXCERPTS BY HON. GERALD R. FORD, MINORITY LEADER, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
representatives, 14th ANNUAL REPUBLICAN WOMEN'S CONFERENCE, SHERATON PARK HOTEL
ASHINGTON D. C., 10:30 a.m., Thursday, May 5, 1966.
It is traditional that members of the minority party view with alarm
while those in the majority point with pride. It might also be said - and indeed
it should be pointed out -- that the majority party glosses over its mistakes
and seeks to put the best possible face on all of its actions.
As leader of the minority party in the House, I come before you today not
as an alarmist although some will consider it such. I come before you to give you
my assessment of the State of the Union -- with the aim of putting this nation on
the pathway to truth.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has set for itself the avowed purpose
of building a "Great Society" in America. Republicans believe in the Great
Society which includes - Truth, Progress, Freedom, Opportunity.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration stands indicted on four points:
1. This Administration has failed to tell the American people the
truth about its actions, particularly in foreign affairs.
2. This Administration is failing to win the poverty war, running it 30
badly that the poor are up in arms.
3. This Administration has failed to maintain price stability,
insisting on non-military spending during a wartime crisis that
involves a Billion dollars a month for Vietnam.
4. This Administration has failed to properly manage our military and
foreign affairs.
I have in my hand here the hearings of the House Committee of Merchant
Marine and Fisheries, the Committee that has the responsibility for finding out
whether or not we have a sound, adequate Merchant Marine for the United States.
And let me assure you, these hearings point out beyond any doubt whatsoever the
Defense Department under this Administration has played down the needs, the
necessity for an adequate Merchant Marine.
-2-
Unfortunately, when the crisis has developed as it has, in South Viet Nam
we are finding because of neglect our Lerchant Marine under this Administration is
not prepared to meet the challenge of the time. I say again this is a Democratic
controlled Committee.
Let me add this. Secretary McNamara has been wrong before. Let me site
one instance. In October of 1963. He went on one of his numerous trips
to South Viet Nam and when he returned from that trip, he told the press and the
press reported it to all of us that things were going so well in South Viet Nam
in 1963 that we as a nation could expect virtually all of our military forces
returned from South Viet Nam by the end of 1965.
The Secretary was wrong and it just might be that he could be wrong again.
Let me have this as myppost script. Even if the questions raised by the Democrats
and Republicans in the Congress cannot be fully justified - I think they can be --
but I assume they can't be. I think it is the obligation of every Lember of the
Congress, Democratic or Republican, I believe it's the ohligation of every member
of the press that has any connection either in the Pentagon or South Viet Nam
and it's.the responsibility of every American to keep the spotlight on the
Secretary of Defense and those working under him in civilian capacity. Why?
Because the President has committed as of today, I think my figures are correct,
the President has committeed 255,000 of the finest American youth to Viet Nam
and they deserve the best weapons on time that will work.
So I urge all of us in the capacities that we may hold today or hold tomorrow
to keep that spotlight on those in positions of responsibility so that those who
are fighting for us not only have all the weapons but one moral as well as other
support.
The second endictment is the question of credibility. This Administration
in my judgment has developed a credibility canyon not a credibility gap and let
me give you one illustration. There are many, quite frankly.
On Sunday, April 10th, the Under Secretary of State, Mr. George Ball on
one of the Sunday quiz programs "Face the Nation", said this, and let me read it.
"The interesting thing is, while the newspaper headlines have been filled with
the political turbulence in South Viet Nam -- the very silent serious effective
work looking toward the improvement of the social, economic, and political base
in South Viet Nam has been going forward as have the military operations."
And then he concluded, "There has been no particular reduction in them".
-3-
Now on April 20, Secretary McNamara in testifying before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee had this to say, and I quote.
"Military operations have been at a lower level because of the political
disorders in the last approximately two weeks. You can see that by the number
of Viet Cong killed is off 40%. The number of weapons lost by Vietnamese forces,
The number of weapons captured is also off by substantial amounts. This reduction
in military activity is customary under conditions of political disorder. It has
happened every other time we have had political disorders. "
And then on May 2 just a few days ago, the Secretary of Defense had this
to say in speaking to the United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C. ---
and again I quote.
"The tempo of military activities was adversely affected by the political
disorders. We were near civil war at Da Nang one weekend. The northern part
of the country was almost separated from the south - rest of South Vietnam and
the Ky government was almost overthrown."
The Undersecretary of State, Mr. Ball, syas there were no problems created
by the disorders. The Secretary of Defense says there were serious problems
created by the disorders in South Vietnam. I simply ask this question:
Will the real Administration spokesman, please stand up.
You may remember President Johnson's State of the Union message earlier
this year. I will never forget it, because speaking to the members of the
House and Senate and others and to the American people, he turned and looked
directly at the Republican side of the Chamber, and with somewhat of a hard,
snarling look said in effect to the Republicans, whom will they sacrifice - the
poor?
You also may remember in the State of the Union response that was given
by Senator Dirksen and myself, our answer was a resounding no. But we did
add as Republicans we will not sacrifice poor people but we will sacrifice poor
administrators. We will sacrifice poor arithmatic in public accounting, and we
will sacrifice those who don't do a good job.
Now let me tell you what has happened in the meantime. The Republicans
in the House have what we call a Poverty Task Force under the extremely able,
competent, diligent leadership of Congressman Charles Goodell of New York and
Congressman Al Quie of Minnesota.
-4-
In the interim between January and now they have accumulated almost on a
daily basis what they call poverty memos. That's a pretty sizeable group or piece
of paper and it's not all we put together but in these poverty memos they point
out day after day after day the failing of this program. The diversion of funds,
the excessively high administrative costs, the political payoff, the failure to
get the cooperation of the poor themselves. Yes, the Republicans will not
sacrifice the poor but we will sacrifice the failure of the poverty program
under the Johnson-Humphrey Administration.
I won't try to even summarize all of the areas that have been pointed
out by the Goodell-Quie Subcommittee or Task Force but I think it is well to give
you one or two examples.
On April 28th the poverty memo said, "Do you want a 57 per cent pay
increase?" The answer is, "Join the staff of the job corps." The 208 staff
personnel at Camp Gary, San Harcus, Texas drawing salaries over $9,000 got an
average of 57 per cent pay increase when they left their previous employment
and went with the Job Corps. I think this is evidence of poor administration,
the poor spending of the money and it is obvious when salaries are in this
category the poor are not getting the help. But then let me give you an example
that I think certainly smells of political favoritism. There is a high ranking
Democratic politician up in the state of West Virginia. He owned a hotel which,
as I understand it, was either closed or badly run down. It was valued at
approximately 250,000. The Job Corps signed a contract with this Democratic
politician who owned the hotel. The Poverty Program put 225,000 into it to
bring it up to a livable standard and then agreed to pay an annual rent, I
think for five years, of 98,000 over twelve months. Fellow politics?
I think the evidence on its face verifies and justifies the statements that
have been made by many on the Republican side.
Now one other area I think should be of great concern and interest to
you that I mentioned at the beginning, is the area of inflation, the increase in
the cost of living that we see is hitting every family in every state through
out the United States. In 1965 the cost of living went up two per cent which
meant people with one dollar could buy two per cent less or they could only
buy 98 per cent at the end of the year with the dollar they had at the beginning
of the year. But this increase has accelerated in the three months since
January 1. We had a point five per cent increase in the month of March.
We had a point seven increase in the cost of living in the month of February.
no
We had increase in January and if you take the three-month
5
period so far in 1966 and analyze it by the end of this calendar year the cost
of living will have gone up four per cent. That's a six per cent gain in the
cost of living. It is a six per cent increase in the cost of what our families
have to buy throughout this country. Nov the President, by word -by word --
I emphasize, has used the jaw bone technique to tell you housewives you ought
to buy less or buy cheaper items. He has told business it should not expand.
It should not increase its productive capacity. The President has reprimanded
business for some price increases. The President has slapped on the wrist
some labor organizations who have sought higher wages, but I have seen no real
evidence whatsoever that President Johnson has done one thing to cut down or
cut back federal spending in the non-military area.
Let me give you an example. Yesterday on the floor of the House we had an
appropriation bill there where a democratic controlled committee added by
half a billion dollars over and above the President's budget. There were
three amendments offered yesterday by Republicans to reduce the committee
action back to the President's budget. Not one single amendment to make a
reduction came from the D emocratic side-not one and there was only one speech
out of fifty or a hundred that were made yesterday by a Democrat talking
about economy. Yes the prime cause of inflation today is the excessive
increasing non-military spending of the Johnson Humphrey administration and
we as Republicans have a responsibility to point this out to the American
people. Let me give you one other illustration if I might.
Since January of this year there have been six votes on issues that
involve spending more or less. Two appropriation bills. Four authorization
bills, including the proposal by the White House for a mansion or whatever
you want to call it for the Vice President at a cost of $750,000. It was
mentioned by someone that this could be categorized as a tepee for the V.P.
But on these six votes I am glad to report to you that the Republicans in
the House voted 93 per cent as savers and the D emocrats voted 82 per cent
as spenders so as we get close to the election of 1966 we, as Republicans,
and every one of our fifty states can point to the Democratic administration
in the White House, in the Congress, and say that it has been the responsibilit,
of the D emocrats as spenders who are responsible for one and probably two
war time tax increases in 1966. And we as Republicans can point out that in
this period when efforts have been made to cut back spending to hold the
line that :Je as Republicans are savers and that we did all we could to prevent
6
one wartime tax increase and probably a second and that we as Republicans
fromall of the states that we represent have been the ones wholhave
carried the ball to try and bring under control the ravages of inflation
that are hitting each and every family in every state and as we go down
the line I can tell you:on behalf of the members of the House and the
Senate, the Republican Party will continue to be the party of savers and
the Democrats will continue to be the party of spenders.
Ladies and gentlemen it has been a great privilege and pleasure to be
here. I end as I began --the compelling need for all of us, all
Americans, is to continue to build a good society at peace with the
world and itself. We must find an end to the conflict in Viet Nam. We
must build up our strength to prevent C ommunistic terror and aggression
peace time economy. This
elsowhere. the must build a prosperity based one
is our aim and our objective.
I am confident that we as Republicans can look forward to success
in 1966. We are going to build a Republican Party from the grass roots
to the top and we are going to be successful from the court house to the
C ongress this year.
***
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
May 5, 1966
FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT
EXCERPTS BY HON. GERALD R. FORD, MINORITY LEADER, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 14th ANNUAL REPUBLICAN WOMEN'S CONFERENCE, SHERATON PARK
HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C., 10:30 a.m., May 5, 1966.
It is traditional that members of the minority party view with alarm
while those in the majority point with pride. It might also be said -- and indeed
it should be pointed out -- that the majority party glosses over its mistakes
and seeks to put the best possible face on all of its actions.
As leader of the minority party in the House, I come before you today not
as an alarmist although some will consider it such. I come before you to give you
my assessment of the State of the Union -- with the aim of putting this nation on
the pathway to truth.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration has set for itself the avowed purpose
of building a "Great Society" in America. Republicans believe in the Great
Society which includes - Truth, Progress, Freedom, Opportunity.
The Johnson-Humphrey Administration stands indicted on four points:
1. This Administration has failed to tell the American people the
truth about its actions, particularly in foreign affairs.
2. This Administration is failing to win the poverty war, running it so
badly that the poor are up in arms.
3. This Administration has failed to maintain price stability,
insisting on non-military spending during a wartime crisis that
involves a million dollars a month for Vietnam.
4. This Administration has failed to properly manage our military and
foreign affairs.
I have in my hand here the hearings of the House Committee of Merchant
Marine and Fisheries, the Committee that has the responsibility for finding out
whether or not we have a sound, adequate Merchant Marine for the United States.
And let me assure you, these hearings point out beyond any doubt whatsoever the
Defense Department under this Administration has played down the needs, the
necessity for an adequate Merchant Marine.
-2-
Unfortunately, when the crisis has developed as it has, in South Viet Nam
we are finding because of neglect our Lerchant Marine under this Administration is
not prepared to meet the challenge of the time. I say again this is a Democratic
controlled Committee.
Let me add this. Secretary MoNamara has been wrong before. Let me site
one instance. In October of 1963. He went on one of his numerous trips
to South Viet Nam and when he returned from that trip, he told the press and the
press reported it to all of us that things were going so well in South Viet Nam
in 1963 that we as a nation could expect virtually all of our military forces
returned from South Viet Nam by the end of 1965.
The Secretary was wrong and it just might be that he could be wrong again.
Let me have this as mypost script. Even if the questions raised by the Democrats
and Republicans in the Congress cannot be fully justified -- I think they can be --
but I assume they can't be. I think it is the obligation of every Lember of the
Congress, Democratic or Republican, I believe it's the obligation of every member
of the press that has any connection either in the Pentagon or South Viet Nam
and it's.the responsibility of every American to keep the spotlight on the
Secretary of Defense and those working under him in civilian capacity. Why?
Because the President has committed as of today, I think my figures are correct,
the President has committeed 255,000 of the finest American youth to Viet Nam
and they deserve the best weapons on time that will work.
So I urge all of us in the capacities that we may hold today or hold tomorrow
to keep that spotlight on those in positions of responsibility so that those who
are fighting for us not only have all the weapons but our moral as well as other
support.
The second indictment is the question of credibility. This Administration
in my judgment has developed a credibility canyon not a credibility gap and let
me give you one illustration. There are many, quite frankly.
On Sunday, April 10th, the Under Secretary of State, Mr. George Ball on
one of the Sunday quiz programs "Face the Nation", said this, and let me read it.
"The interesting thing is, while the newspaper headlines have been filled with
the political turbulence in South Viet Nam -- the very silent serious effective
work looking toward the improvement of the social, economic, and political base
in South Viet Nam has been going forward as have the military operations."
And then he concluded, "There has been no particular reduction in them".
-3-
Now on April 20, Secretary McNamara in testifying before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee had this to say, and I quote.
"Military operations have been at a lower level because of the political
disorders in the last approximately two weeks. You can see that by the number
of Viet Cong killed is off 40%. The number of weapons lost by Vietnamese forces,
The number of weapons captured is also off by substantial amounts. This reduction
in military activity is customary under conditions of political disorder. It has
happened every other time we have had political disorders. "
And then on May 2 just a few days ago, the Secretary of Defense had this
to say in speaking to the United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington, D.C. -
and again I quote.
"The tempo of military activities was adversely affected by the political
disorders. We were near civil war at Da Nang one weekend. The northern part
of the country was almost separated from the south -- rest of South Vietnam and
the Ky government was almost overthrown."
The Undersecretary of State, Mr. Ball, says there were no problems created
by the disorders. The Secretary of Defense says there were serious problems
created by the disorders in South Vietnam. I simply ask this question:
Will the real Administration spokesman please stand up.
You may remember President Johnson's State of the Union message earlier
this year. I will never forget it, because speaking to the members of the
House and Senate and others and to the American people, he turned and looked
directly at the Republican side of the Chamber, and with somewhat of a hard,
snarling look said in effect to the Republicans, whom will they sacrifice - the
poor?
You also may remember in the State of the Union response that was given
by Senator Dirksen and myself, our answer was a resounding no. But we did
add as Republicans we will not sacrifice poor people but we will sacrifice poor
administrators. We will sacrifice poor arithmatic in public accounting, and we
will sacrifice those who don't do a good job.
Now let me tell you what has happened in the meantime. The Republicans
in the House have what we call a Poverty Task Force under the extremely able,
competent, diligent leadership of Congressman Charles Goodell of New York and
Congressman Al Quie of Minnesota.
-4-
In the interim between January and now they have accumulated almost on a
daily basis what they call poverty memos. That's a pretty sizeable group or piece
of paper and it's not all we put together but in these poverty memos they point
out day after day after day the failing of this program. The diversion of funds,
the excessively high administrative costs, the political payoff, the failure to
get the cooperation of the poor themselves. Yes, the Republicans will not
sacrifice the poor but we will sacrifice the failure of the poverty program
under the Johnson-Humphrey Administration.
I won't try to even summarize all of the areas that have been pointed
out by the Goodell-Quie Subcommittee or Task Force but I think it is well to give
you one or two examples.
On April 28th the poverty memo said, "Do you want a 57 per cent pay
increase?" The answer is, "Join the staff of the job corps." The 208 staff
personnel at Camp Gary, San Harcus, Texas drawing salaries over $9,000 got an
average of 57 per cent pay increase when they left their previous employment
and went with the Job Corps. I think this is evidence of poor administration,
the poor spending of the money and it is obvious when salaries are in this
category the poor are not getting the help. But then let me give you an example
that I think certainly smells of political favoritism. There is a high ranking
Democratic politician up in the state of West Virginia. He owned a hotel which,
as I understand it, was either closed or badly run down. It was valued at
approximately $250,000. The Job Corps signed a contract with this Democratic
politician who owned the hotel. The Poverty Program put $225,000 into it to
bring it up to a livable standard and then agreed to pay an annual rent, I
think for five years, of $98,000 over twelve months. Fellow politics?
I think the evidence on its face verifies and justifies the statements that
have been made by many on the Republican side.
Nov one other area I think should be of great concern and interest to
you that I mentioned at the beginning, is the area of inflation, the increase in
the cost of living that we see is hitting every family in every state through
out the United States. In 1965 the cost of living went up two per cent which
meant people with one dollar could buy two per cent less or they could only
buy 98 per cent at the end of the year with the dollar they had at the beginning
of the year. But this increase has accelerated in the three months since
January 1. We had a point five per cent increase in the month of March.
We had a point seven increase in the cost of living in the month of February.
We had an increase in January and if you take the three-month
5
period so far in 1966 and analyze it by the end of this calendar year the cost
of living will have gone up four per cent. That's a six per cent gain in the
cost of living. It is a six per cent increase in the cost of what our families
have to buy throughout this country. Nov the President, by word -by word -
I emphasize, has used the jaw bone technique to tell you housewives you ought
to buy less or buy cheaper items. He has told business it should not expand.
It should not increase its productive capacity. The President has reprimanded
business for some price increases. The President has slapped on the wrist
some labor organizations who have sought higher wages, but I have seen no real
evidence whatsoever that President Johnson has done one thing to cut down or
cut back federal spending in the non-military area.
Let me Give you an example. Yesterday on the floor of the House we had an
appropriation bill there where a Democratic controlled committee added a
half a billion dollars over and above the President's budget. There were
three amendments offered yesterday by Republicans to reduce the committee
action back to the President's budget. Not one single amendment to make a
reduction came from the D.emocratic side-not one and there was only one speech
out of fifty or a hundred that were made yesterday by a Democrat talking
about economy. Yes the prime cause of inflation today is the excessive
increasing non-miliary spending of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration and
we as Republicans have a responsibility to point this out to the American
people. Let me give you one other illustration if I might.
Since January of this year there have been six votes on issues that
involve spending more or less. Two appropriation bills. Four authorization
bills, including the proposal by the White House for a mansion or whatever
you want to call it for the Vice President at a cost of $750,000. It was
mentioned by someone that this could be categorized as a tepee for the V.P.
But on these six votes I am glad to report to you that the Republicans in
the House voted 93 per cent as savers and the D emocrats voted 82 per cent
as spenders so as we get close to the election of 1966 we, as Republicans,
and every one of our fifty states can point to the Democratic administration
in the White House, in the Congress, and say that it has been the responsibility
of the D emocrats as spenders who are responsible for one and probably two
war time tax increases in 1966. And we as Republicans can point out that in
this period when efforts have been made to cut back spending to hold the
line that we as Republicans are savers and that we did all we could to prevent
6
one wartime tax increase and probably a second and that we as Republicans
from all of the states that we represent have been the ones who have
carried the ball to try and bring under control the ravages of inflation
that are hitting each and every family in every state and as we 80 down
the line I can tell you on behalf of the members of the House and the
Senate, the Republican Party will continue to be the party of savers and
the Democrats will continue to be the party of spenders.
Ladies and gentlemen it has been a great privilege and pleasure to be
here. I end as I began -the compelling need for all of us, all
Americans, is to continue to build is good society at peace with the
world and itself. We must find an end to the conflict in Viet Name We
must build up our strength to prevent C ommunistic terror and aggression
elsewhere. We must build a prosperity based on a peace-time economy. This
is our aim and our objective.
I am confident that we as Republicans can look forward to success
in 1966. We are going to build a Republican Party from the grass roots
to the top and we are going to be successful from the court house to the
Congress this year.
***