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
4526238
label
Detroit Economic Club, Detroit, MI, November 17, 1969
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526238
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Detroit Economic Club, Detroit, MI, November 17, 1969
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Compulsory national service
Executive-Legislative relations
Legislation
Taxation
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Welfare
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526238
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1969-11-30
month
11
year
1969
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1969-11-01
month
11
year
1969
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
aa7d4b5dbd5bd7b2
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D28, folder "Detroit Economic Club, Detroit,
MI, November 17, 1969" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D28 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press
Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
"Legislating
For A Better America"
Guest of Honor and Speaker
THE HONORABLE
GERALD R. FORD
Congressman from the Fifth District of Michigan
Minority Leader
House of Representatives
BEFORE THE ECONOMIC CLUB OF DETROIT
November 17, 1969
Veterans Memorial Building
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
(The meeting was opened by President Rus-
sel A. Swaney, who presented Max M. Fisher,
Special Consultant to the President on Volun-
tary Action, Chairman, New Detroit, Inc., and
Chairman of the Board, Fisher - New Center
Company, as Presiding Officer.)
Presiding Officer
MAX M. FISHER: Ladies and Gentlemen:
MAX M. FISHER
Special Consultant to the President on Voluntary Action
It's always a pleasure to preside at a meeting
Chairman
of The Economic Club of Detroit, but tonight's
New Detroit, Inc.
opportunity to introduce our guest speaker is
Chairman of the Board
of even more importance to me, for Jerry Ford
Fisher-New Center Company
is not only one of the most influential men in
America today, but he is also a good and re-
spected friend of mine.
Jerry is a man for whom I have the highest
regard - for his dedication, for his integrity,
and for his devotion to his country. My per-
sonal judgment of Jerry Ford has been con-
RUSSEL A. SWANEY
firmed by his constituents who have sent him
President
to Congress for two full decades. It is confirm-
ed, too, by his colleagues in the House of Repre-
The Economic Club
sentatives who have selected him as Minority
of Detroit
Leader. And it has been further confirmed by
the President of the United States who has
sought his counsel, his advice, and his leadership.
Jerry's life has been one of major accomplish-
ments. As a lad he won top athletic honors.
At The University of Michigan he was voted
Most Valuable Player of the 1934 champion-
ship football team, and received the highest
academic honors. Since then he has been desig-
nated as one of the "Ten Outstanding Young
Men in America" by the United States Junior
Chamber of Commerce.
From the time he was first elected to the
House of Representatives in 1948, Gerald Ford
has served on key Congressional committees. He
has served on the House Public Works Commit-
1
tee; the Appropriations Committee; and the
I hesitate to tell this story but Max in his
Select Committee on Astronautics and Space
introduction made an inadvertent slip. You
Exploration.
might expect that of somebody from Ohio
State
(Laughter)
but it reminded me
Jerry's legislative experiences, as well as his
of an incident that happened, Max, in the state
legal background, have given him a deep and
of Ohio. A year or two ago I was asked to
abiding respect for the law. He believes whole-
address a large political meeting and I was
heartedly in the importance of an electorate in-
being introduced by a man who was a graduate
formed about the legislative process. He be-
of Ohio State, as Max is, and in the course of
lieves, too, in the fullest possible participation
his introduction he inadvertently indicated that
of all citizens in the making of our laws.
I was a graduate of Ohio State. Well, I didn't
Here to speak to us tonight on the subject of
know quite how to respond, how to protect the
"Legislating for a Better America" is the Mi-
integrity of my Alma Mater, The University
nority Leader of the United States House of
of Michigan, without offending this vast audi-
Representatives, The Honorable Gerald R. Ford.
ence, most of whom came from the state of
Ohio. And as I came to the podium I thought
(Applause)
of an incident involving a man who was intro-
ducing the Governor of the Virgin Islands to
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Thank you very
a large audience. This man got up before this
much Max. Russ Swaney, distinguished guests,
tremendous political meeting and in the course
ladies and gentlemen:
of his introduction that went on for a long,
long time he talked of the Governor's accom-
It's a great privilege and a high honor to
plishments, his achievements and of course his
be here tonight. I'm deeply grateful for this
virtues. And then he concluded with a final
opportunity to share with you my ideas on
sentence that went like this:
"Legislating for a Better America."
Max, I'm always a little bit uncomfortable
"Ladies and gentlemen, it's my privilege
about being presented to a mixed audience as
and pleasure to introduce to you the Virgin
the Minority Leader of the House, with the
of Governor's Island."
inference that I'm potentially the Speaker of
(Laughter)
the House. I think all wives know who the
minority leader of the house is- a husband.
In my initial remarks tonight on the subject,
On the other hand, I know very well who all
"Legislation for a Better America," I think it's
husbands believe is the speaker of the house.
appropriate to point to the factual situation
that exists. In November 1968 the American
When I was invited by Russ Swaney to come
people elected a Republican president and, at the
here tonight I received a letter that went some-
same time, left control of the Congress in the
thing like this:
hands of the Democratic Party.
"We have had a full program. We've
had Frank Borman, Paul McCracken,
This year marked the first time since 1849
General Chapman - - and now we would
that a new Administration took office with the
like to have you accept our invitation."
legislative branch - a co-equal branch of the
Federal Government -controlled by another
And it ended with this sentence:
political party. This happens very, very seldom
"Up until now we've had outstanding
in the history of America. But it is the fact
today. A Republican in the White House;
speakers."
Democrats in control of the Senate 57 to 43,
(Laughter)
and of the House of Representatives 245 to 188.
2
3
came down for a late breakfast an hour or so
Naturally Republicans would prefer to see
later and some friend of mine
(Laughter)
the GOP control both the Executive and Legis-
immediately handed her a copy of the New
lative branches of the Federal Government. But
York Times. I have yet to satisfactorily ex-
the American people did not so decide in the
plain who that new broad is.
1968 election. The unusual situation therefore
In the situation as we find it today, the
entails a most unusual relationship between the
Legislative and the Executive branches of the
public has to understand that when the Presi-
dent sends a legislative message to the Congress,
government.
he doesn't have the same relationship with the
I might tell one story about an election that
leadership in the House and Senate that he
happened in 1966. Following the 1964 elec-
would have if the leaders were of his own poli-
tion we on my side of the aisle were badly out-
tical party. In a divided government, he doesn't
numbered in the House of Representatives. I
necessarily get the reaction in the Congress that
think the Democrats had 295 members and we
he would get otherwise.
had 140, which is better than 2 to 1 odds.
Those were pretty tough days. But the 1966
Let me say parenthetically that I'm not be-
elections were rather kind to us and we elected
ing critical of the Democratic leadership. On
59 new Republicans, which was a substantial
the major issues involving the national security
new "class" of Congressmen. My wife Betty
of the United States, Democratic congressional
and I decided that it would be a good idea if
leaders have stood forthrightly with the Presi-
dent of the United States. The American people
we got all of these new members and their wives
and our leadership and their wives together for
ought to applaud the Democratic Speaker and
a 3-day seminar where we could talk about
the Democratic Majority Leader of the House,
parliamentary problems, major issues, and, just
for they are acting in the finest American tradi-
tion.
get better acquainted. At the opening luncheon
I was asked to say a few words. I looked out
But on domestic issues it is logical and proper
and there were the 59 new additions to our
that since there is a philosophical difference be-
rank. They were attractive, articulate and able.
tween the two major political parties there are
I must have said that I was happily clucking
some legislative differences between the Demo-
over this new brood of Republicans.
crats and the Republicans.
The luncheon broke up and we went on to
Since January 20th of this year the President
our business. We had a social hour that night.
of the United States has sent approximately
I came down to an early breakfast the next
40 major messages to the Congress, most of
morning and when I walked in somebody hand-
which resulted in legislative proposals.
ed me a copy of the New York Times with a
The three major issues we as a nation face
front-page story, lead-article, first sentence:
today are all related to these various messages.
"Congressman Jerry Ford, House Re-
Those major issues fall into three categories:
publican Leader, was happily clucking
(1) foreign policy - primarily the problem of
over his new broad."
Vietnam; (2) the status of our economy -
whether we can dampen down the problems
(Laughter)
of inflation without unacceptable unemploy-
I thought it was amusing that a great news-
ment; and (3) the problem of crime- all
paper like the New York Times would make a
the ramifications, not only enforcement of the
simple typographical error that would some-
law but eradication of the sociological causes
what change what I had said at the previous
of crime.
luncheon. I passed it off and kidded the New
As I said a moment ago, most of the messages
York Times Correspondent. My wife Betty
5
4
that have come from the President in one way
that conflict with all its ramifications but at
or another have involved these three basic
problems.
the same time maintaining the national prestige
and influence of the United States world-wide
The President had some basic decisions to
-because the generations that will follow us
make on taking office in January of 1969. I
are as interested in what happens then as we
was present at a number of meetings where
are in what happens today.
the choices were pretty well sifted out.
The other day I was reading William L.
The President could have taken those pro-
Shirer's book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third
grams that have been on the statute books-
Reich." There are passages in that book that
the new ones as well as the old and
ought to teach us a lesson today. The author
sought to use those legislative tools for the pur-
relates how Chamberlain went to Munich in
pose of meeting our domestic problems. He
September 1938 to discuss with Hitler the dis-
could have simply spent more money to try
memberment of Czechoslovakia. The purpose
to make them work. That was one choice.
- to achieve an alleged peace in Europe.
Another choice was to recognize the socio-
Chamberlain agreed to the dismemberment
logical and economic problems we face at home
of Czechoslovakia. He came back to England
and to seek new solutions to those problems
and made a speech in The House of Commons
new legislative tools.
declaring that we were to have peace in our
time through acceptance of the terms laid down
The decision was made by the President -
by Hitler. Amid the pandemonium that ensued
and I think rightly that instead of just
in The House of Commons - because all
taking the old programs and seeking to spend
Britishers were anxious for peace in their time
more money he would seek innovative, imagi-
- one man spoke out against the deal made by
native approaches for the decade ahead.
Chamberlain. Who was it? A lion among men,
Before discussing domestic problems and
Sir Winston Churchill. His voice was drowned
President Nixon's new approaches to them, I
out. He was ignored. But history proved him
would like to comment on where we may be
right.
going and what we hope to accomplish in
Today most of us would recognize that Eng-
Vietnam.
land's appeasement of Hitler in 1938 opened
Let me say categorically that I firmly be-
wide the door to what transpired in the years
lieve it is in the national interest for the United
that followed.
States to be successful in Vietnam. I believed
As in those days preceding World War II,
that under former Presidents Kennedy and
the Free World should heed a strong voice.
Johnson; I believe it today. I want no mis-
Britain should have heeded the words of a
understanding in that regard.
Churchill rather than those of a Chamberlain.
At this point, I don't think it is wise for
Today the United States-and indeed the en-
us to be critical of how we got into Vietnam.
tire Free World should listen to the strong
I don't think it is wise for us to analyze
voice now being raised in warning. President
whether we used the right military policy the
Nixon is speaking with a strong voice in try-
last four years in trying to find the answer to
ing to solve the problem of Vietnam. Yes, try-
Vietnam. Those decisions were made, rightly
ing to solve it through meaningful negotiations
or wrongly, and I assume with the best of
in Paris. We must pursue the course the Presi-
intentions.
dent set forth in May of this year — a funda-
mental 8-point plan for the negotiators to work
Our problem today is how we find a way
around in trying to end the war in Vietnam,
to be successful in Vietnam, not only in solving
not only honorably but permanently.
6
7
We have not had a single affirmative response
It does require that we have a degree of poli-
to the Paris negotiations and they have gone
tical stability in South Vietnam. One of the
on for better than a year. But that doesn't
most encouraging reports I have heard regard-
mean we should give up. As a matter of fact,
ing the political situation in Vietnam has come
I was listening to Dr. Kissinger, the President's
from a former colleague of mine. Not a Re-
top adviser, the other day at the White House,
publican. Not even a middle-of-the-road Demo-
and history also tells us something here; that
crat. But from a Democrat whose credentials
there is a tendency on the part of Communist
are as liberal as those of any Democrat I know.
negotiators to be as critical, as adamant, as mean
Many of you here I am sure have met and know
and abusive as they can be, just when they are
Neil Staebler. If my memory is correct, Neil
about to make a deal. This is what happens
ran for Mayor of Ann Arbor on the Socialist
historically. Maybe we can learn a lesson from
ticket in the 1930's. He has been Democratic
it.
Party Chairman in Michigan. He has been
If you look back to the early 1950's you
Democratic National Committeeman for Michi-
will find Secretary of State Dulles negotiating
gan. Neil Staebler went over to South Vietnam
with the Soviet Union and with our two other
a month or so ago at his own expense. He came
major allies France and Britain - for the
back and reported the following. He said:
restoration of Austria. Austria had been oc-
"Jerry, our country can be successful in Viet-
cupied by the four major powers following
nam with a program where we are replacing
World War II, and negotiations were going on
our military personnel with theirs. The most
between the Soviet Union and the Allies. Just
encouraging sign is that the Thieu government
prior to an agreement permitting Austria to
is really getting broad-based and has ever-
become a sovereign nation again, the Soviet
increasing popular support."
Union was the most abusive it has ever been in
We should listen to a man with Neil's ex-
the negotiations. Yet, there was a break and
perience. What he says coincides with the
Austria was restored to sovereignty. The Allies
observations and the analysis of officials in our
and the Soviet Union moved out, and Austria
government today. I would simply say this.
lived again.
The President has a plan. It is a plan that can
The same sort of thing took place at Pan-
work. If we get a minimum of cooperation
munjom where negotiations went on for two
from the enemy, this plan will bring peace in
years between the United Nations negotiators
Vietnam and will at the same time maintain the
and the North Koreans. The abuse reached a
leadership and the prestige of the United States
peak. Then suddenly a settlement was reached
in the Free World. In my judgment this is the
in July of 1953.
best course for us to take today, tomorrow and
in the future. It would be tragic if the United
So even though our Ambassador is abused
States of America should accept, as Chamber-
every time he meets with the North Vietnamese
lain did, an easy peace that would only lead
in Paris we should stick it out and keep pur-
to a broader war.
suing meaningful negotiations that may end in
an honorable settlement of the Vietnam War.
Now if I might, let me turn to some of the
domestic problems that I think fit within the
Even if a settlement is not achieved, there
context of "Legislating for a Better America."
is an alternative by which the United States
Early this year it became evident that some-
can phase out its military responsibilities in
thing had to be done to amend the Selective
Vietnam and phase in the combat responsibili-
Service Act. Most people don't realize it but
ties of the South Vietnamese. The term is
the draft law that has been used in the last
"Vietnamization" of the war. It can be suc-
several years for the annual induction of some
cessful, and I think it will be successful.
two or three hundred thousand young Ameri-
8
9
cans is virtually the same Selective Service Act
fessional army is not democratic and that there-
or Draft Law used to induct most of us in
fore we should not have it. Well, for most of
World War II. It is basically the same. Most
the years of America's history we've had a pro-
of us would recognize that the problems of
fessional military force and yet democracy has
maintaining a military force of 15 million men
thrived in America. So I give no credence to
as we did in World War II are quite different
the contention that a professional army is bad
from maintaining a military force like the one
for America. History has proved otherwise.
we have today of approximately 3,600,000.
And yet the same law is affecting the lives of
Now let me turn to a matter I suspect is of
those who are subject to the draft.
considerable interest to many of you here- tax
reform. I was talking to Walker and Max at
Under present law, young men today are
the head table and they were curious, like many
vulnerable to the draft for a period of 7 years,
of you are, about what's going to happen. In
from age 19 to 26. All the experts tell us that
my judgment tax reform legislation will be
this extended period of vulnerability is one of
enacted by this Congress before January 1,
the principal causes of the unrest on our college
1970.
campuses. And I can understand why.
The tax reform bill approved by the House
The President has recommended that Con-
of Representatives - some 368 pages of major
gress approve- - and I'm glad to state to you
changes in the Internal Revenue Code-calls
that the House of Representatives two or three
for some 37 basic revisions in the federal tax
weeks ago approved it and now it appears the
structure.
Senate will do likewise- - a change, a significant
change in the Selective Service Act that makes
I know the proposed legislation that passed
young men vulnerable for just one year unless
the House raised many questions to put it mild-
we were to have a major conflagration or a mili-
1y. But let me say this. Whether you in this
tary engagement far broader than what we have.
audience recognize it or not, there is a tax revolt
This in my opinion will be a first big step in
in America. I understand that revolt because
trying to win our young people back to the
over the last decade we've seen a wide variety
kind of dedication to America they funda-
of local taxes increase year after year; we've seen
mentally feel.
the state tax burden go up and up; and there's
been virtually no relief from the federal burden.
I believe that as we move toward peace in
The American people, paying more each year
Vietnam and hopefully achieve it we as a coun-
in total taxes, naturally look to see whether
try ought also to move to a career or all-volun-
there is equity in our federal tax structure. And,
teer military force. It's achievable. Many
admittedly, there are areas vhere inequities
people doubt it. But go back to 1959 - four
or five years after the war in Korea - when we
exist. I might parenthetically say that what is
had a military force of about 2,600,000. Virtu-
one man's loophole is another man's thoroughly
ally all of the young men then in the Army,
justified benefit. It's all not black and white.
Navy, Air Force and Marines were volunteers.
1
But nevertheless there is this ground swell of
resentment on the part of the ordinary tax-
Once we achieve peace in Vietnam and go
from the present 3,600,000 in the military to
1
payer who earns seven or eight thousand dollars
a year and pays a thousand dollars in taxes. He
a far lower military manpower requirement,
sees some wealthy individuals who, under exist-
we can move to an all-volunteer military force
ing law, pay nothing. He doesn't understand
if we are willing to pay the necessary compensa-
it. He's disturbed. The Congress responds to
tion and fringe benefits.
the majority of its constituents. The Congress
Oh I know people have alleged that a pro-
will do something about it. I hope it's as fair
10
11
and equitable as we can make it, bearing in
fare setup, there's never been a real incentive
mind the wide differences of viewpoint.
for good people to free themselves from the
dole.
The end result will be frustrating to many.
It will make some people angry, as a typically
And so the President has suggested that the
independent American should be.
Congress abolish the old welfare system, start
from scratch and come up with a program
I might tell you a story about such an Ameri-
labeled Workfare. The House Committee on
can. My wife Betty and I have a neighbor in
Ways and Means has started hearings on the
Alexandria, Virginia, who is a high-ranking
President's proposal. The principal ingredient
official in the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
in this White House proposal is incentive. If
Last summer he talked to me and he said, "Jerry,
people on welfare are willing to seek training
have you ever noticed in the upper righthand
for jobs that do exist, or if people who are out
corner of your Internal Revenue tax return
of jobs are willing to seek training for new
there's a blank area and underneath the blank
employment, they will be given that oppor-
area in large black type there's an admonition:
tunity. And if they start to earn they will not
'Please Do Not Write Here'."
be penalized dollar for dollar because they are
I confessed I had never noticed the blank
supplementing their government checks. It's the
area. I had not been conscious of the admoni-
incentive ingredient that's vital and important
tion.
in this new approach.
Then he smiled and said: "Jerry, you'd be
No man stands taller than when he stands
surprised. After they sign their name at the
on his own two feet. When a man is down,
bottom of the return alleging that all the facts
he needs a hand up instead of a bandout. In
and the figures are the truth and nothing but
the final analysis, I believe the Congress will
the truth, and after they sign that check paying
approve this legislation.
Uncle Sam whatever they allegedly owe him,
then literally thousands of taxpayers in typical
It is a new approach, an innovative, imagi-
American frustration and total American inde-
native answer to a problem that has defied a
solution for more than three decades.
pendence write in their own handwriting across
the blank area: "I'll write any damned place I
Let us now turn to the need for affirmative
please."
action in the area of the Postal operations. I
(Laughter)
made a speech in California the other day and
totally inadvertently, I spoke of the "Post
Let me discuss now another major Adminis-
Awful Department." Well, the truth is that in
tration proposal - the President's recom-
the existing Post Office Department we keep
mendation for workfare rather than welfare.
getting poorer service, we pay more for that
This is a measure which should be approved by
service and we seem to have perpetually expand-
the Congress before adjournment in 1970.
ing deficits which the ordinary taxpayer fi-
There's never been a more propitious time for
nances. Unfortunately, for as long as America
a change in our welfare system. Those on the
has existed, the Post Office Department has
far left of the political spectrum in America
been rampant with partisan politics. The Presi-
agree that the system hasn't worked. It's dupli-
dent has said that there will be no more politics
cative, it's expensive. And you can find those
in the Post Office Department and for that I
on the far right of the political spectrum in the
applaud him. The President has recommended
United States who agree that the system has not
that we move away from the kind of Post Office
really helped to get individuals or families out
Department we have today to one that is run
of the cycle of welfare. Under the existing wel-
by managers free and clear of any political
12
13
influence. The Congess must respond in this
including the President of the United States,
area. Every survey that is taken indicates the
about his daughter's death. He pointed out that
American people want a new answer for a de-
his daughter was not a hippie and that his was
partment that today has about 750,000 em-
a close-knit family. He told us there, and be
ployees. Next to the Department of Defense,
has since carried out the promise, that he was
it's the largest department in the Federal
going to crusade in any and every way he could
Government. This is a responsibility of the
to arouse America to the narcotics crisis. He
Congress to all of the millions of people who
pleaded with the Congress to do as the Secre-
use the facilities of the Post Office Department.
tary of HEW had recommended. He also urged
Another crime. You are familiar with
stiffer penalties for the peddlers and pushers.
the statistics - the crime rate inceasing ten
Congress must respond in this area. Then it
times faster than the population. The tools that
will be the responsibility of the prosecutors, the
we have, legislatively speaking, are inadequate
courts and the juries to act.
to meet the challenges of organized crime, drug
abuse, and the distribution of pornographic
One final observation. We must strengthen
literature throughout the country.
our federal system.
Let me just give you quickly an observation
As I said earlier, local taxes are rising and
that came out of a meeting at the White House
have risen. State costs have gone up. It would
several weeks ago on the second problem -
be my impression that state and local taxes
narcotics control. The Congress hasn't respond-
have about reached the limit. Our federal tax
ed as rapidly as it should in this area. I don't
structure is different.
understand why. As a consequence, the Presi-
As our economy grows, without even a
dent invited the Democratic and Republican
change in the Federal tax rate, the Federal
leadership to the Cabinet room one morning
Government takes in six to eight billion dollars
and he had three people there to present the
more a year.
problem. The first was the director of the
Narcotics Bureau. He discussed the need for
Now, if we are to strengthen local and state
stronger penalties for dope peddlers: tough,
governments - - and I happen to believe that's
mandatory, long sentences for those who prey
a necessary ingredient to maintain our govern-
on the weak.
mental system - the Administration proposes
The second speaker was the Secretary of
we share federal revenue with state and local
Health, Education and Welfare, who pleaded
governments; share this growth income that
for the Congress to legislate more lenient, more
comes to the federal treasury.
flexible penalties for youths who for the first
I know there are some who will say, "Well,
time may have bought one or more of the
why don't you reduce federal taxes and allocate
narcotics that are available. The Secretary of
any extra amounts to the state and local com-
HEW was pleading for a more constructive ap-
munities?" Well, history tells us that in the
proach to help rehabilitate these unfortunate
last 10 or 20 years any extra federal revenue
people. He pointed out that the courts and
has gone into what we call grant-in-aid pro-
juries need more flexibility in such cases.
categorical grant programs.
The last one to speak to this group was Art
Let me quickly tell you the history of cate-
Linkletter. Less than two weeks earlier he had
gorical grants. Twelve years ago there were
lost his youngest child his 20 or 21-year-old
less than 100 Federal categorical grant programs.
daughter. This was the most dramatic presenta-
They cost about a half a billion dollars annual-
tion I have ever seen in my life. It took a lot
1y at the outset. Today, in this fiscal year, we
of courage for a man to talk to some 20 people,
have amost 500 categorical grant programs and
14
15
the annual cost to the federal budget is nearly
$20 billion. Categorical grant programs have
Let me conclude now with this. I think we
mushroomed, with all kinds of duplication and
recognize that the things that divide us in
a ballooning cost to the taxpayers. The net
America politically and otherwise- - are not
result is that, in the main, a federal adminis-
nearly as enduring as the things that unite us.
trator in Washington decides how you, at the
It would be my observation that both Demo-
local level, are going to spend the money that
crats and Republicans are striving together, each
comes from the Federal Government to the City
in their own way, to create a more perfect
of Detroit.
union. Although there are bitter debates and
much controversy, I think our compact of re-
If you look at the projections of those who
spect for the convictions of others and our faith
believe in categorical aid, you find they antici-
in the decency of others, allows all Americans
pate there ill be expenditures out of the
the luxury of rugged political competition.
Federal Treasury ten years from now of at least
$50 billion a year for such programs. These
As I look ahead I would ask only this. Let's
federal expenditures are not going to go away.
all work to banish war from our shrinking
You're faced with a choice of expanding cate-
world and hate from our expanding hearts.
gorical aid programs, with a federal bureaucrat
in Washington making the basic decisions, or
MAX M. FISHER: Jerry, you were marvelous.
sending back to state and local governments a
In fact, you did such a good job that you've
fixed percentage of gross revenue from the
ruined quite a few of the questions I had already
Federal Treasury for local people- - the people
picked out here for you. But there are a couple
you elect in Detroit, the people you elect in
that may be interesting or controversial. Here
is one.
Michigan - to use as they see fit on their own
list of priorities.
(Reading Question): "WHAT IS YOUR
OPINION OF VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW'S
Now, who do you have more faith in? The
SPEECH ON THE MEDIA AND HIS SPEECH
ABOUT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATORS?"
people you elect in Detroit or the people that
are immunized from your control - the bureau-
And here's another one that ties right in.
crats in Washington? In my opinion the choice
(Reading Question): "WHAT IS YOUR
is very simple. I put my faith in those elected
OPINION OF THE DEMONSTRATION IN
officials whom you choose - not some im-
WASHINGTON LAST WEEK?"
munized career service individuals protected by
HON. GERALD R. FORD: In my honest judg-
Civil Service in Washington, D. C. You can
ment there is a small segment of the radio and
make better decisions on priorities here, through
television news media who have been prejudiced;
your elected officials.
prejudiced against a Democratic president; pre-
There are different kinds of priorities. The
judiced against a Republican president. I under-
problems of San Francisco are not the same as
stand this situation because we're all human
those of Detroit. The problems in my home-
beings and very few of us can hide our sub-
town of Grand Rapids are not identical with
jective feelings as we say something or do some-
those of Miami, Florida. And I happen to think
thing. I don't mean to condemn the vast ma-
that the people you elect and we elect have a
jority of the news media because I can say that
little better appreciation of how that money
in my own case, with some very limited ex-
should be spent.
ceptions, they've been fair and very understand-
ing. But what they've got to understand is
Revenue-sharing is a basic ingredient for the
that when they report a factual situation they
growth, the perpetuation of a true federal sys-
should report it factually, and when they edi-
tem in America.
torialize, which they have the right to do, they
should let the viewers know that they're edi-
16
17
torializing, and not mix the two. Unfortunate-
(Reading Question): "WILL YOU PLEASE
COMMENT ON WHAT YOU THINK IS THE
ly in some situations there has been editorial-
CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL FEELING ON
izing when theoretically a factual situation was
PRESIDENT NIXON'S RESTATED VIETNAM
being reported.
POLICY."
Let me give you my observations and com-
(Reading Question): "DO YOU DISAGREE
WITH GRIFFIN WITH REFERENCE TO THE
ments concerning the Moratorium March in
HAYNSWORTH MATTER?"
Washington last week. There were some
250,000 people there. A small number behaved
HON. GERALD R. FORD: I knew there would
badly. In the main, those who were there lived
be a question asking me to define what I con-
within the law. They were exercising their
strued to be "successful" in Vietnam. That's
right of dissent, their guaranteed right of pe-
a very logical and proper question. I define
tition to their government. I was proud of
success in Vietnam as follows: the withdrawal
the way 99 per cent of them exercised this
of the United States military forces and the re-
inalienable right given them under our Consti-
placement of the forces by the South Viet-
tution.
namese so that they themselves can prevent
aggression from the North or internal de-
But I add this. There were those on Friday
struction from within. And I'm convinced that
night who met at Dupont Circle, which is on
the program that's under way today will pro-
Massachusetts Avenue, and sought to move
vide that opportunity.
heavily armed to the South Vietnamese Embassy
for what our government knew would have
It also means that there will be a freely elect-
been an attempt to destroy the South Viet-
ed government in South Vietnam; freely elected
namese Embassy. Fortunately the government
by the people of South Vietnam under inter-
was prepared and they prevented it.
national supervision - if that's the only way
it can be done and I suspect it is. A government
Then on Saturday afternoon, Mr. David
that has the support of the South Vietnamese
Dellinger got up before this vast group of
people. This is what we really want. And, ac-
Americans — I won't give you the record of
cording to all the information I have, it can be
Mr. Dellinger but you can read it - and ex-
achieved.
horted this group to move in and destroy the
Department of Justice. And some tried in a
Every once in a while I get into an argument
highly organized way. Fortunately they were
with people who say that elections in South
prevented from carrying out their plans.
Vietnam and there have been many - are
not perfect. "There is corruption," they say
Now those who exploited the good people
"and some candidates are not permitted to run."
who were there I think ought to be condemned
I think it ought to be remembered that there
and prosecuted if they violated the law. This
has never been an election in North Vietnam;
small highly organized group wasn't there for
so, by any standards, South Vietnam has at
the purpose of legitimately petitioning the
least given its people a number of chances to
government; they were there to destroy our
elect individuals to their Assembly or to other
government.
public office. So, on that basis, South Vietnam
MAX M. FISHER: We have a list here, Jerry,
is far ahead of North Vietnam.
on Vietnam.
Secondly, I get a little irritated with some
(Reading Question): "WHAT, IN YOUR
of our people who get quite sanctimonious about
OPINION, WILL DETERMINE SUCCESS IN
corruption in politics in America. You know,
VIETNAM: (a) MILITARY VICTORY; (b) WITH-
DRAWAL; (c) COMPROMISE?"
we've had some recent history in America-180
years after this Nation was established where
(Reading Question): "WHAT DO YOU MEAN
BY 'BEING SUCCESSFUL' IN VIETNAM?"
there has been corruption in politics. So I don't
18
19
really think we're in a very good position to
fense, Chiefs of Staff, civilian and military wit-
talk so piously to the South Vietnamese, par-
nesses, so I have a little background in this area.
ticularly when they're fighting for their very
The facts are that Congress has been tougher
existence and their nation's future. I think we
on the military and the producers of military
ought to give them a chance, a hope.
hardware than the Executive branch of the
One other ingredient of success in Vietnam
government has been. Almost without exception
the Congress has cut expenditures in the Penta-
is a pacification program which really means
gon below that which a President recommended,
that the peasant in the field has a right to the
whether it was Mr. Truman, Mr. Eisenhower,
land and that he's able to sell what he produces
and make a profit from it. The pacification
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Johnson, a n d probably
program, the land reform program is an abso-
President Nixon. On procurement, Congress
lutely essential ingredient of success in Viet-
has been tougher on both the uniformed person-
nel and on the supplier of military hardware.
nam.
The Congress in the future undoubtedly will
I will just summarize by saying this. We
be even tougher.
must have a stable, broad political structure in
South Vietnam. We must have a government
I happen to believe, however, despite this
able to meet military challenges. We must have
pressure from the Congress and the public, that
an economy so strengthened by the pacification
we're fortunate in America to have the high
program that it gives hope to the 20 million
caliber of military people that we have had and
people in South Vietnam.
have today, protecting us through our national
defense program. I also happen to believe that
Now to answer the other question. Max, I
the suppliers of military hardware over the
am not a member of the United States Senate.
years have done a good job. They have done
Therefore I have no vote on this controversial
a far better job than the suppliers in any other
issue of whether Judge Haynsworth should be
country that I know.
confirmed. And I want it clearly understood,
Max, that I did not seek to discuss that question
The Congress has to choose the weapons sys-
here today. I would simply say this. If I were
tem we use and the number that we buy. How-
in the United States Senate, I would vote for
ever we should not destroy the integrity and
the confirmation of Judge Haynsworth.
the prestige of military leaders in the process.
Nor should we destroy the industrial organi-
(Applause)
zations that have produced those weapons that
MAX M. FISHER: (Reading Question)
have kept America free. Overall, I applaud
rather than condemn both the military and the
"FROM YOUR LONG EXPERIENCE AS A
MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
industrial leaders in our country.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ARE YOU CON-
(Applause)
CERNED ABOUT A SO-CALLED PENTAGON-
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?"
MAX M. FISHER: The final question has
And here's another one.
two parts to it, Jerry.
(Reading Question): "ARE WE WINNING
(Reading Question): "DID YOU HAVE AN
THE BATTLE AGAINST INFLATION?"
EASIER JOB AS MINORITY LEADER WHEN
JOHNSON WAS PRESIDENT?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Well, I did serve
(Reading Question): "AS A UNIVERSITY OF
on the Defense Subcommittee on Appropria-
MICHIGAN ALUMNUS, HOW MANY POINTS
tions for 12 years and I was the senior Republi-
ARE YOU GIVING OHIO STATE THIS SATUR-
can member for 6 of those 12 years. I used to
DAY?"
spend the better part of my legislative career
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Well, I had a lot
in Washington listening to Secretaries of De-
less responsibility when I was the Minority
20
21
Leader under a Democratic president because my
function then was to try to rally our troops to
defeat those programs recommended by Mr.
Johnson that we thought were bad, or on the
other hand to develop and get on the legislative
record those programs that we thought were
constructive alternatives to the programs recom-
mended by Mr. Johnson. Starting in 1965, we
made a deliberate effort to produce what we
called "contructive alternatives" to the legis-
lative recommendations of Mr. Johnson. Now,
with 188 Republicans versus 245 Democrats,
my problem is to find Democrats who will
join us so that we can get President Nixon's
legislative program through the House. Mathe-
matically we have to have Democratic support
to achieve success.
So we start with the Speaker, who is a great
and good friend of mine and we go from there.
If he can't help us, then we scrounge around
and try to find any other Democrats who will
help us. You just have to get 60-some Demo-
crats to add to our Republican forces in order
to get a majority. We do have some Republi-
can defections at times. And so it gets a little
tough.
Now, Max, I want to report to you on that
last question. You're a wise, kind and generous
man. I want you to know that an alumnus of
Ohio State, a member of the Congress of the
United States, gave me 40 points today on the
Ohio State - Michigan game
(Laughter)
and I'll take 40 points from you, and the
sooner we shake on it, the better.
RUSSEL A. SWANEY: Thank you, Jerry. We
appreciate your taking time to come out here
from your busy schedule and give us this very
illuminating a nd worthwhile discussion on
what's going on in Washington. And certainly
no one is better qualified to do this than you
are. Mr. Fisher, we appreciate you acting as
our Presiding Officer. We know that you're
spending a good deal of time in Washington,
too. We thank you all for coming. This meet-
ing is adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
22
m Office Copy
"Legislating
For A Better America"
Guest of Honor and Speaker
THE HONORABLE
GERALD R. FORD
Congressman from the Fifth District of Michigan
Minority Leader
House of Representatives
BEFORE THE ECONOMIC CLUB OF DETROIT
November 17, 1969
Veterans Memorial Building
FORD LIBRARY 7V839
(The meeting was opened by President Rus-
sel A. Swaney, who presented Max M. Fisher,
Special Consultant to the President on Volun-
tary Action, Chairman, New Detroit, Inc., and
Chairman of the Board, Fisher - New Center
Company, as Presiding Officer.)
Presiding Officer
MAX M. FISHER
MAX M. FISHER: Ladies and Gentlemen:
Special Consultant to the President on Voluntary Action
It's always a pleasure to preside at a meeting
Chairman
of The Economic Club of Detroit, but tonight's
New Detroit, Inc.
opportunity to introduce our guest speaker is
Chairman of the Board
of even more importance to me, for Jerry Ford
Fisher-New Center Company
is not only one of the most influential men in
America today, but he is also a good and re-
spected friend of mine.
Jerry is a man for whom I have the highest
regard - for his dedication, for his integrity,
and for his devotion to his country. My per-
sonal judgment of Jerry Ford has been con-
RUSSEL A. SWANEY
firmed by his constituents who have sent him
President
to Congress for two full decades. It is confirm-
The Economic Club
ed, too, by his colleagues in the House of Repre-
sentatives who have selected him as Minority
of Detroit
Leader. And it has been further confirmed by
the President of the United States who has
sought his counsel, his advice, and his leadership.
Jerry's life has been one of major accomplish-
ments. As a lad he won top athletic honors.
At The University of Michigan he was voted
Most Valuable Player of the 1934 champion-
ship football team, and received the highest
academic honors. Since then he has been desig-
nated as one of the "Ten Outstanding Young
Men in America" by the United States Junior
Chamber of Commerce.
From the time he was first elected to the
House of Representatives in 1948, Gerald Ford
has served on key Congressional committees. He
has served on the House Public Works Commit-
1
tee; the Appropriations Committee; and the
I hesitate to tell this story but Max in his
Select Committee on Astronautics and Space
introduction made an inadvertent slip. You
Exploration.
might expect that of somebody from Ohio
State
(Laughter)
but it reminded me
Jerry's legislative experiences, as well as his
of an incident that happened, Max, in the state
legal background, have given him a deep and
of Ohio. A year or two ago I was asked to
abiding respect for the law. He believes whole-
address a large political meeting and I was
heartedly in the importance of an electorate in-
being introduced by a man who was a graduate
formed about the legislative process. He be-
of Ohio State, as Max is, and in the course of
lieves, too, in the fullest possible participation
his introduction he inadvertently indicated that
of all citizens in the making of our laws.
I was a graduate of Ohio State. Well, I didn't
Here to speak to us tonight on the subject of
know quite how to respond, how to protect the
"Legislating for a Better America" is the Mi-
integrity of my Alma Mater, The University
nority Leader of the United States House of
of Michigan, without offending this vast audi-
Representatives, The Honorable Gerald R. Ford.
ence, most of whom came from the state of
Ohio. And as I came to the podium I thought
(Applause)
of an incident involving a man who was intro-
ducing the Governor of the Virgin Islands to
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Thank you very
a large audience. This man got up before this
much Max. Russ Swaney, distinguished guests,
tremendous political meeting and in the course
ladies and gentlemen:
of his introduction that went on for a long,
long time he talked of the Governor's accom-
It's a great privilege and a high honor to
be here tonight. I'm deeply grateful for this
plishments, his achievements and of course his
virtues. And then be concluded with a final
opportunity to share with you my ideas on
sentence that went like this:
"Legislating for a Better America."
Max, I'm always a little bit uncomfortable
"Ladies and gentlemen, it's my privilege
about being presented to a mixed audience as
and pleasure to introduce to you the Virgin
the Minority Leader of the House, with the
of Governor's Island."
inference that I'm potentially the Speaker of
(Laughter)
the House. I think all wives know who the
minority leader of the house is-a husband.
In my initial remarks tonight on the subject,
On the other hand, I know very well who all
"Legislation for a Better America," I think it's
husbands believe is the speaker of the house.
appropriate to point to the factual situation
that exists. In November 1968 the American
When I was invited by Russ Swaney to come
people elected a Republican president and, at the
here tonight I received a letter that went some-
same time, left control of the Congress in the
thing like this:
hands of the Democratic Party.
"We have had a full program. We've
had Frank Borman, Paul McCracken,
This year marked the first time since 1849
General Chapman - - and now we would
that a new Administration took office with the
like to have you accept our invitation."
legislative branch - a co-equal branch of the
Federal Government-controlled by another
And it ended with this sentence:
political party. This happens very, very seldom
"Up until now we've had outstanding
in the history of America. But it is the fact
speakers."
today. A Republican in the White House;
Democrats in control of the Senate 57 to 43,
(Laughter)
and of the House of Representatives 245 to 188.
2
3
Naturally Republicans would prefer to see
came down for a late breakfast an hour or so
the GOP control both the Executive and Legis-
later and some friend of mine
(Laughter)
lative branches of the Federal Government. But
immediately handed her a copy of the New
the American people did not so decide in the
York Times. I have yet to satisfactorily ex-
1968 election. The unusual situation therefore
plain who that new broad is.
entails a most unusual relationship between the
In the situation as we find it today, the
Legislative and the Executive branches of the
public has to understand that when the Presi-
government.
dent sends a legislative message to the Congress,
I might tell one story about an election that
he doesn't have the same relationship with the
happened in 1966. Following the 1964 elec-
leadership in the House and Senate that he
tion we on my side of the aisle were badly out-
would have if the leaders were of his own poli-
numbered in the House of Representatives. I
tical party. In a divided government, he doesn't
think the Democrats had 295 members and we
necessarily get the reaction in the Congress that
had 140, which is better than 2 to 1 odds.
he would get otherwise.
Those were pretty tough days. But the 1966
Let me say parenthetically that I'm not be-
elections were rather kind to us and we elected
ing critical of the Democratic leadership. On
59 new Republicans, which was a substantial
the major issues involving the national security
new "class" of Congressmen. My wife Betty
of the United States, Democratic congressional
and I decided that it would be a good idea if
leaders have stood forthrightly with the Presi-
we got all of these new members and their wives
dent of the United States. The American people
and our leadership and their wives together for
ought to applaud the Democratic Speaker and
a 3-day seminar where we could talk about
the Democratic Majority Leader of the House,
parliamentary problems, major issues, and, just
for they are acting in the finest American tradi-
get better acquainted. At the opening luncheon
tion.
I was asked to say a few words. I looked out
and there were the 59 new additions to our
But on domestic issues it is logical and proper
rank. They were attractive, articulate and able.
that since there is a philosophical difference be-
I must have said that I was happily clucking
tween the two major political parties there are
over this new brood of Republicans.
some legislative differences between the Demo-
crats and the Republicans.
The luncheon broke up and we went on to
our business. We had a social hour that night.
Since January 20th of this year the President
I came down to an early breakfast the next
of the United States has sent approximately
morning and when I walked in somebody hand-
40 major messages to the Congress, most of
ed me a copy of the New York Times with a
which resulted in legislative proposals.
front-page story, lead-article, first sentence:
The three major issues we as a nation face
"Congressman Jerry Ford, House Re-
today are all related to these various messages.
publican Leader, was happily clucking
Those major issues fall into three categories:
over his new broad."
(1) foreign policy-primarily the problem of
Vietnam; (2) the status of our economy - -
(Laughter)
whether we can dampen down the problems
I thought it was amusing that a great news-
of inflation without unacceptable unemploy-
paper like the New York Times would make a
ment; and (3) the problem of crime- all
simple typographical error that would some-
the ramifications, not only enforcement of the
what change what I had said at the previous
law but eradication of the sociological causes
of crime.
luncheon. I passed it off and kidded the New
York Times Correspondent. My wife Betty
As I said a moment ago, most of the messages
4
5
that have come from the President in one way
that conflict with all its ramifications but at
or another have involved these three basic
the same time maintaining the national prestige
problems.
and influence of the United States world-wide
The President had some basic decisions to
- -because the generations that will follow us
make on taking office in January of 1969. I
are as interested in what happens then as we
was present at a number of meetings where
are in what happens today.
the choices were pretty well sifted out.
The other day I was reading William L.
The President could have taken those pro-
Shirer's book, "The Rise and Fall of the Third
grams that have been on the statute books-
Reich." There are passages in that book that
the new ones as well as the old and
ought to teach us a lesson today. The author
sought to use those legislative tools for the pur-
relates how Chamberlain went to Munich in
pose of meeting our domestic problems. He
September 1938 to discuss with Hitler the dis-
could have simply spent more money to try
memberment of Czechoslovakia. The purpose
to make them work. That was one choice.
- to achieve an alleged peace in Europe.
Another choice was to recognize the socio-
Chamberlain agreed to the dismemberment
logical and economic problems we face at home
of Czechoslovakia. He came back to England
and to seek new solutions to those problems -
and made a speech in The House of Commons
new legislative tools.
declaring that we were to have peace in our
time through acceptance of the terms laid down
The decision was made by the President-
by Hitler. Amid the pandemonium that ensued
and I think rightly - that instead of just
in The House of Commons- - because all
taking the old programs and seeking to spend
Britishers were anxious for peace in their time
more money he would seek innovative, imagi-
- one man spoke out against the deal made by
native approaches for the decade ahead.
Chamberlain. Who was it? A lion among men,
Before discussing domestic problems and
Sir Winston Churchill. His voice was drowned
President Nixon's new approaches to them, I
out. He was ignored. But history proved him
would like to comment on where we may be
right.
going and what we hope to accomplish in
Today most of us would recognize that Eng-
Vietnam.
land's appeasement of Hitler in 1938 opened
Let me say categorically that I firmly be-
wide the door to what transpired in the years
lieve it is in the national interest for the United
that followed.
States to be successful in Vietnam. I believed
As in those days preceding World War II,
that under former Presidents Kennedy and
the Free World should heed a strong voice.
Johnson; I believe it today. I want no mis-
Britain should have heeded the words of a
understanding in that regard.
Churchill rather than those of a Chamberlain.
Today the United States — and indeed the en-
At this point, I don't think it is wise for
tire Free World - should listen to the strong
us to be critical of how we got into Vietnam.
voice now being raised in warning. President
I don't think it is wise for us to analyze
Nixon is speaking with a strong voice in try-
whether we used the right military policy the
ing to solve the problem of Vietnam. Yes, try-
last four years in trying to find the answer to
ing to solve it through meaningful negotiations
Vietnam. Those decisions were made, rightly
in Paris. We must pursue the course the Presi-
or wrongly, and I assume with the best of
dent set forth in May of this a funda-
intentions.
mental 8-point plan for the negotiators to work
Our problem today is how we find a way
around in trying to end the war in Vietnam,
to be successful in Vietnam, not only in solving
not only honorably but permanently.
6
7
We have not had a single affirmative response
It does require that we have a degree of poli-
to the Paris negotiations and they have gone
tical stability in South Vietnam. One of the
on for better than a year. But that doesn't
most encouraging reports I have heard regard-
mean we should give up. As a matter of fact,
ing the political situation in Vietnam has come
I was listening to Dr. Kissinger, the President's
from a former colleague of mine. Not a Re-
top adviser, the other day at the White House,
publican. Not even a middle-of-the-road Demo-
and history also tells us something here; that
crat. But from a Democrat whose credentials
there is a tendency on the part of Communist
are as liberal as those of any Democrat I know.
negotiators to be as critical, as adamant, as mean
Many of you here I am sure have met and know
and abusive as they can be, just when they are
Neil Staebler. If my memory is correct, Neil
about to make a deal. This is what happens
ran for Mayor of Ann Arbor on the Socialist
historically. Maybe we can learn a lesson from
ticket in the 1930's. He has been Democratic
it.
Party Chairman in Michigan. He has been
If you look back to the early 1950's you
Democratic National Committeeman for Michi-
will find Secretary of State Dulles negotiating
gan. Neil Staebler went over to South Vietnam
with the Soviet Union and with our two other
a month or so ago at his own expense. He came
major allies - France and Britain - for the
back and reported the following. He said:
restoration of Austria. Austria had been OC-
"Jerry, our country can be successful in Viet-
cupied by the four major powers following
nam with a program where we are replacing
World War II, and negotiations were going on
our military personnel with theirs. The most
between the Soviet Union and the Allies. Just
encouraging sign is that the Thieu government
prior to an agreement permitting Austria to
is really getting broad-based and has ever-
become a sovereign nation again, the Soviet
increasing popular support."
Union was the most abusive it has ever been in
We should listen to a man with Neil's ex-
the negotiations. Yet, there was a break and
perience. What he says coincides W it the
Austria was restored to sovereignty. The Allies
observations and the analysis of officials in our
and the Soviet Union moved out, and Austria
government today. I would simply say this.
lived again.
The President has a plan. It is a plan that can
The same sort of thing took place at Pan-
work. If we get a minimum of cooperation
munjom where negotiations went on for two
from the enemy, this plan will bring peace in
years between the United Nations negotiators
Vietnam and will at the same time maintain the
and the North Koreans. The abuse reached a
leadership and the prestige of the United States
peak. Then suddenly a settlement was reached
in the Free World. In my judgment this is the
in July of 1953.
best course for us to take today, tomorrow and
in the future. It would be tragic if the United
So even though our Ambassador is abused
States of America should accept, as Chamber-
every time he meets with the North Vietnamese
lain did, an easy peace that would only lead
in Paris we should stick it out and keep pur-
to a broader war.
suing meaningful negotiations that may end in
an honorable settlement of the Vietnam War.
Now if I might, let me turn to some of the
domestic problems that I think fit within the
Even if a settlement is not achieved, there
context of "Legislating for a Better America."
is an alternative by which the United States
Early this year it became evident that some-
can phase out its military responsibilities in
thing had to be done to amend the Selective
Vietnam and phase in the combat responsibili-
Service Act. Most people don't realize it but
ties of the South Vietnamese. The term is
the draft law that has been used in the last
"Vietnamization" of the war. It can be suc-
several years for the annual induction of some
cessful, and I think it will be successful.
two or three hundred thousand young Ameri-
8
9
cans is virtually the same Selective Service Act
fessional army is not democratic and that there-
or Draft Law used to induct most of us in
fore we should not have it. Well, for most of
World War II. It is basically the same. Most
the years of America's history we've had a pro-
of us would recognize that the problems of
fessional military force and yet democracy has
maintaining a military force of 15 million men
thrived in America. So I give no credence to
as we did in World War II are quite different
the contention that a professional army is bad
from maintaining a military force like the one
for America. History has proved otherwise.
we have today of approximately 3,600,000.
And yet the same law is affecting the lives of
Now let me turn to a matter I suspect is of
those who are subject to the draft.
considerable interest to many of you here-tax
reform. I was talking to Walker and Max at
Under present law, young men today are
the head table and they were curious, like many
vulnerable to the draft for a period of 7 years,
of you are, about what's going to happen. In
from age 19 to 26. All the experts tell us that
my judgment tax reform legislation will be
this extended period of vulnerability is one of
enacted by this Congress before January 1,
the principal causes of the unrest on our college
1970.
campuses. And I can understand why.
The tax reform bill approved by the House
The President has recommended that Con-
of Representatives - some 368 pages of major
gress approve- and I'm glad to state to you
changes in the Internal Revenue Code-calls
that the House of Representatives two or three
for some 37 basic revisions in the federal tax
weeks ago approved it and now it appears the
structure.
Senate will do likewise- - a change, a significant
change in the Selective Service Act that makes
I know the proposed legislation that passed
young men vulnerable for just one year unless
the House raised many questions to put it mild-
we were to have a major conflagration or a mili-
1y. But let me say this. Whether you in this
tary engagement far broader than what we have.
audience recognize it or not, there is a tax revolt
This in my opinion will be a first big step in
in America. I understand that revolt because
trying to win our young people back to the
over the last decade we've seen a wide variety
kind of dedication to America they funda-
of local taxes increase year after year; we've seen
mentally feel.
the state tax burden go up and up; and there's
been virtually no relief from the federal burden.
I believe that as we move toward peace in
The American people, paying more each year
Vietnam and hopefully achieve it we as a coun-
in total taxes, naturally look to see whether
try ought also to move to a career or all-volun-
there is equity in our federal tax structure. And,
teer military force. It's achievable. Many
admittedly, there are areas where inequities
people doubt it. But go back to 1959 - four
or five years after the war in Korea - when we
exist. I might parenthetically say that what is
had a military force of about 2,600,000. Virtu-
one man's loophole is another man's thoroughly
ally all of the young men then in the Army,
justified benefit. It's all not black and white.
Navy, Air Force and Marines were volunteers.
But nevertheless there is this ground swell of
resentment on the part of the ordinary tax-
Once we achieve peace in Vietnam and go
payer who earns seven or eight thousand dollars
from the present 3,600,000 in the military to
a year and pays a thousand dollars in taxes. He
a far lower military manpower requirement,
sees some wealthy individuals who, under exist-
we can move to an all-volunteer military force
ing law, pay nothing. He doesn't understand
if we are willing to pay the necessary compensa-
it. He's disturbed. The Congress responds to
tion and fringe benefits.
the majority of its constituents. The Congress
Oh I know people have alleged that a pro-
will do something about it. I hope it's as fair
10
11
and equitable as we can make it, bearing in
fare setup, there's never been a real incentive
mind the wide differences of viewpoint.
for good people to free themselves from the
dole.
The end result will be frustrating to many.
It will make some people angry, as a typically
And so the President has suggested that the
independent American should be.
Congress abolish the old welfare system, start
from scratch and come up with a program
I might tell you a story about such an Ameri-
labeled Workfare. The House Committee on
can. My wife Betty and I have a neighbor in
Ways and Means has started hearings on the
Alexandria, Virginia, who is a high-ranking
President's proposal. The principal ingredient
official in the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
in this White House proposal is incentive. If
Last summer he talked to me and he said, "Jerry,
people on welfare are willing to seek training
have you ever noticed in the upper righthand
for jobs that do exist, or if people who are out
corner of your Internal Revenue tax return
of jobs are willing to seek training for new
there's a blank area and underneath the blank
employment, they will be given that oppor-
area in large black type there's an admonition:
tunity. And if they start to earn they will not
'Please Do Not Write Here'."
be penalized dollar for dollar because they are
I confessed I had never noticed the blank
supplementing their government checks. It's the
area. I had not been conscious of the admoni-
incentive ingredient that's vital and important
tion.
in this new approach.
Then he smiled and said: "Jerry, you'd be
No man stands taller than when he stands
surprised. After they sign their name at the
on his own two feet. When a man is down,
bottom of the return alleging that all the facts
he needs a hand up instead of a handout. In
and the figures are the truth and nothing but
the final analysis, I believe the Congress will
the truth, and after they sign that check paying
approve this legislation.
Uncle Sam whatever they allegedly owe him,
then literally thousands of taxpayers in typical
It is a new approach, an innovative, imagi-
American frustration and total American inde-
native answer to a problem that has defied a
solution for more than three decades.
pendence write in their own handwriting across
the blank area: "I'll write any damned place I
Let us now turn to the need for affirmative
please."
action in the area of the Postal operations. I
(Laughter)
made a speech in California the other day and
totally inadvertently, I spoke of the "Post
Let me discuss now another major Adminis-
Awful Department." Well, the truth is that in
tration proposal - the President's recom-
the existing Post Office Department we keep
mendation for workfare rather than welfare.
getting poorer service, we pay more for that
This is a measure which should be approved by
service and we seem to have perpetually expand-
the Congress before adjournment in 1970.
ing deficits which the ordinary taxpayer fi-
There's never been a more propitious time for
nances. Unfortunately, for as long as America
a change in our welfare system. Those on the
has existed, the Post Office Department has
far left of the political spectrum in America
been rampant with partisan politics. The Presi-
agree that the system hasn't worked. It's dupli-
dent has said that there will be no more politics
cative, it's expensive. And you can find those
in the Post Office Department and for that I
on the far right of the political spectrum in the
applaud him. The President has recommended
United States who agree that the system has not
that we move away from the kind of Post Office
really helped to get individuals or families out
Department we have today to one that is run
of the cycle of welfare. Under the existing wel-
by managers free and clear of any political
12
13
influence. The Congess must respond in this
including the President of the United States,
area. Every survey that is taken indicates the
about his daughter's death. He pointed out that
American people want a new answer for a de-
his daughter was not a hippie and that his was
partment that today has about 750,000 em-
a close-knit family. He told us there, and he
ployees. Next to the Department of Defense,
has since carried out the promise, that he was
it's the largest department in the Federal
going to crusade in any and every way he could
Government. This is a responsibility of the
to arouse America to the narcotics crisis. He
Congress to all of the millions of people who
pleaded with the Congress to do as the Secre-
use the facilities of the Post Office Department.
tary of HEW had recommended. He also urged
stiffer penalties for the peddlers and pushers.
Another area - crime. You are familiar with
the statistics - - the crime rate inceasing ten
Congress must respond in this area. Then it
times faster than the population. The tools that
will be the responsibility of the prosecutors, the
we have, legislatively speaking, are inadequate
courts and the juries to act.
to meet the challenges of organized crime, drug
abuse, and the distribution of pornographic
One final observation. We must strengthen
literature throughout the country.
our federal system.
Let me just give you quickly an observation
As I said earlier, local taxes are rising and
that came out of a meeting at the White House
have risen. State costs have gone up. It would
several weeks ago on the second problem -
be my impression that state and local taxes
have about reached the limit. Our federal tax
narcotics control. The Congress hasn't respond-
structure is different.
ed as rapidly as it should in this area. I don't
understand why. As a consequence, the Presi-
As our economy grows, without even a
dent invited the Democratic a nd Republican
change in the Federal tax rate, the Federal
leadership to the Cabinet room one morning
Government takes in six to eight billion dollars
and he had three people there to present the
more a year.
problem. The first was the director of the
Narcotics Bureau. He discussed the need for
Now, if we are to strengthen local and state
stronger penalties for dope peddlers: tough,
governments - - and I happen to believe that's
mandatory, long sentences for those who prey
a necessary ingredient to maintain our govern-
on the weak.
mental system - - the Administration proposes
we share federal revenue with state and local
The second speaker was the Secretary of
governments; share this growth income that
Health, Education and Welfare, who pleaded
comes to the federal treasury.
for the Congress to legislate more lenient, more
flexible penalties for youths who for the first
I know there are some who will say, "Well,
time may have bought one or more of the
why don't you reduce federal taxes and allocate
narcotics that are available. The Secretary of
any extra amounts to the state and local com-
HEW was pleading for a more constructive ap-
munities?" Well, history tells us that in the
proach to help rehabilitate these unfortunate
last 10 or 20 years any extra federal revenue
people. He pointed out that the courts and
has gone into what we call grant-in-aid pro-
juries need more flexibility in such cases.
grams-categorical grant programs.
The last one to speak to this group was Art
Let me quickly tell you the history of cate-
Linkletter. Less than two weeks earlier he had
gorical grants. Twelve years ago there were
lost his youngest child - his 20 or 21-year-old
less than 100 Federal categorical grant programs.
daughter. This was the most dramatic presenta-
They cost about a half a billion dollars annual-
tion I have ever seen in my life. It took a lot
ly at the outset. Today, in this fiscal year, we
of courage for a man to talk to some 20 people,
have amost 500 categorical grant programs and
14
15
the annual cost to the federal budget is nearly
Let me conclude now with this. I think we
$20 billion. Categorical grant programs have
recognize that the things that divide us in
mushroomed, with all kinds of duplication and
America politically and otherwise- - are not
a ballooning cost to the taxpayers. The net
nearly as enduring as the things that unite us.
result is that, in the main, a federal adminis-
It would be my observation that both Demo-
trator in Washington decides how you, at the
crats and Republicans are striving together, each
local level, are going to spend the money that
in their own way, to create a more perfect
comes from the Federal Government to the City
of Detroit.
union. Although there are bitter debates and
much controversy, I think our compact of re-
If you look at the projections of those who
spect for the convictions of others and our faith
believe in categorical aid, you find they antici-
in the decency of others, allows all Americans
pate there ill be expenditures out of the
the luxury of rugged political competition.
Federal Treasury ten years from now of at least
$50 billion a year for such programs. These
As I look ahead I would ask only this. Let's
all work to banish war from our shrinking
federal expenditures are not going to go away.
You're faced with a choice of expanding cate-
world and hate from our expanding hearts.
gorical aid programs, with a federal bureaucrat
MAX M. FISHER: Jerry, you were marvelous.
in Washington making the basic decisions, or
In fact, you did such a good job that you've
sending back to state and local governments a
ruined quite a few of the questions I had already
fixed percentage of gross revenue from the
picked out here for you. But there are a couple
Federal Treasury for local people- - the people
that may be interesting or controversial. Here
you elect in Detroit, the people you elect in
is one.
Michigan - to use as they see fit on their own
(Reading Question): "WHAT IS YOUR
list of priorities.
OPINION OF VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW'S
SPEECH ON THE MEDIA AND HIS SPEECH
Now, who do you have more faith in? The
ABOUT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATORS?"
people you elect in Detroit or the people that
And here's another one that ties right in.
are immunized from your control - the bureau-
crats in Washington? In my opinion the choice
(Reading Question): "WHAT IS YOUR
is very simple. I put my faith in those elected
OPINION OF THE DEMONSTRATION IN
WASHINGTON LAST WEEK?"
officials whom you choose - not some im-
munized career service individuals protected by
HON. GERALD R. FORD: In my honest judg-
Civil Service in Washington, D. C. You can
ment there is a small segment of the radio and
make better decisions on priorities here, through
television news media who have been prejudiced;
your elected officials.
prejudiced against a Democratic president; pre-
judiced against a Republican president. I under-
There are different kinds of priorities. The
stand this situation because we're all human
problems of San Francisco are not the same as
beings and very few of us can hide our sub-
those of Detroit. The problems in my home-
jective feelings as we say something or do some-
town of Grand Rapids are not identical with
thing. I don't mean to condemn the vast ma-
those of Miami, Florida. And I happen to think
jority of the news media because I can say that
that the people you elect and we elect have a
in my own case, with some very limited ex-
little better appreciation of how that money
ceptions, they've been fair and very understand-
should be spent.
ing. But what they've got to understand is
that when they report a factual situation they
Revenue-sharing is a basic ingredient for the
should report it factually, and when they edi-
growth, the perpetuation of a true federal sys-
torialize, which they have the right to do, they
tem in America.
should let the viewers know that they're edi-
16
17
torializing, and not mix the two. Unfortunate-
(Reading Question): "WILL YOU PLEASE
ly in some situations there has been editorial-
COMMENT ON WHAT YOU THINK IS THE
CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL FEELING ON
izing when theoretically a factual situation was
PRESIDENT NIXON'S RESTATED VIETNAM
being reported.
POLICY."
Let me give you my observations and com-
(Reading Question): "DO YOU DISAGREE
WITH GRIFFIN WITH REFERENCE TO THE
ments concerning the Moratorium March in
HAYNSWORTH MATTER?"
Washington last week. There were some
250,000 people there. A small number behaved
HON. GERALD R. FORD: I knew there would
badly. In the main, those who were there lived
be a question asking me to define what I con-
within the law. They were exercising their
strued to be "successful" in Vietnam. That's
right of dissent, their guaranteed right of pe-
a very logical and proper question. I define
tition to their government. I was proud of
success in Vietnam as follows: the withdrawal
the way 99 per cent of them exercised this
of the United States military forces and the re-
inalienable right given them under our Consti-
placement of the forces by the South Viet-
tution.
namese so that they themselves can prevent
aggression from the North or internal de-
But I add this. There were those on Friday
struction from within. And I'm convinced that
night who met at Dupont Circle, which is on
the program that's under way today will pro-
Massachusetts Avenue, and sought to move
vide that opportunity.
heavily armed to the South Vietnamese Embassy
for what our government knew would have
It also means that there will be a freely elect-
been an attempt to destroy the South Viet-
ed government in South Vietnam; freely elected
namese Embassy. Fortunately the government
by the people of South Vietnam under inter-
was prepared and they prevented it.
national supervision- if that's the only way
it can be done and I suspect it is. A government
Then on Saturday afternoon, Mr. David
that has the support of the South Vietnamese
Dellinger got up before this vast group of
people. This is what we really want. And, ac-
Americans - I won't give you the record of
cording to all the information I have, it can be
Mr. Dellinger but you can read it - and ex-
achieved.
horted this group to move in and destroy the
Department of Justice. And some tried in a
Every once in a while I get into an argument
highly organized way. Fortunately they were
with people who say that elections in South
prevented from carrying out their plans.
Vietnam - - and there have been many - are
not perfect. "There is corruption," they say
Now those who exploited the good people
"and some candidates are not permitted to run."
who were there I think ought to be condemned
I think it ought to be remembered that there
and prosecuted if they violated the law. This
has never been an election in North Vietnam;
small highly organized group wasn't there for
so, by any standards, South Vietnam has at
the purpose of legitimately petitioning the
least given its people a number of chances to
government; they were there to destroy our
elect individuals to their Assembly or to other
government.
public office. So, on that basis, South Vietnam
MAX M. FISHER: We have a list here, Jerry,
is far ahead of North Vietnam.
on Vietnam.
Secondly, I get a little irritated with some
(Reading Question): "WHAT, IN YOUR
of our people who get quite sanctimonious about
OPINION, WILL DETERMINE SUCCESS IN
VIETNAM: (a) MILITARY VICTORY; (b) WITH-
corruption in politics in America. You know,
DRAWAL; (c) COMPROMISE?"
we've had some recent history in America-180
years after this Nation was established - where
(Reading Question): "WHAT DO YOU MEAN
BY 'BEING SUCCESSFUL' IN VIETNAM?"
there has been corruption in politics. So I don't
18
19
really think we're in a very good position to
fense, Chiefs of Staff, civilian and military wit-
talk so piously to the South Vietnamese, par-
nesses, so I have a little background in this area.
ticularly when they're fighting for their very
The facts are that Congress has been tougher
existence and their nation's future. I think we
on the military and the producers of military
ought to give them a chance, a hope.
hardware than the Executive branch of the
government has been. Almost without exception
One other ingredient of success in Vietnam
the Congress has cut expenditures in the Penta-
is a pacification program which really means
gon below that which a President recommended,
that the peasant in the field has a right to the
whether it was Mr. Truman, Mr. Eisenhower,
land and that he's able to sell what he produces
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Johnson, a n d probably
and make a profit from it. The pacification
President Nixon. On procurement, Congress
program, the land reform program is an abso-
has been tougher on both the uniformed person-
lutely essential ingredient of success in Viet-
nel and on the supplier of military hardware.
nam.
The Congress in the future undoubtedly will
I will just summarize by saying this. We
be even tougher.
must have a stable, broad political structure in
South Vietnam. We must have a government
I happen to believe, however, despite this
able to meet military challenges. We must have
pressure from the Congress and the public, that
an economy so strengthened by the pacification
we're fortunate in America to have the high
program that it gives hope to the 20 million
caliber of military people that we have had and
people in South Vietnam.
have today, protecting us through our national
defense program. I also happen to believe that
Now to answer the other question. Max, I
the suppliers of military hardware over the
am not a member of the United States Senate.
years have done a good job. They have done
Therefore I have no vote on this controversial
a far better job than the suppliers in any other
issue of whether Judge Haynsworth should be
country that I know.
confirmed. And I want it clearly understood,
Max, that I did not seek to discuss that question
The Congress has to choose the weapons sys-
here today. I would simply say this. If I were
tem we use and the number that we buy. How-
in the United States Senate, I would vote for
ever we should not destroy the integrity and
the confirmation of Judge Haynsworth.
the prestige of military leaders in the process.
Nor should we destroy the industrial organi-
(Applause)
zations that have produced those weapons that
MAX M. FISHER: (Reading Question)
have kept America free. Overall, I applaud
rather than condemn both the military and the
"FROM YOUR LONG EXPERIENCE AS A
industrial leaders in our country.
MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ARE YOU CON-
(Applause)
CERNED ABOUT A SO-CALLED PENTAGON-
INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?"
MAX M. FISHER: The final question has
And here's another one.
two parts to it, Jerry.
(Reading Question): "ARE WE WINNING
(Reading Question): "DID YOU HAVE AN
THE BATTLE AGAINST INFLATION?"
EASIER JOB AS MINORITY LEADER WHEN
JOHNSON WAS PRESIDENT?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Well, I did serve
(Reading Question): "AS A UNIVERSITY OF
on the Defense Subcommittee on Appropria-
MICHIGAN ALUMNUS, HOW MANY POINTS
tions for 12 years and I was the senior Republi-
ARE YOU GIVING OHIO STATE THIS SATUR-
can member for 6 of those 12 years. I used to
DAY?"
spend the better part of my legislative career
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Well, I had a lot
in Washington listening to Secretaries of De-
less responsibility when I was the Minority
20
21
Leader under a Democratic president because my
function then was to try to rally our troops to
defeat those programs recommended by Mr.
Johnson that we thought were bad, or on the
other hand to develop and get on the legislative
record those programs that we thought were
constructive alternatives to the programs recom-
mended by Mr. Johnson. Starting in 1965, we
made a deliberate effort to produce what we
called "contructive alternatives" to the legis-
lative recommendations of Mr. Johnson. Now,
with 188 Republicans versus 245 Democrats,
my problem is to find Democrats who will
join us so that we can get President Nixon's
legislative program through the House. Mathe-
matically we have to have Democratic support
to achieve success.
So we start with the Speaker, who is a great
and good friend of mine and we go from there.
If he can't help us, then we scrounge around
and try to find any other Democrats who will
help us. You just have to get 60-some Demo-
crats to add to our Republican forces in order
to get a majority. We do have some Republi-
can defections at times. And so it gets a little
tough.
Now, Max, I want to report to you on that
last question. You're a wise, kind and generous
man. I want you to know that an alumnus of
Ohio State, a member of the Congress of the
United States, gave me 40 points today on the
Ohio State - Michigan game
(Laughter)
and I'll take 40 points from you, and the
sooner we shake on it, the better.
RUSSEL A. SWANEY: Thank you, Jerry. We
appreciate your taking time to come out here
from your busy schedule and give us this very
illuminating a nd worthwhile discussion on
what's going on in Washington. And certainly
no one is better qualified to do this than you
are. Mr. Fisher, we appreciate you acting as
our Presiding Officer. We know that you're
spending a good deal of time in Washington,
too. We thank you all for coming. This meet-
ing is adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
22
nov. 17, 1969
1
Detroit Economic Chif
as per take of speech
(The meeting was opened by President Russel A. Swaney, who
presented Max M. Fisher, Special Consultant to the President
on Voluntary Action, Chairman, New Detroit, Inc., and Chairman
of the Board, Fisher-New Center Company, as Presiding Officer.)
MAX M. FISHER: Ladies and gentlemen:
It's always a pleasure to preside at a meeting of The Economic
Club of Detroit, but tonight's opportunity to introduce our guest speaker
is of even more importance to me, for Jerry Ford is not only one of the
most influential men in American today, be he is also a good and respected
friend of mine.
Jerry is a man for whom I have the highest regard -- for his
dedication, for his integrity, and for his devotion to his country. My
personal judgment of Jerry Ford has been confirmed by his constituents
who have sent him to Congress for two full decades. It is confirmed, too,
by his colleagues in the House of Representatives who have selected him
as Minority Leader. And it has been further confirmed by the President
of the United States who has sought his counsel, his advice, and his leader-
ship.
Jerry's life has been one of major accomplishments. As a lad
he won top athletic honors. At The University of Michigan he was voted
Most Valuable Player of the 1934 championship football team, and received
the highest academic honors. Since then he has been designated as one
of the "Ten Outstanding Young Men in America by the United States Junior
Chamber of Commerce.
From the time hw was first elected to the House of Representatives
in 1948, Gerald Ford has served on key Congressional committees. He has
served on the House Public Works Committee; the Appropriations Committee;
and the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration.
FORD LIBRARY
-2-
Jerry's legislative experiences, as well as his legal background,
have given him a deep and abiding respect for the law. He believes
wholeheartedly in the importance of an electopate informed about the
legislative process. He believes, too, in the fullest possible participation
of all citizens in the making of our laws.
Here to speak to us tonight on the subject of "Legislating for a
Better America" is the Minority Leader of the United States House of
Representatives, The Honorable Gerald R. Ford.
(Applause)
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Thank you very, very much, Max, Russ
Swaney, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:
It's a great privilege and a high honor to have the opportunity of
being here tonight. I'm deeply grateful for this opportunity to share with
you some ideas on what I think can be categorized as "Legislating for
a Better America."
being
Max, I'm always a little bit uncomfortable about/presented to a
mixed audience as the Minority Leader of the House, with the inference
that I'm potentially the Speaker of the House. I think all wives know
who the minority leader of the house is -- a husband. On the other hand,
who
I know very well NHW all husbands WHAH believe is the speaker of the
house.
I
When I was invited by Russ Swaney to come here tonight reveived
a letter that went something like this:
"We have had a full program. We've had Frank Borman,
Paul McCracken, General Chapman -- and now we would like to have
you accept our invitation."
And it ended with this sentence:
"Up until now we've had outstanding speakers." (Laughter)
I hesitate to tell this story but Max in his introduction made an
-3-
inadvertent slip. You might expect that from somebody from Ohio State
...
(Laughter)
...
but it reminded me of an incident that happened,
Max, in the state of Ohio. A year or two ago I was asked to address
a large political meeting and I was being introduced by a man who was
a graduate of Ohio State, as Max was, and in the course of his introduction
I'm sure he inadvertently indicated that I was a graduate of Ohio State.
Well, I didn't know quite how to respond and how to protect the integrity
of my Alma Mater, The University of Michigan, without offending this
vast audience, most of whom came from the state of Ohio. And as I
came to the podium I thought of the incident that involved the man that
had the responsibility of introducing to a tremendous audience the Governor
of the Virgin Islands. And this man got up before this tremendous
political meeting and in the course of his introduction that went on for
a long, long time he talked of the Governor's accomplishments, his
achievements and of course his virtues. And then he concluded with a
final sentence that went like this:
"Ladies and gentlemen, it's my privilege and pleasure to intro-
duce to you the Virgin of the Governor's Island.' (Laughter)
In introducing my remarks tonight on the subject, I think it's
apprqriate to lay the groundwork by pointing out a factual situation that
exists. In the elections of November 1968 the American people made
a decision to elect a Republican president and, at the same time, they
left the control of the legislative branch in the hands of the Democratic
Party.
For the first time in I think almost 100 years, at the outset of
a new Administration in the White House, the legislative branch -- a
co-equal branch of the Federal Government -- is controlled by another
political party. This happens very, very seldom in the history of America.
But it is the fact today. The President a Republican; the Senate controlled
57 to 43 by the Democratic Party; and 245 to 188 in the House of
-4-
Representatives.
Naturally those of us on our side of the aisle would have preferred
it to be a government controlled both in the Executive and the Legislative
by the same political party. But that was not the decision of the American
people a year ago. The unusual situation therefore does call for a
most unusual relationship between the Legislative and the Executive branches
of the government.
I might tell one story about an election that happened back in 1966.
If you will refresh your memory, following the 1964 election we on our
side of the aisle were badly outnumbered in the House of Representatives.
I think the Democrats had 295 members and we had 140 which is better
than 2 to 1 odds, and those were pretty tough days. But the 1966 elections
were rather kind to us and we elected 59 new Republicans, which was a
substantial new "class". And my wife Betty and I decided that it would
be a good idea if we got all of these new members and their wives
and our leadership and our wives together for a 3-day seminar where
we could talk to the new members about parliamentary problems, policies,
decisions and also, just get better acquainted. At the opening luncheon
I was asked to say a few words. I looked out and here were 59 new
additions to our ranks, and they were attractive and articulate and able
and I must have said that I was happily clucking over this new brood
of Republicans.
So the luncheon broke up and we went on to our business. We had
a social hour that night. I came down to an early breakfast the next
morning and when I walked in somebody handed me a copy of the New
York Times front-page story, lead-article, first sentence:
"Congressman Jerry Ford, House Republican leader, was
happily clucking over his new broad. " (Laughter)
I thought it was amusing that a great newspaper like the New York Times
would make a simple typographical error that would somewhat change
-5-
what I had said at the previous luncheon. I passed it off and kidded the
New York Times Correspondent. My wife Betty came down for a late
breakfast an hour or so later and some friend of mine
(Laughter)
...
immediately handed her a copy of the New York Times. I have
yet to satisfactorily explain who that new broad is,
Let me say in the situation as we find it today where you have
a Republican president and a Democratic controlled Congress, I think the
public as a whole has to understand that when the President sends
a message with a legislative program to the Congress, he doesn't have
quite the same relationship with the leadership in the House and Senate
of
that he would have THE if the leadership inthe Congress were /the same
political party. And so the American people in my opinion have to
understand that in a divided government you don't necessarily get the
reaction in the Congress that you would get otherwise.
Let me say parenthetically, I'm not at all critical of the Democratic
leadership. As a matter of fact, the Democratic leadership in the House
of Representatives on the major issues involving the national security of
the United States, they have stood forthrightly with the President of the
United States. And the American people in my opinion ought to applaud
the Democratic Speaker and the Democratic Majority Leader of the House
for this, I think, typically Ameri can reaction to what is in the best
interests of our country.
But nevertheless on domestic issues it is logical and proper when
there is a philosophical difference between the two major political parties
that there ought to be some differences between those who are in the
Democratic Party and those who are in the Republican Party.
Since January 20th of this year the President of the United States
sent
has spruv approximately 40 major messages to the Congress, most of
which have had legislative proposals flowing from them. And I believe
-6-
that the three major issues that we as a nation face today are all
involved in these various messages. Those major issues today fall
in three categories: (1) foreign policy -- and here primarily the problems
of Vietnam; (2) the status of our economy -- whether we can dampen down
the problems of inflation without having unacceptable unemployment face
us; and (3) the problems of crime -- of all the ramifications; not only
the enforcement of the law but the eradication of those sociological
causes of crime.
And as I said a moment ago, most of the messagew that have come
from the President in one way or another have been involved in these
three basic problems.
Let me say that the President had a very basic decision to make
on taking office in January of 1969. And I was present at a number
of meetings where the choices were pretty well sifted out. But in my
judgment they can be indicated to fall in two categories. The President
could have taken those programs that have been on the statute books --
the new ones as well as the old ones -- and sought to use those legislative
tools for the purpose of meeting the problems that we recognize at home;
but simply spend more money to try and make them work by greater
and bigger funding. That was one choice.
Another choice was to recognize sociological problems we face
at home and at the same time look for or seek to achieve new solutions
to those problems -- new legislative tools. Probably in the main
costing rèlatively the same amount of money, but a new approach
to most of the gnawing problems that face America.
And the decision was made by the President -- and I think rightly
perhaps
so -- that instead of just taking the old and seeking to spend/more
money, the path would be to seek some innovative, imaginative approahhes
that were different, for the decade ahead.
xuvas
And let me take some of the problems, particularly in the domestic
-7-
area
field, that I think indicate what the President is seeking to do. I may be
prejudiced but I think they fall within the category of "Legislating for
a Better America". But before discussing those domestic problems,
I think anyone who comes from Washington today to come home and talk
to friends and constituents would be properly criticized if an observation
or comment were not made on where we may be going and what we hope
to accomplish in the solution of the problem of Vietnam.
Let me say egorically so there is no misunderstanding, I firmly
believe that it's in the national interest of the United States to be
B uccessful in Vietnam. I believed that under former President Johnson; I
believe it today. I want no misunderstanding in that regard.
At this point, however, I don't think it's wise for us to be critical
of how we got into the problem of Vietnam. I don't think it's wise for
us to be critical of whether we used the right military policy the last
four or five years in trying to find an answer to Vietnam. Those decisions
were made and I assume in the best of intentions.
I think our problem today is how we find a way to be successful
in Vietnam, not only in solving that but maintaining the national prestige
and influence of the United States world-wide because generations that
follow us are as interested in whathappens in the future as we are in
what happens today.
SHIRER'S
The other day I was reading, I think it's William L. -Schier's book,
"The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.' There are passages in that
book that tell a story that to me ought to give us a lesson today. Many
of you in this room can remember those days. But according to the
author, back in 1938 or 1939 Chamberlain was invited -- if that's the
right word -- by Hitler to come to Western Europe to discuss with him
the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia for the purpose of achieving a peace
in Europe.
-8-
And Chamberlain accepted and went and, as history tells us, Hitler
and Chamberlain decided on the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.
And Chamberlain came back to the House of Commons and of course made
a speech indicating that we were now to have peace in our time by the
acceptance of Great Britain of the terms laid down by Hitler. One lone
voice in the pandemonium that broke loose in the House of Commons --
because all Britishers were anxious for peace in their time -- rose and
spoke
out against the deal of Chamberlain. Who was it? One strong
man, Sir Winston Churchill. He was drowned out. His voice was ignored.
But who was right? Churchill. Who was wrong? Chamberlain.
And as I think most of us would recognize today, the capitulation
in effect of Great Britain to Hitler at that time opened the door wide
to what transpired in the years that followed.
I think in times of crisis like we face today -- and we do -- we
should follow a strong voice, not the weak voice. Britain would have
been a lot better off to have followed Churchill rather than Chamberlain.
And today I think the United States would be better off to support a
strong voice rather than a weak voice. I happen to believe that the
President is speaking with a strong voice in trying to solve the problems
of Vietnam. Yes, trying to solve them through a policy of bonafide
meaningful negotiations in Paris. We must pursue that course that the
President set forth in May of this year -- a fundamental 8-point plan
for the negotiators to work around in trying to end the war in Vietnam,
not only honorably but permanently.
We haven't had a single affirmative response to the Paris negotiations
and they've gone on better than a year today. But that doesn't mean
we whould stop and give up. As a matter of fact, I was listening
to Dr. Kissinger, the President's top adviser, the other day at the White
House, and history also tells us something here; that there is a tendency
-9-
on the part of Communist negotiators to be as critical and as adamant,
as mean and castigating as they can, just at a point when they're about
to make a deal. And this is what happens -- maybe we should learn a
lesson from it. If you will look back in the early 1950s you will find
that Secretary of State Dulles was negotiating with the Soviet Union and
at the time
with our two other major allies -- France and Britain --/for
the restoration of Austria. Austria was occupied by the four major powers
following World War II and there were these negotiations going on between
the Soviet Union and the Allies. Just prior to the solution, so that
Austria could become a nation again, the Soviet Union in these negotations
was the most abusive they had ever been. And yet, all of a sudden
there was a break and Austria was restored -- the Allies and the Soviet
Union moved out and Austrialived again.
And the same thing took place at Panmunjom where negotiations
went on for almost two years between the United Nations negotiators
and the North Koreans. The abuse reached a pinnacle or a peak and
then all of a sudden the settlement was made in June of 1953.
So even though we have our Ambassador sitting in Paris negotiating,
and even though Mr. Lodge is abused, every time they meet, I think
we ought to stick it out and seek by every legitimate means to have
meaningful negotiations that we would hope would end in a settlement
in that way. But even if those are not accomplished, in my judgment
there is an alternative which means that the United States can phase
out its military responsibilities in Vietnam and phase in to a greater
degree the combat responsibilities of the South Vietnamese. The common
term is "Vietnamization" of the war. This can be successful and I think
it will be successful.
It does require that we have a degree of political stability in South
Vietnam. One of the most encouraging reports that has come to me
in regard to the political stability of Vietnam has come from a former
-10-
colleague of mine. Not a Republican. Not even a middle-of-the-road
Democrat. But from a Democrat who probably has as liberál credentials
as any Democrat I know. Many of you here I am sure have met and know
Neil Staebler. If my memory is correct, Neil ran for Mayor of Ann
Arbor on the Socialist ticket in the 1930s. He's been State Democratic
Chairman. He's been State National Committeeman for the Democratic
Party. Neil Staebler vent over to South Vietnam a month or so ago with
a group at their own expense. He came back and reported the following.
He said: "Jerry, our country can be successful in Vietnam with a program
where we are replacing our military personnel with theirs. The most
Thieu
encouraging sign is that the/government is really getting broad based
and has ever-increasing popular support."
For a man with those credentials and from that experience I think
we should take heed. It does coincide with the observations and the
analysis of people in our government today. I would simply say this.
The President has a plan. It is a plan that can work and it is a plan
that if we get a minimum of cooperation from the enemy will bring peace
in Vietnam and will at the same time maintain the leadership and the
prestige of the United States in the free world. And this in my judgment
is the best way for us today, tomorrow and in the future because it
would be tragic, it would be sad if the United States of America would
succumb as Chamberlain did to an easy peace that would only lead
to a broader war.
Now if I might, let me turn to some of the domestic problems that
I think fit within the category of "Legislating for a Better America".
Early this year it was perfectly evident that something had to be done
affirmatively to amend and change the Selective Service Act. Most
people don't realize, but the draft law that has been used in the last
several years for the induction of some four or five hundred thousand
11
young Ameri cans is virtually the same Selective Service Act or Draft Law
that inducted most of us in World War II. It's practically for all intents
and purposes one and the same. Most of us would recognize that the
problems of maintal ning a military force as we did in World War II
with 15 million men is quite different from maintaining a military force
like the one we have today of 3,600,000. And yet the same law, in effect,
is affecting the lives of those who were subjected to the draft.
Under the existing law, young men today are vulnerable to the draft
for a period of 7 years, 19 to 26. All the experts tell us that this
extended period of vulnerability is one of the principal causes of the
unrest on our college campuses. And I can understand why. The President
has recommended that Congress approve -- and I'm glad to state to you
that the House of Representatives two or the ee weeks ago approved it
and now it appears that the Sanate will do likewise -- a change, a significant
change in the Selective Service Act that makes young men vulnerable
for one year unless we should have a major conflagration or a military
engagement far broader than what we have. This in my opinion will be
a first big step in trying to win back the enthusiasm of the young people
to the kind of dedication that I think they fundamentally have.
I do feel, however, that as we move toward peace in Vietnam and
hopefully achieve it, that we as a country ought also to move to a
career or all-volunteer military force. I think it's achievable. Many
four
people doubt it. But if you go back to 1959 -- or five years after
the war in Korea -- we had a military force of about 2,600,000. We
virtually got all of the young men for the Army, Navy, Air Force and
Marines by volunteers.
Once we achieve peace in Vietnam -- and as I said, I think we will --
and as we go from 3,600,000 in the military that we have today down to
-12-
a lower manpower requirement, I believe if we're willing to pay the
compensation and fringe benefits, we can move to an all-vblunteer military
force. Oh I know people have alleged that a professional army is not
democratic, therefore we should not have it. Well, for most of the years
of America's history we've had a professional military force and democracy
has lived and thrived in America. So I give no credence to that allegation
that a professional army is bad for America; is bad under a democracy.
History proves otherwise.
But let me turn if I might to a matter that I suspect is of some
considerable interest to many of you here -- tax reform. Well, I was
talking to Walker and Max here and they were curious like many of you
may be on what's going to happen. There will be in my judgment
tax reform legislation enacted by this Congress before January 1, 1970.
The tax reform bill approved by the House of Representatives -- some
368 pages of major changes in the Internal Revenue Code -- calls for
some 37 basic changes in the federal tax structure.
I know the proposed legislation that passed the House raised many
questions, to put it mildly. And yet, let me say this. Whether you
in this audience recognize it or not, there is a tax revolt in America.
And I think I understand it because over the last decade you've had local
taxes increased year after year on properties; you've had the state tax
burden go up and up and there's been virtually no relief from the federal
burden. And the American people paying more each year in total
naturally look to see whether there is equity and justice in our federal
tax structure. And whether it's fair or accurate to say, there have been
some areas where inequities did exist. I might parenthetically say
that what is a loophole for one is a thoroughly justified benefit to another.
I mean, it's all not black and white. There is a blurring of what's a
-13-
loophole and what's a justifiable benefit. But nevertheless this ground
swell of the ordinary taxpayer who earns seven or eight thousand dollars
a year and pays a thousand dollars in taxes, who looks at some who
under existing law with substantial income pay nothing. He doesn't quite
understand it and he's disturbed. And the Congress responds. And
Congress is going to do something about it. I hope and trust it's as
fair and equitable as we possibly can.
It will be frustrating to many. It will sort of make some people
angry, as a typical independent American should be -- and I might tell
my wife
you a story about that. There is a neighbor of/Betty and myself
in Alexandria, Virginia who is a very high-ranking official in the Bureau
of Internal Revenue. Last summer he talked to me and he said, "Jerry,
have you ever noticed in the upper righthand corner of your Internal
Revenue tax return there's a blank area and underneath the blank area
in large black type there's an admonition: 'Please Do Not Write Here'. "
I confessed I had never noticed the blank area. I had not been
conscious of the admonition.
Then he smiled and said: "Jerry, you'd be surprised. Literally
thousands of taxpayers after they sign their name at the bottom of the
return alleging that all of the facts and the figures are the truth
and nothing but the truth, and after they sign that check paying Uncle
Sam whatever they allegedly owe him, then in typical American frustration
and total American independence write in their own handwriting across
damned
the blank area: "I'll write any place I please. = (Laughter)
Yes, there will be tax reform. I trust that it will eliminate
those inequities that have developed. And as we review the federal
Internal Revenue tax structure we find that over the last 20 or 30 years
inequities have developed. Because of World War II, Because of Korea,
because of Vietnam, there has been a ######## concentration on the
-14-
accumulation of revenue, not necessarily the accomplishmant of equity.
And so the Congress is struggling to find a key to increase equity in our
tax structure and I think it will be accomplished.
Let me talk now about another proposal that in my judgment is
a major one. The President's recommendation for work fare rather
than welfare must be approved by the Congress before this Congress ad-
recent
journs. There's never been a more unique time in the/history
of America for a change in our welfare system. Those on the far left
of the political spectrum in America agree that the system hasn't worked.
It's
duplicatory, it's expensive. And you can find those on the far right
of the political spectrum in the United States who also agree that the
system has not really helped to get individuals or families out of the
cycle of welfare. There's never been a bonafide legitimate incentive for
good people who in many cases because of circumstances beyond their
own control haven't been able to lift themselves out of this status in our
society.
And so the President has suggested that the Congress move in,
abolish the old and start from scratch and come up with a program
that's labeled Work Fare, rather than Welfare. The House Committee
on Ways and Means has started hearings in this regard. The principal
ingredient in this program is incentive. If people on welfare are willing
to seek training for jobs that do exist, or if people who are out of
jobs are willing to seek training in a new employment, they will be given
the opportunity to be the beneficiary of welfare. And if they start
to earn they will not be penalized to the full extent because they are
now
earning something that they weren't before. It's the incentive ingredient
that's vital and important in this new approach.
hand up
No man stands taller than when he's given a insuluff rather than
.
I hope and trust and I believe in the final analysis the
a handout
LIBRARY
Congress will approve this legislation as I think it should. It may not
-15-
come until 1970 but it is a major part of a new approach, an innovative
imaginative answer to a problem that exists where a program of the
last 20 or 30 years has failed.
Or we can turn to the need and necessity for affirmative action in
the area of the Post Office Department. I made a speech in California
the other day and totally inadvertently I saw the Post Awful Department.
Well, the truth is we get poorer service, we pay more for that service
and we seem to have perpetually expanding deficits which the ordinary
taxpayer finances. And unfortunately the Post Office Department for
as long as America has existed has been rampant with politics in the
Post Office Department. The President has said that there will be no
more politics in the Post Office Department and for that I applaud him.
The President has recommended that we move away from the tradition
of the kind of Post Office Department we have today -- which is
unsatisfactory: proporer service; higher costs -- to the kind that is run by
managers who are free and clear of any political influence. I hope and
trust the Congress responds in this area. Every survey that is taken
by professionals or otherwise indicates that the American people want
a new answer for a department that today has about 750,000 employees.
Next to the Department of Defense, it's the largest department in the
Federal Government. This is a responsibility of the Congress to all
of the millions of people who use the facilities of the Post Office
Department.
Another area -- crime. You are familiar with the statistics --
crime going up ten times faster than the population. The tools that
we have, legistatively speaking, are inadequate to meet the challenges
of organized crime on the one hand, the drug problem on the other,
and the distribution of obscene literature -- pornographic literature --
throughout the country.
-16-
Let me just give you quickly an observation that came out of a meeting
at the White House several weeks ago on the second problem -- narcotics
control. The Congress hasn't responded as rapidly as they should in this
area. I don't understand why. So the President invited the Democratic
and Republican leadership to the Cabinet room one morning and he had
The first was
three people there to present the problem.
the
Head of the Narcotics Division. This man spoke to some 20 of us and
told about the need and the necessity for stronger legislative penalties
for those who push or sell narcotics -- the peddlers: tough mandatory
long sentences for those.
The second witness to if you could call him a witness in the Cabinet
room -- was the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare who pleaded
for the Congress to give to them more lenient, more flexible penalties
for the youths who for the first time may have bought one or more of the
narcotics that are available. The Secretary of HEW was pleading for
the right to help rehabilitate these people; and the courts and juries ought
to have more flexibility.
And then the last one to speak to this group was Art Linkletter,
less than two weeks after he had lost his youngest child -- his 20 or
21 year old daughter. The most dramatic presentation I ever saw in my
life. It took a lot of courage for a man like that to come and talk to
some 20 people, including the President of the United States, and point
out that his daughter was not a hippie; they were a close family. But
he told us there and he has since carried it out, that he was going to
crusade in any and every way he could to find an answer here. And he
pled with the Congress to do as the Secretary of HEW had recommended,
and also for the stiffer penalties for the peddlers and the pusher
Congress must respond in this area. And then it's the responsibility
-17-
of the prosecutors and the courts and the juries to do something about it.
One final observation. We have to strengthen our federal system.
As I said earlier, local taxes are rising and have risen. State costs
have gone up. It would be my impression that state and local taxes
structure
have about reached the absorption point. Our federal tax strutnes is
a little different. It's a kind of tax structure that as our economy expands
-- more people employed, as our economy grows without even a change
in the federal tax rate the Federal Government takes in about six to eight
billion dollars more a year.
Now, if we are to strengthen local and state governments -- and
I happen to believe that's a necessary ingredient to maintain our govern-
mental system -- the proposal is to share federal revenue with state
and local governments; share this growth income that comes to the
federal treasury. Oh I know there will be some who will say, "Well,
why don't you reduce federal taxes and let them pay the extra amount
to the state and local communities? Well, history tells us that in
the last 10 or 20 years any extra federal revenue, and particularly now,
has gone into what we call grant-in-aid programs -- categorical grant
programs.
Let me quickly tell you the history of categorical grants. I think
it was 12 years ago there were less than 100 categorical grants going
from the Federal Government to the state or to the local government
for this project or that program -- what have you. And they cost
about a half a billion dollars when they were basically initiated. Today
in this fiscal year we have almost 500 categorical grant# programs
and the annual cost to the federal budget today is nearly $20 billion.
They've grown like hotcakes. And the net result is that in the main
the federal administrator in Washington decides how you, Mr. Commissioner,
are going to spend the money that comes from the Federal Government
-18-
to the City of Detroit.
And if you look at the projections of those who believe in categorical
aid with the Federal Government making the decision, they anticipate
under that program there will be expenditures out of the Federal Treasury
ten years from now of nearly $50 billion a year. So they are not going
to go away. So you're really faced with a choice of whether you want
to expand categorical aid programs with a federal bureaucrat in Washington
making the basic decision, or whether you want to send back to state
and local governments a fixed percentage of gross revenue from the
Federal Treasury for the local people -- the people you elect in
Detroit, the people you elect in Michigan -- to use as they see fit
in their own list of priorities.
Now, who do you have more faith in? The people you elect in
Detroit or the people that are immunized from your control -- the bureau-
crats in Washi ngton? The choice in my opinion is very, very simple.
I'll put my faith in those elected officials that you choose -- not some
immunized career service people protected by Civil Service in Washington,
D.C. You can make better decisions here by your elected officials.
And there are different lists of priorities. The problems of San
Francisco are not the same as Detroit. The problems in my hometown
of Grand Rapids are not identical with Miami, Florida. And I happen
to think that the people that you elect and we elect have a little better
appreciation of the priority of how that money should be spent.
Revenue-sharing I think is a basic ingredient for the growth, the
perpetuation of a true federal system in America.
Let me conclude now with this. I think we recognize that the
things that divide us in America -- politics and otherwise -- are not
nearly as enduring as the things that unite us. It would be my observa-
tion that both Democrats and Republicans are striving together, each
-19-
in their own way, to create a more perfect union with liberty and
justice for all. Even though there are bitter debates and many contro-
versies, I think our written compact of respect for the conviction of
others and faith in the decency of others allows all Americans the
wonderful luxuries of rugged political competition. And as I look ahead
I would only ask this. Let's all work to banish war from our shrinking
world and hate from our expanding hearts.
(Applause)
MAX M. FISHER: Jerry, you were marvelous. In fact, you did
such a good job that you've ruined quite a few of the questions I had
already picked out here for you. But there are a couple that may be
interesting or controversial. Here is one.
(Reading Question) "WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF VICE PRESIDENT
AGNEW'S SPEECH ON THE MEDIA AND HIS SPEECH ABOUT COLLEGE
DEMONSTRATORS?"
And here's another one that ties right in.
(Reading Question) "WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THE DEMONSTRA-
TION IN WASHINGTON LAST WEEK?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: In my honest judgment there is a
small segment of the radio and television news media who have been
prejudiced; prejudiced against a Democratic president; prejudiced against
a Republican president. I understand this situation because we're all
human beings and very few of us can hide our subjective feelings as we
say something or do something. I don't mean to condemn the vast, vast
majority of the news media because I can say in my own case, with some
very, very limited exceptions, they've been fair and very understanding.
But what they've got to understand inmy judgment is that when they
report a factual situation they should report it factually. And when
they editorialize, which they have the right to do, they should let
LIBRARY
the viewers know that they're editorializing, and not mix the two.
-20-
Unfortunately in some situations I think there has been editorializing
in the process of allegedly reporting a factual situation.
My observations and comments concerning the Moratorium March
in Washington last week. There were some 250,000 people there. A
very miniscule number performed badly. In the main, those who were
there lived within the law. They were exertising their right of dissent,
their guaranteed right of petition to their government if they disagreed
with the policies of the government. And I was proud of the way 99 and
9/10ths percent of them exercised this inalienable right given under our
Constitution.
But I add this. There were those on Friday night who met in
Dupont Circle, which is on Massachusetts Avenue, and in a premeditated
way sought to move heavily armed over to the South Vietnamese Embassy
for what our government knew would have been, if successful, an attempt
to destroy the South Vietnamese Embassy. Fortunately the government
was prepared and they prevented it.
Then on Saturday afternoon, Mr. David Dillinger got before this
vast group of Americans -- I won't give you the record of Mr. Dillinger
but you can read it -- and exhorted a massive group of Americans
to move in and destroy the Department of Justice. And some did in
a highly organized way. They were prevented.
Now those who used the good people who were there I think ought
to be condemned and prosecuted if they violated the law. Because they
weren't there for the purpose of legitimately petitioning their government;
they were there to destroy our government.
MAX M. FISHER: We have a list here, Jerry, on Vietnam.
(Reading Question) "WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, WILL DETERMINE
SUCCESS IN VIETNAM: (a) MILITARY VICTORY; (b) WITHDRAWAL;
(c) COMPROMISE?
LIBRARY
(Reading Question) "WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'BEING SUCCESSFUL'
-21-
IN VIETNAM?
(Reading Question) "WILL YOU PLEASE COMMENT ON WHAT YOU
THINK IS THE CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL FEELING ON PRESIDENT
NIXON'S RESTATED VIETNAM POLICY."
(Reading Question) "DO YOU DISAGREE WITH GRIFFIN WITH
REFERENCE TO THE HAYNSWORTH MATTER?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: I knew there would be a question asking
me to define what I construed to be "successful" in Vietnam. That's a
very logical and proper question. I define success in Vietnam as follows:
the withdrawal of the United States military forces and the replacement
of those forces by the South Vietnamese so that they themselves can
prevent aggression from the North or internal destruction from within.
And I'm convinced that the program that's under way today will provide
that opportunity.
It also means that there is a freely elected government in South
Vietnam; freely elected by the people of South Vietnam under international
supervision -- if that's the only way it can be done and I suspect it is.
A government that has the support of the South Vietnamese people. This
is what we really want. And, according to all the information I have,
it can be achieved.
Every once in a while I get in a little argument with people who
say that elections in South Vietnam -- and there have been many -- are
not perfect. "There is a tinge of corruption," they say "and some
candidatesare not permitted to run. = Well, I think it ought to beclearly
understood that there has never been an election in North Vietnam; so,
by any standards, South Vietnam has at least given its people a number
of chances to elect individuals to their Assembly or to public office.
So on that basis of comparison South Vietnam is far ahead of North
LIBRARY
-22-
Vietnam.
Secondly, I get a little irritated with some of our people who get
quite sanctimonious about corruption in politics in America. You know,
we've had some recent history in America 180 years after we were
established where there has been corruption in politics in America. So
I don't really think we're in a very good position to talk to the South
Vietnamese so sanctimoniously, particularly when they're fighting for their
existence and their nation's future. I think we ought to give them a chance,
a hope.
as
One other thing that's important it an ingredient of success is a
pacification program that means that the peasant in the field has a
right to the land and that which he produces he's able to sell and make
a profit from. The pacification program, the land reform program
is an absolutely essential agreement in our success in Vietnam.
I will just summarize by saying this. We must have a stable,
basically broad political structure in South Vietnam. We must have them
able to meet their military challenges and we must have an economy
built through the pacification program that gives hope to the 20 million
in South Vietnam.
N
ow to answer the other question, Max, I am not a member of
the United States,Senate; therefore, have no vote on this controversial
issue of whether Judge Haynsworth should be confirmed. And I want it
clearly understood, Max, that I did not seek that question for discussion
here today. I would simply say this, if I was in the United States Senate
I would vote for the confirmation of Judge Haynsworth. (Applause)
MAX M. FISHER: (Reading Question) "FROM YOUR LONG EX-
PERIENCE AS A MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPART-
MENT OF DEFENSE, ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT A SO-CALLED
PENTAGON-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?"
-23-
And here's another one.
(Reading Question) "ARE WE WINNING THE BATTLE AGAINST
INFLATION? "
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Well, I did serve on the Defense Sub-
committee on Appropriations for 12 years and I was the senior Republican
member for 6 of those 12 years. I used to spend the better part of my
legislative career in Washington listening to Secretaries of Defense,
Chiefs of Staff, civilian and military witnesses, so I have a little background
in this area. The facts are that Congress has been tougher on the military
and the producers of military hardware than the Executive branch of the
government has been. Almost without exception the Congress has cut
expenditures in the Pentagon below that which a President recommended,
whether it was Mr. Truman, Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Johnson,
and I presume President Nixon. Congress has been tougher on both the
on
uniform personnel in procurement and WHL the supplier. And I'll say that
the Congress in the future will be even tougher. I happen to believe
despite this pressure from the Congress and the public that we're
fortunate in America to have the high caliber of people that we have had
and have today in the military services protecting us through our national
defense program. We're lucky to have men of the quality and caliber
that we have. And I also hapen to believe that the suppliers of military
hardware over the years have done a good job. And by comparison with
the suppliers in any other country that I know, they've done a far better
job. I think the Congress has to keep its eye on how we make choices
as to what weapons system we use and the number that we buy. But
I think we shouldn't destroy the integrity and the leadership of the military
leaders. And I don't think we ought to destroy the industrial organizations
that have produced those weapons that have kept America free. And
I
applaud rather than condemn both the military and the industrial leaders
in our country. (Applause)
-24-
MAX M. FISHER: The final question has two parts to it, Jerry.
(Reading Question) "DID YOU HAVE AN EASIER JOB AS MINORITY
LEADER WHEN JOHNSON WAS PRESIDENT?"
(Reading Question) "AS A UNIVERSITY OF MICH IGAN ALUMNI,
HOW MANY POINTS ARE YOU GIVING OHIO STATE THIS SATURDAY?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Well, I had a lot less responsibility
when I was the Minority Leader under a Democratic president because
my function then was to try and rally our troops to defeat those programs
recommended by Mr. Johnson that we thought were bad, orto develop
and get on the legislative record those programs that we thought were
constructive alternatives to the programs recommended by Mr. Johnson.
We developed, starting in 1965, a deliberate effort to produce what we
called "constructive alternatives" to the legislative recommendations of
Mr. Johnson. Now my problem is with 188 Republicans versus 245
Demnocrats to find one or more Democrats who will join us BO that
we can get President Nixon's legislative program through the House.
Mathematically we have to have Democratic support.
So we start with the Speaker, who is a great and good friend of
mine and we go from there. If he can't help us, then we scrounge
around and try to find any other Democrats who will help us. You
just have to get 60-some Democrats in order to get a majority.
It gets a little tough at times.
Now, Max, I want to report to you on that last question. You're
a kind and generous man. I want you to know that an alumnus of Ohio
State, a member of the Congress of the United States, gave me 40 points
today.. ,(Laughter) and I'll take 40 points from you, and the sooner
we shake on it, the better.
(Applause)
-25-
RUSSEL A. SWANEY: Thank you, Jerry. We appreciate your
taking time to come out here from your busy schedule and give us this
very illuminating and worthwhile discussion on what's going on in
Washington. And certainly no one is better qualified to do this than you
are. Mr. Fisher, we appreciate you acting as our Presiding Officer.
We know that you're spending a good deal of time in Washington, too.
We thank you all for coming. This meeting is adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
FORD LIBRARY in GERALD
Detroit Exonomic Club, Detroit Michigan
Monday Evening
OFFICE COPY
November 17, 1969
See: Miltich, Ford Spuches
(The meeting was opened by President RussellA. Swaney, who presented
Max M. Fisher, Special Consultant to the President on Voluntary Action,
Chairman, New Detroit, Inc., and Chairman of the Board, Fisher-New Center
Company, as Presiding Officer.)
for good capy
MAX M. FISHER: Ladies and gnetlemen:
It's always a pleasure to preside at a meeting of The Economic Club of
Detroit, but tonight's opportunity to introduce our guest speaker is of even more
importance to me, for Jerry Ford is not only one of the most influential men in
Americantoday, but he is also a good and respected friend of mine.
Jerry is a man for whom I have the highest regard --- for his dedication,
for his integrity, and for his devotion to his country. My personal judgment of
Jerry Ford has been confirmed by his constituents who have sent him to Congress for
two full decades. It is confirmed, too, by his colleagues in the House of
Representatives who have selected him as Minority Leader. And it has been further
confirmed by the President of the United States who has osught his counsel, his
advice, and his leadership.
Jerry's life has been one of major accomplishments. As a lad he won top
athletic honors. At The University of Michigan he was voted MOst Valuable Player
of the 1934 championship football team, and received the highest academic honors.
Since then he has been designated as one of the "Ten Outstanding Young Men in
America" by the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce.
From the time he was first elected to the House of Representatives in
1948, Gerald Ford has served on key Congressional committees. He has served on
the House Public Works Committee; the Appropriations Committee; and the Select
Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration.
Jerry's legislative experiences, as well as his legal background, have
given him a deep and abiding respect for the law. He believes wholeheartedly in
the importance of an electorate informed about the legislative process. He
believes, too, in the fullest possible participation of all citizens in the making
of our laws.
Here to speak to us tonight on the subject of "Legislating for a Better
America" is the Minority Leader of the United States HOuse of Representatives, The
Honorable Gerald R. Ford.
NON. GERALD R. FORD: Thank you very much, Max. Russ Swaney, distinguished
guests, ladies and gentlemen:
FORD
It's a great privilege and a high honor to be here tonight. I'm deeply
LIBRAR,
grateful for this opportunity to share with you my ideas on "Legislating for a
-2-
Better America."
Max, I'm always a little bit unconfortable about being presented to a
mexed audience as the Minority Leader of the House, with the inference that I'm
potentially the Speaker of the House. I think all wives know who the minority
leader of the house is - a husband. On the other hand, I know very well who
all husbands believe is the speaker of the house.
When I was invited by Russ Swaney to come here tonight I received a letter
that went something like this:
"We have had a full program. We've had Frank Borman,
Paul McCracken, General Chapman -- and now we would like to
have you accept our invitation."
And it ended with this sentence:
"Up until now we've had outstanding speakers." (Laughter)
I hesitate to tell this story but Max in his introduction made an
inadvertent slip. You might expect that of somebody from Ohio State (Laughter)
...but it reminded me of an incident that happened, Max, in the state of Ohio.
A year or two ago I was asked to address a large political meeting and I was
be-ng introduced by a man who was a graduate of Ohio State, as Max is, and in
the course of his introduction he inadvertently indicated that I was a graduate
of Ohio State. Well, I didn't know quite how to respond, how to protect the integrity
of my Alma Mater, The University of Michigan, without offending this vast audience,
most of whom came from the state of Ohio. And as I came to the podium I thought
of an incident involving a man who was introducing the Governor of the Virgin
Islands to a large audience. This man got up before this tremendous political
meeting and in the course of his introduction that went on for a long, long time
he talked of the Governor's accomplishments, his achievements and of course his
virtues. And then he concluded with a final sentence that went like this:
"Ladies and gentlemen, it's my privilege and pleasure to
to introduce to you the Virgin of Governor's Island." (Laughter)
In my initial remarks tonight on the subject, "Legislation for a Better
America," I think it's appropriate to point to the factual situation that exists.
In November 1968 the American people elected a Republican president and, at the
same time, left control of the Congrdss in the hands of the Democratic Party.
This year marked the first time since 1849 that annew Administration took
office with the legislative branch - a co-equal branch of the Federal
Government -- controlled by another political party. This happens very, very
seldom in the history of America. But it is the fact today. A Republican in the
-3-
Representatives 245 to 188.
Naturally Republicans would prefer to see the GOP control both the
Execurive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government. But the American
people did not so decide in the 1968 election. The unusual situation therefore
entails a most unusual relationship between the Legislative and the Executive
branches of the government.
I might tell one story about an election that happened in 1966. Following
the 1964 election we on my side ofthhe aisle were badly outnumbered in the House
of Representatives. I think the Democrats had 295 members and we had 140, which
is better than 2 to 1 odds. Those were pretty tough days. But the 1966 elections
were rather kind to us and we elected 59 new Republicans, which was a substantial
new "class" of Congressmen. My wife Betty and I decided that it would be a good
idea if we got all of these new members and their wives and our leadership and
their wives together for a 3-day siminar where we could talk about parliamentary
problems, major issues, and, just get better acquainted. At the opening luncheon
I was asked to say a few words. I looked out and there were the 59 new additions
to our ranks. They were attractive,, articulate and able. I must have said
that I was shppily clucking over this new brood of Republicans.
The luncheon broke up and we went on to our business. We had a social
hour that night. I cameadown to an early breakfast the next morning and when I
walked in somebody handed me a copy of the New York Times with a front-page story,
lead-article, first sentence:
"Congressuan Jerry Ford, House Republican leaders was
happily clucking over his-new broad." (Laughter)
I thought it was amusing thataa great newspaper like the New York Times would
make a simple typographical error that would somewhat change what I had said at
the previous luncheon. I apssed it off and kidded the New York Times Correspondent.
My wife Betty came down for a late breakfast an hour or so later and some friend
of mine
(Laughter) immediately handed her a copy of the New York Times. I
have yet to satisfactorily explain who that new broad is.
In the situation as we find it today, the public has to dunderstand that
when the President sends a legislative message to the Congress, he doesn't have
the same relationship with the leadership in the House and Senate that he would
have if the leaders were of his own political party. In a divided government, he
doesn't necessarily get the reaction in the Congress that he would get otherwise.
Let me say parenthetically that I'm not being critical of the Democmatic
States, Democratic congressional leaders have stood forthrightly with the
President of the United States. The American people ought to applaud the
Democratic Speaker and the Democratic Majority Leader of the House, for they are
acting in the finest American tradition.
But on domestic issues it is legical and proper that since there is a
philosophical difference between the two major political parties there are some
legislative differences between the Democrats and the Republicans.
Since January 20th of this year the President of the United States has
sent approximately 40 major messages to the Congress, most of which resulted in
legislative proposals.
The three major issues we as a nation face today are all related to
these various messages. Those major issues fall into three categories: (1)
foreign policy - primarily the problem of Vietnam; (2) the status of our economy -
whether we can dampen down the problems of inflation without unecceptable
unemployment; and (3) the problem of crime --- all the ramifications, not only
enforcement of the law but eradication of the sociological causes of crime.
As I said a moment ago, most of the messages that have come from the
President in one way or another have involved these three basic problems.
The President had some basic decisions to make on taking office in January
of 1969. I was present at a number of meetings where the choices were pretty
well sifted out.
The President could have taken those programs that have been on the statube
books - the new ones as well as the old ones - and sought to use those
legislative tools for the pumpose of meeting our domestic problems. He could have
simply spent more money to try to make them work. That was one choice.
Another hcoice was to recognize the socielogical and economic problems we
face at home and to seek new solutions to those problems - new legislative tools.
The decision was made bythhe President --- and I think rightly so -- that
instead of just taking the old programs and seeking to spend more money he would
seek innovative, imaginative approaches for the decade ahead.
Before discussing domestic problems and President Nixon's new approaches
to them, I would like to comment on where we may be going and what we hope to
accomplish in Vietnam.
Let me say categorically that I firaly believe it is in the naitonal
interest for the United States to be successful in Vietnam. I believed that under
former Presidents Kennedy and Johnson; I beléeve it today. I want no misunderstanding
-5-
in that regard.
At this point, I don't think it is wise for us to be critical of how we
got into Vietnam. I don't think it is wise for us to analyze whether we used the
right military policy the last four years in trying to find the answer to Vietnam.
Those decisions were made, rightly or wrongly, and I assume with the best of
intentions.
Our problem today is how we find a way to be successful in Vietnam, not
only in solving that conflict with all its ramifications but at the same time
maintianing the national prestige and influence of the United States world-wide -
because the generations that will follow us are as interested in what happens then
as we are in what happens today.
The other day I was reading William L. Shirer's book, "The Rise and Fall
of the Third Reich." There are passages in that book that ought to teach us a
lesson today. The author relates how Chamberlain went to Munich in September 1938
to discuss with Hitler the dismemberment of Crechoslovakia. The purpose --- to
achieve an alleged peace in Europe.
Chamberlain agreed to the dismemberment of Csechoslovakia. He came back
to England and made a speech in The House of Commons declaring that we were to
have peace in our time through acceptance of the terms laid down by Hitler.
Amid the pandemonium that ensued in the House of Commons - because all Britishers
were anxious for peace in their time -- one man spoke out against the deal of
Chamberlain. Who was it? A lion among men, Sir Winston Churchill. His voice
was drowned out. He was ignored. But history proved him right.
W
Today most of us would recognize that England's appeasement of Hitler in
1938 opened wide the door to what teanspired in the years that followed.
As in those days preceding World War II, the Free World should heed a
strong voice. Britain should have heeded the words of a Churchill rather than
those of a Chamberlain. Today the United States - and indeed the entire Free
World -- should listen to the strong voice now being raised in warning. President
Nixon who is speaking with a strong voice instrying to solve the problem of
Vietnam. Yes, trying to solve it through meaningful negotiations in Paris. We
must pursue the course the President set forth in May of this year -- a fundamental
8-point plan for the negotiators to work around in trying to end the war in
Vietnam, not only honorably but permanently.
We have not had a single affirmative response to the Paris negotiations
and they have zone on for
6-
give up. As a matter of fact, I was listening to Dr. Kissinger, the President's
top adviser, the other day at the White House, and history also tells us something
here: that there is a tendency on the part of Communist negotiators to be as
critical, as adamant, as mean and abusime as they can be, just when they are
about to make a deal. This is what happens historically. Maybe we can learn a
lesson from it.
If you look back to the early 1950's you will find Secretary of State
Dulles nagotiating with the Soviet Union and with our two other major allies -
France and Britain -- for the restoration of Austria. Austria had been occupied
by the four major powers following World War II, and negotiations were going on
between the Soviet Union and the Allies. Just prior to an agreement permitting
Austria to become a sovereign nation again, the Soviet Union was the most abusive
they had ever been in the negotiations. Yet, there was a break and Asutria was
restored to sovereignty. The Allies and the Soviet Union moved out, and Austria
lived again.
The same sort of thing took place at Panmunjom where negotiations went on
for two years between the United Nations negotiators and the North Koreans. The
abuse reached a peak. Then suddenly a settlement was reached in July of 1953.
So even though our Ambassador is abused every time he meets with the
North Vietnamese in Paris we should stick it out and keep pursuing meaningful
negotiations that may end in an honorable settlement of the Vietnam War.
Even if a settlement is not achieved, there is an alternative by which
the United States can phase out its military responsibilities in Vietnam and phhse
in the combat responsibilities of the South Vietnamese. The term is "Vietnamization"
of the war. It can be successful, and I think it will be successful.
It does require that we have a degree of political stability in South
Vietnam. One of the most encouraging reports I have heard regarding the political
situationiin Vietnam has come from a former colleague of mine. Not a Republican.
Not even a middle-of-the-road Democrat. But from a Democrat whose credentials are
as liberal as those of as any Democrat I know. Many of you here I am sure have
met and know Neil Staebler. If my memory is correct, Neil ran for Mayor of Ann
Arbor on the Socialist ticket in the 1930's. He has been Democratic Party Chairman
in Michigan. He has been Democratic National Committeeman for Michigan. Neil
Staebler went over to South Vietnam a month er 80 ago at his own expense. He came
back and reported the following. He said: "Jerry, our country can be successful
7-
The most encouraging sign is that the Thieu government is really getting broad-
based and has ever-increasing popular support."
We should listen to a san with Neil's experience. What he says coincides
with the observations and the analysis of officials in our government today. I
would simply say this. The President has a plan. It is a plan that can work. If
we get a minimum of cooperation from the enemy, this plan will bring peace in
Vietnam and will at the same time maintain the leadership and the prestige of the
United States in the Free World. In my judgment this is the best course for us to
take today, tomorrow and in the future. It would be tragic if the United States of
America should accept, as Chamberlain did, an easy peace that would only lead to a
broader war.
Now if I might, let me turn to some of the domestic problems that I think
fit within the context of "Legislating for a Better America." Early this year it
became evident that something had to be done to amend the Selective Service Act.
Most people don't realize it but the draft law that has been used in the last
several years for the annual induction of some two or three hundred thousand
young Americans is virtually the same Selective Service Act or Draft Law used to
induct most of us in World War II. It is basically the same. Most of us weald
recognize that the problems of mainthaning a military force of 15 million men as
we did in World War II are quite different from maintaining a military force like
the one we have today of approximately 3,600,000. And yet the same law is affecting
the lives of these who are subject to the draft.
Under present law, young men today are vulnerable to the draft for a
period of 7 years, from age 19 to 26. All the experts tell us that this extended
period of vulnerability is one of the principal causes of the unrest on our college
campuses. And I can understand why.
The President has recommended that Congress approve - and I'm glad to state
to you that the House of Representatives two or three weeks age approved it and
now it appears the Senate will do likewise -- a change, a significant change in
the Selective Service Act that makes young men vulnerable for just one year unless
we were to have a major conflagration or a military engagement far broader than
what we have. This in my opinion will be a first big step in trying to win our
young people back to the kind of dedication to America they fundamentally feel.
I believe that as we move toward peace in Vietnem and hopefully achieve it
we as a country ought also to move to a career or all-volunteer military force,
It's achievable. Many peopleddmubt it. But 20 back to 1959 - four or Hwo waste
-8-
after the war in Korea - when we had a military force of about 2,600,000.
Virtually all of the young men then in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines
were volunteers.
Once we achieve peace in Vietnam and go from the present 3,600,000 in
the military to a far lower military manpower requirement, we can move to an all-
volunteer military force if we are willing toppay the necessary compensation and
fringe benefits.
Oh I know people have alleged that a professional army is not democratic
and that therefore we should not have it. Well, for most of the years of
America's history we've had a professional military force and yet democracy has
thrived in America. So I give no credence to the contention that a professional
army is bad for America. History has proved otherwise.
Now 1wt me turn to a matter I suspect is of considerable interest to many
of you here - tax reform. I was talking to Walker and Max at the head table and
they were curious, like many of you are, about what's going to happen. In my
judgment tax reform legislation will be enacted by this Congress before January 1,
1970.
The tax reform bill approved by the House of Representatives -- some 368
pages of major changes in the Internal Revenue Code - calls for some 37 basic
revisions in the federal tax structure.
I know the proposed legislation that passed the House raised many questions,
to put it mildly. But let me say this. Whether you in this audience recognize it
or not, there is a tax revolt in America. I understand that revolt because over
the last decade we've seen a wide variety of local taxes increase year after year;
we've seen the state tax burden go up and up; and there's been virtually no relief
from the federal burden. The American people, paying more each year in total taxes,
naturally look to see whether there is equity in our federal tax structure. And,
admittedly, there are areas where inequities exist. I might parenthetically say
that what is one man's loophole is another man's thoroughly justified benefit.
It's all not black and white. But nevertheless there is this ground swell of
resentment on the part of the ordinary taxpayer who earns seven or eight thousand
dollars a year and pays a thousand dollars in taxes. He sees some wealthy
individuals who, under existing law, pay nothing. He doesn't understand it,
He's disturbed. The Congress responds to the majority of its constituents. The
Congress will do something about it. I hope it's as fair and equitable as we
can make it. bearing in mind the vida différences of wismont
9-
The end result will be frustrating to many. It will make some people
angry, as a typically independent American should be.
I might tell you a story about such an American. My wife Betty and I have
a neighbor in Alexandria, Virginia, who 1s a high-ranking official in the Bureau
of Internal Revenue. Last summer he salked to me and he said, "Jerry, have you
ever noticed in the upper righthand corner of your Internal Revenue tax return
there's a blank area and underneath the blank area in large black type there's
an admonition: 'Please Do Not Write Here'."
I cenfessed I had never noticed the blank area. I had not been conseious
of the admonition.
Then he smiled and said: "Jerry, you'd be surprised. After they sign
their name at the bottom of the return alleging that all the facts and the figures
are the truth and nothing but the truth, and after they sign that check paying
Uncle Sam whatever they allegedly owe him, then literally thousands of taxpayers
in typical American frustration and total American independence write in their own
handwriting across the blank area: "I'll write any damned place I please."
(Laughter)
Let me discuss now another major Administration proposal - that the
President's recommendation for work fare rather than welfare. This is a measure
which should be approved by the Congress before adjourament in 1970. There's
never been a more propitious time for a change in our welfare system. Those on
the far left of the political spectrum in America agree that the system hasn't
worked. It's duplicative, it's expensive. And you can find those on the far
right of the political spectrum in the United States who agree that the system
has not really helped to get individuals or families out of the cycle of velfare.
Under the existing welfare setup, there's never been a real incentive for good
people to free themselves from the dole.
And so the President has suggested that the Congress abolish the old
welfare system, start from scratch and come up with a program labeled Workfare.
The House Committee on Ways and Means has started hearings on the President's
proposal. The principal ingredient in this White House proposal is incentive.
If people on welfare are willing to seek training for jobs that do exist, or if
people who are out of jobs are willing to seek training for new employment, they
will be given that opportunity. And if they start to earn they will not be
penalized dollar for dollar because they are supplamenting their government checks.
It's the incentive ingredient that's vital and important in this new approach.
10-
No man stands taller than when he stands on his own two feet. When a man
id down, he needs a hand up instead of a handout. In the final analysis, I
believe the Congress will approve this legislation.
It is a new approach, an innovative, imaginative answer to a problem
that has defied a solution for more than three decades.
Let us now turn to the need for affirmative action in the area of the
Postal operations. I made a speech in California the other day and totally
inadvertently, I spoke of the "Post Awful Department." Well, the truth is
that in the existing Post Office Department we keep getting poorer service, we pay
more for that service and we seem to have perpetually expanding deficits which
the ordinary taxpayer finances. Unfortunately, tHerPastlong as America has
existed, the Post Office DEpartment has been rampant with partisan politics.
The President has said that there will be no more politics in the Post Office
Department and for that I applaud him. The President has recommended that we
move away from the kind of Post Office Department we have today to one that is
run by managers free and clear of any political influence. The Congress must
respond in this area. Every survey that is taken indicates the American people
want a new answer for a department that today has about 750,000 employees. Next
to the Department of Defense, it's the largest department in the Federal Government.
This is a responsibility of the Congress to all of the millions of people who
use the facilities of the Post Office Department.
Another area - crime. You are familiar with the statistics - the crime
rate increasing ten times faster than the population. The tools that we have,
legislatively speaking, are inadequate to meet the challenges of organized crime,
drug abuse, and the distribution of pornographic leterature theoughout the country.
Let me just give pauqquickly an observation that came out of a meeting
at the White House several weeks ago on the second problem -- narcotics control.
The Congress hasn't responded as rapidly as it should in this area. I don't
understand why. As a consequence, the President invitedtbbe Democratic and
Republican leadership to the Cabinet room one morning and he had three people
there to present the problem. The first was the director of the Marcotics Bureau.
He discussed the need for stronger penalties for dope peddlers: tough, mandatory,
long sentences for those who prey on the weak.
The second speaker was the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, who
pleaded for the Congress to legislate more lenient, more flexible penalties for 0
-11-
youths who for the first time may have bought one or more of the narcotics that
are available. The Secretary of HEW was pleading for a more constructive approach
to help rehabilitate these unfortunate people. He pointed out that the courts
and juries need more flexibility in such cases.
The last one to speak to this group was Art Linkletter. Less t-an two
weeks earlier he had lost his youngest child - his 20 or 21-year-old daughter.
This was the most dramatic presentation I have ever seen in my life. It took a
lot of courage for a man to talk to some 20 people, including the President of the
United States about his daughter's death. He pointed out that his daughter was
not a hippie and that his was a close-knit family. He told us there, and he has
since carried out the promise, that he was going to crusade in any and every way
he could to arouse America to the narcoties crisis. He pleaded with the longress to
do as the Secretary of HEW had recommended. He also urged stiffer penalties for
the peddlers and pushers.
Congress must respond in this area. Then it will be the responsibility of
the prosecutors, the courts and the juries to act.
One final observation. We must strengthen our federal system.
As I said earlier, local taxes are rising and have risen. State costs
have gone up. It would be my impression that state and local taxes have about
reached the limit. Our federal tax structure is different.
As our economy grows, without even a change in the Federal tax rate, the
Federal Government takes in six to eight billien dollars more a year.
Now, if we are to strengthen local and state governments --- and I happen
to believe that's a necessary ingredient to maintain our governmental system -
the Administration proposes we share federal revenue with state and local
governments; share this growth income that comes to the federal treasury.
I know there are some who will say, "Well, why don't you reduce federal
taxes and allocate any extra amounts to the state and local communities?" Well,
history tells us that in the last 10 or 20 years any extra federal revenue has
gone into what we call grant-in-aid programs -- categorical grant programs.
Let me quickly tell you the history of categorical grants. Twelve years
ago there were less than 100 Federal categorical grants programs. They cost
about a half a billion dollars annually at the outset. Today, in this fiscal
year, we have almost 500 categorical grant programs and the annual cost to the
federal budget is nearly $20 billion. Categorical grant programs have mushroomed,
with all kinds of duplication and/balleoning cost to the taxpavers. The net result
12-
is that, in the main, a federal administrator in Washington decides how you,
at the local level, are going to spend the money that comes from the Federal
Government to the City of Detroit.
If you look at the projections of those who velieve in categorical aid,
you find they anticipate there will be expenditures out oftibe Federal Treasury
ten years from now of at least $50 billion a year for such programs. These
federal expenditures are not going to go away. You're faced with a choice of
expanding categorieal aid programs, with a federal bureaucrat in Washington making
the basic decisions, or whether sending back to state and local governments a
fixed percentage of gross revenue from the Federal Treasury for local people - the
people you elect in Detroit, the people you elect in Michigan -- to use as they see
fit on their own list of priorities.
Now, who do you have more faith in? The people you elect in Detroit or
the people that are immunized from your control - the bureaucrats in Washington?
In my opinionthhe choice is very simple. I put my faith in those elected officials
whom you choose -- not some immunized career service individuals protected by
Civil Service in Washington, D.C. You can make better decisions on priorities
here, through your elected officials.
There are different kinds of priorities. The problems of San Francisco
are not the same as those of Detroit. The problems in my hometown of Grand Rapids
are not identical with those of Miami, Florida. And I happen to think that the
people you elect and we elect have a little better appreciation of how that money
should be spent.
Revenue-sharing is a basic ingredient for the growth, the perpetuation
of a true federal system in America.
Let me conclude now with this. I bhink we escognise that the things that
dávide us in America - politically and otherwise -- are not nearly as enduring as
the things that unite us. It would be my observation that both Democrate and
Republicans are striving together, each in their own way, to create a more perfect
union. Although there are batter debates, and much controversy, I think our
compact of respect for the convictions of others and our faith in the decency of
otheres allows all Americans the luxury of rugged political competition.
As I look shead I would ask only this, Let's all work to banish war from
our shrinking world and hate from our expanding hearts.
-13-
MAX. M. FISHER: Jerry, you were marvelous. In fact, you did such a
good job that you've ruined quite a few of the questions I had already picked
out here for you. But there are a couple that may be interesting or
controversial. Here is one.
(Reading Question) "WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW'S
SPEECH ON THE MEDIA AND HIS SPEECH ABOUT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATORS?"
And here's another one that ties right in.
(Reading Question) "WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THE DEMONSTRATION IN
WASHINGTON LAST WEEK?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: In my honest judgment there is a small segment of
the radio and television news media who have been prejudiced; prejudiced agaânst
a Democratic president; prejudiced against a Republican president. I understand
this situation because we're all human beings and very few of us can hide our
subjective feelings as we say something or do something. I don't mean to condemn
the vast majority of the news media because I can say that in my own case, with
some very limited exceptions, they've been fair and very understanding. But what
they've got to understand is that when they report a factual situation they should
report it factually. and when they editorialize, which they have the right to
do, they should let the viewers know that they're editorialising, and not mix
the two. Unfortunately in some situations there has been editorializing when
theoretically a factual situation was being reported.
Let me give you my observations and comments concerning the Moratorium
March in Washington last week. There were some 250,000 people there. A small
number behaved badly. In the main, those who were there lived within the law.
They were exercising their right of dissent, their guaranteed right of petition
to their government. I was proud of the way 99 per cent of them exercised this
inalienable right given them under our Constitution.
But I add this. There were those on Friday night who met at Dupont Circle,
which is on Massachusetts Avenue, and sought to move heavily armed to the South
Vietnamese Embassy for what our government knew would have been an attempt to
destroy the South Vietnamese Embassy. Fortumately the government was prepared
and they prevented it.
FORD
Then on Saturday afternoon, Mr. David Dellinger got up before this vast
BRAR
group of Americans -- I won't give you the record of Mr. Dellinger but you can
read it --- and exhorted this group to move in and destroy the Department of
from carrying out their plans.
Now those who exploited the good people who were there I think ought to be
condemned and prosecuted if they violated the law. This small highly organized
geoup wasn't there for the purpose of legitimately petitioning the government; they
were there to destroy our government.
MAX M. FISHER: We have a list here, Jerry, on Vietnam.
(Reading Question) "WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, WILL DETERMINE SUCCESS IN
VIETNAM: (a) MILITARY VICTORY; (b) WITHDRAWAL; (c) COMPROMISE?"
(Reading Question) "WHAT DO YOU MENA BY 'BEING SUCCESSFUL' IN VIETNAM?"
(Reading Question) "WILL YOU PLEASE COMMENT ON WHAT YOU THINK IS THE
CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL FEELING ON PRESIDENT NIXON'S RESTATED VIETNAM POLICY.!
(Reading Question) "DO YOU DISAGREE WITH GRIFFIN WITH REFERENCE TO THE
HAYNSWORTH MATTER?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: I knew there would be a question asking me to define
what I construed to be "successful" in Vietnam. That's a very logical and proper
question. I define success in Vietnam as follows: the withdrawal of the United
States military forces and the replacement of the forces by the South Vietnamese
so that they themselves can prevent aggression from the North or internal destruction
from within. And I'm convinced that the program that's under way today will
provide that opportunity.
It also means that there will be a freely elected government in South
Vietnam; freely elected by the people of South Vietnam under international
supervision - if that's the only way it can be done and I suspect it is. A
government that has the support of the South Vietnamese people. This is what we
really want. And, according to all the information I have, it can be achieved.
Every once in a while I get into an argument with people who say that
elections in South Vietnam --- and there have been many -- are not perfect. "there
is corruption," they say "and some candidates are not permitted to run." I think
it ought to be remembered that there has never been an election in North Vietnam;
so, by any standards, South Vietnam has is least given its people a number of
chances to elect individuals to their Assembly or to other public office. So,
on that basis, South Vietnam is far ahead of North Vietnam.
Secondly, I get a little irritated with some of our people who get quite
sanctimonious about corruption in politics in America. You know, we've had some
recent history in America - 180 years after this Nation was established --- where
there has been corruption in politics. So I don't really think we're in a very
-15-
good position to talk so piously to the South Vietnamese, particularly when
they're fighting for their very existence and their nation's future. I think
we ought to give them a chance, a hope.
One other ingredient of success in Vietnam is a pacification program which
really means that the peasant in the field has a right to the land and that he's
able to sell what he produces and make a profit from it. The pacification program,
the land reform program is an absolutely essential ingredient of success in Vietnam.
I will just summarize by saying this. We must have a stable, broad
political structure in South Vietnam. We must have a government able to meet
military challenges. We must have an economy so strengthened by the pacification
program that it gives hope to the 20 million pepple in South Vietnam.
Now to answer the other question. Max, I am not a member of the United
States Senate. Therefore I have not vote on this controversial issue of whether
Judge Hayasworth should be confirmed. And I want it clearly understood, Max,
that I did not seek to discuss that question here today. I would simply say this.
If I were in the United States Senate, I would vote for the confirmation of Judge
Haynsworth. (Applause)
MAX M. FISHER: (Reading Question) "FROM YOUR LONG EXPERIENCE AS A MEMBER
OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT A
SO-CALLED PENTAGON-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?"
And here's another one.
(Reading Question) "ARE WE WINNING THE BATTLE AGAINST INFLATION?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Well, I did serve on the Defense Subcommittee on
Appropriations for 12 years and I was the senior Republismn member for 6 of those
12 years. I used to spend the better part of my legislative career in Washington
listening to Secretaries of Defidese, Chiefs of Staff, civilian and military
witnesses, so I have a little background in this area. The facts are that Congress
has been tougher on the military and the producers of military hardward than the
Executive branch of the government has been. Almost without exception the
Congress has cut expenditures in the Pentagon below that which a President
recommended, whether it was Mr. Truman, Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Johnson,
and probably President Nixon. On procurement, Congress has been tougher on both
the uniformed personnel and on the supplier of military hardware. The Congress
in the future undoubtedly will be even tougher.
I happen to believe, however, despite this pressure from the Congress and
the public that we're
-16-
people that we have had and have today, protecting us through our national
defense program. I also happen to believe that the suppliers of military
hardware over the years have done a good job. They have done a far better job than
the suppliers in any other country that I know.
The Congress has to choose the weapons wystem we use and the number that
we buy. However we should not destroy the integrity and the prestige of military
leaders in the process. Nor should we destroy the industrial organizations that
have produced those weapons that have kept America free. Overall, I applaud
rather than condemn both the military and the industrial leaders in our country.
(Applause)
MAX M. FISHER: The final question has two parts to it, Jerry.
(Reading Question) "DID YOU HAVE AN EASIER JOB AS MINORITY LEADER WHEN
JOHNSON WAS PRESIDENT?"
(Reading Question) "AS A UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ALUMNUS, HOW MANY POINTS
ARE YOU GIVING OHIO STATE THIS SATURDAY?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Well, I had a lot less responsibility when I was
the Ménority Leader under a Democratic president because my function then was
to try to sally our troops to defeat those programs recommended by Mr. Johnson
that we thought were bad, or on the other hand to develop and get on the legislative
record those programs that we thought were constructive alternatives to the programs
recommended by Mr. Johnson. Starting in 1965, we made a deliberate effort to
produce what we called "constructive alternatives" to the legislative recommendations
of Mr. Johnson. Now, with 188 Republicans versus 245 Democrats, my problem is
to find Democrats who will join us so that we can get President Nixon's legislative
program through the House. Mathematically we have to have Democratic support to
achieve success.
So we start with the Speaker, who is a great and good friend of mine and we
go from there. If he can't help us, then we scrounge around and try to find any
other Democrate who will help us. You just have to get 60-some Democrats to add
to our Republican forces in order to get a majority. We do have some Republican
defections at times. And so it gets a little tough.
Now, Max, I want to report to you on that last question. You're wiwase,
kind and generous man. I want you to know that an alumnus of Ohio State, a member
of the Congress of the United States, gave me 40 points today on the Ohio State-
Michigan game. (Laughter) and I'll take 40 points from you, and the sooner we
-17-
RUSSEL A. SWANEY: Thank you, Jerry. We appreciate your taking time to
come out here from your busy schedule and give us this very illuminating and
worthwhile discussion on what's going on in Washington. And certainly no one is
better qualified to do this than you are. Mr. Fisher, we appreciate you acting
as our Presiding Officer. We know bhat you're spending a good deal of time in
Washington, too. We thank you all for coming. This meeting is adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
RIVERSE
Distribistion -20 capies The Ford
I
M office Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
BEFORE THE DETROIT ECONOMIC CLUB
MONDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 17, 1969
AT DETROIT, MICHIGAN
(The meeting was opened by President Russel A, Swaney, who presented
Max M. Fisher, Special Consultant to the President on Voluntary Action,
Chairman, New Detroit, Inc., and Chairman of the Board, Fisher-New Center
Company, as Presiding Officer.)
MAX M. FISHER: Ladies and gentlemen:
It's always a pleasure to preside at a meeting of The Economic Club of
Detroit, but tonight's opportunity to introduce our guest speaker is of even more
importance to me, for Jerry Ford is not only one of the most influential men in
America today, but he is also a good and respected friend of mine.
Jerry is a man for whom I have the highest regard - for his dedication,
for his integrity, and for his devotion to his country. My personal judgment of
Jerry Ford has been confirmed by his constituents who have sent him to Congress for
two full decades. It is confirmed, too, by his colleagues in the House of
Representatives who have selected him as Minority Leader. And it has been further
confirmed by the President of the United States who has sought his counsel, his
advice, and his leadership.
Jerry's life has been one of major accomplishments. As a lad he won top
athletic honors. At The University of Michigan he was voted Most Valuable Player
of the 1934 championship football team, and received the highest academic honors.
Since then he has been designated as one of the "Ten Outstanding Young Men in
America" by the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce.
From the time he was first elected to the House of Representatives in
1948, Gerald Ford has served on key Congressional committees. He has served on
the House Public Works Committee; the Appropriations Committee; and the Select
Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration.
Jerry's legislative experiences, as well as his legal background, have
given him a deep and abiding respect for the law. He believes wholeheartedly in
the importance of an electorate informed about the legislative process. He
believes, too, in the fullest possible participation of all citizens in the making
of our laws.
Here to speak to us tonight on the subject of "Legislating for a Better
America" is the Minority Leader of the United States HOuse of Representatives, The
Honorable Gerald R. Ford.
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Thank you very much, Max. Russ Swaney, distinguished
guests, ladies and gentlemen:
It's a great privilege and a high honor to be here tonight. I'm deeply
grateful for this opportunity to share with you my ideas on "Legislating for
GERALD FORD, LIBRARY
-2-
Better America."
Max, I'm always a little bit uncomfortable about being presented to a
mixed audience as the Minority Leader of the House, with the inference that I'm
potentially the Speaker of the House. I think all wives know who the minority
leader of the house is a husband. On the other hand, I know very well who
all husbands believe is the speaker of the house.
When I was invited by Russ Swaney to come here tonight I received a letter
that went something like this:
"We have had a full program. We've had Frank Borman,
Paul McCracken, General Chapman -- and now we would like to
have you accept our invitation."
And it ended with this sentence:
"Up until now we've had outstanding speakers." (Laughter)
I hesitate to tell this story but Max in his introduction made an
inadvertent slip. You might expect that of somebody from Ohio State . (Laughter)
but it reminded me of an incident that happened, Max, in the state of Ohio.
A year or two ago I was asked to address a large political meeting and I was
being introduced by a man who was a graduate of Ohio State, as Max is, and in
the course of his introduction he inadvertently indicated that I was a graduate
of Ohio State. Well, I didn't know quite how to respond, how to protect the integrity
of my Alma Mater, The University of Michigan, without offending this vast audience,
most of whom came from the state of Ohio. And as I came to the podium I thought
of an incident involving a man who was introducing the Governor of the Virgin
Islands to a large audience. This man got up before this tremendous political
meeting and in the course of his introduction that went on for a long, long time
he talked of the Governor's accomplishments, his achievements and of course his
virtues. And then he concluded with a final sentence that went like this:
"Ladies and gentlemen, it's my privilege and pleasure to
to introduce to you the Virgin of Governor's Island." (Laughter)
In my initial remarks tonight on the subject, "Legislation for a Better
America," I think it's appropriate to point to the factual situation that exists.
In November 1968 the American people elected a Republican president and, at the
same time, left control of the Congress in the hands of the Democratic Party.
This year marked the first time since 1849 that a new Administration took
office with the legislative branch - a co-equal branch of the Federal
Government controlled by another political party. This happens very, very
seldom in the history of America. But it is the fact today. A Republican in the
White House; Democrats in control of the Senate 57 to 43, and of the House of
-3-
Representatives 245 to 188,
Naturally Republicans would prefer to see the GOP control both the
Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government. But the American
people did not so decide in the 1968 election. The unusual situation therefore
entails a most unusual relationship between the Legislative and the Executive
branches of the government.
I might tell one story about an election that happened in 1966. Following
the 1964 election we on my side of the aisle were badly outnumbered in the House
of Representatives. I think the Democrats had 295 members and we had 140, which
is better than 2 to 1 odds. Those were pretty tough days. But the 1966 elections
were rather kind to us and we elected 59 new Republicans, which was a substantial
new "class" of Congressmen. My wife Betty and I decided that it would be a good
idea if we got all of these new members and their wives and our leadership and
of
their wives together for a 3-day siminar where we could talk about parliamentary
problems, major issues, and, just get better acquainted. At the opening luncheon
I was asked to say a few words. I looked out and there were the 59 new additions
to our ranks. They were attractive, articulate and able. I must have said
that I was happily clucking over this new brood of Republicans.
The luncheon broke up and we went on to our business. We had a social
hour that night. I came down to an early breakfast the next morning and when I
walked in somebody handed me a copy of the New York Times with a front-page story,
lead-article, first sentence:
"Congressman Jerry Ford, House Republican leader, was
happily clucking over his new broad." (Laughter)
I thought it was amusing that a great newspaper like the New York Times would
make a simple typographical error that would somewhat change what I had said at
the previous luncheon. I passed it off and kidded the New York Times Correspondent.
My wife Betty came down for a late breakfast an hour or so later and some friend
of mine
(Laughter) immediately handed her a copy of the New York Times. I
have yet to satisfactorily explain who that new broad is.
In the situation as we find it today, the public has to understand that
when the President sends a legislative message to the Congress, he doesn't have
the same relationship with the leadership in the House and Senate that he would
have if the leaders were of his own political party. In a divided government, he
doesn't necessarily get the reaction in the Congress that he would get otherwise.
Let me say parenthetically that I'm not being critical of the Democratic
leadership. On the major issues involving the national security of the United
LIBRARY
-4-
States, Democratic congressional leaders have stood forthrightly with the
President of the United States. The American people ought to applaud the
Democratic Speaker and the Democratic Majority Leader of the House, for they are
acting in the finest American tradition.
But on domestic issues it is logical and proper that since there is a
philosophical difference between the two major political parties there are some
legislative differences between the Democrats and the Republicans.
Since January 20th of this year the President of the United States has
sent approximately 40 major messages to the Congress, most of which resulted in
legislative proposals.
The three major issues we as a nation face today are all related to
these various messages. Those major issues fall into three categories: (1)
foreign policy -- primarily the problem of Vietnam; (2) the status of our economy --
whether we can dampen down the problems of inflation without unacceptable
unemployment; and (3) the problem of crime -- all the ramifications, not only
enforcement of the law but eradication of the sociological causes of crime.
As I said a moment ago, most of the messages that have come from the
President in one way or another have involved these three basic problems.
The President had some basic decisions to make on taking office in January
of 1969. I was present at a number of meetings where the choices were pretty
well sifted out.
The President could have taken those programs that have been on the statute
books the new ones as well as the old ones and sought to use those
legislative tools for the purpose of meeting our domestic problems. He could have
simply spent more money to try to make them work. That was one choice.
Another choice was to recognize the sociological and economic problems we
face at home and to seek new solutions to those problems - new legislative tools.
The decision was made by the President and I think rightly so -- that
instead of just taking the old programs and seeking to spend more money he would
seek innovative, imaginative approaches for the decade ahead.
Before discussing domestic problems and President Nixon's new approaches
to them, I would like to comment on where we may be going and what we hope to
accomplish in Vietnam.
Let me say categorically that I firmly believe it is in the naitonal
interest for the United States to be successful in Vietnam. I believed that under
former Presidents Kennedy and Johnson; I believe it today. I want no misunderstanding
-5-
in that regard.
At this point, I don't think it is wise for us to be critical of how we
got into Vietnam. I don't think it is wise for us to analyze whether we used the
right military policy the last four years in trying to find the answer to Vietnam.
Those decisions were made, rightly or wrongly, and I assume with the best of
intentions.
Our problem today is how we find a way to be successful in Vietnam, not
only in solving that conflict with all its ramifications but at the same time
maintianing the national prestige and influence of the United States world-wide --
because the generations that will follow us are as interested in what happens then
as we are in what happens today.
The other day I was reading William L. Shirer's book, "The Rise and Fall
of the Third Reich." There are passages in that book that ought to teach us a
lesson today. The author relates how Chamberlain went to Munich in September 1938
to discuss with Hitler the dismemberment. of Czechoslovakia. The purpose --- to
achieve an alleged peace in Europe.
Chamberlain agreed to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. He came back
to England and made a speech in The House of Commons declaring that we were to
have peace in our time through acceptance of the terms laid down by Hitler.
Amid the pandemonium that ensued in the House of Commons because all Britishers
were anxious for peace in their time -- one man spoke out against the deal
madely
Chamberlain. Who was it? A lion among men, Sir Winston Churchill. His voice
was drowned out. He was ignored. But history proved him right.
Today most of us would recognize that England's appeasement of Hitler in
1938 opened wide the door to what transpired in the years that followed.
As in those days preceding World War II, the Free World should heed a
strong voice. Britain should have heeded the words of a Churchill rather than
those of a Chamberlain. Today the United States --- and indeed the entire Free
World should listen to the strong voice now being raised in warning. President
Nixon who is speaking with a strong voice in trying to solve the problem of
Vietnam. Yes, trying to solve it through meaningful negotiations in Paris. We
must pursue the course the President set forth in May of this year - a fundamental
8-point plan for the negotiators to work around in trying to end the war in
Vietnam, not only honorably but permanently.
We have not had a single affirmative response to the Paris negotiations
and they have gone on for better than a year. But that doesn't mean we should
-6-
give up. As a matter of fact, I was listening to Dr. Kissinger, the President's
top adviser, the other day at the White House, and history also tells us something
here; that there is a tendency on the part of Communist negotiators to be as
critical, as adamant, as mean and abusive as they can be, just when they are
about to make a deal. This is what happens historically. Maybe we can learn a
lesson from it.
If you look back to the early 1950's you will find Secretary of State
Dulles negotiating with the Soviet Union and with our two other major allies --
France and Britain - for the restoration of Austria. Austria had been occupied
by the four major powers following World War II, and negotiations were going on
between the Soviet Union and the Allies. Just prior to an agreement permitting
Austria to become a sovereign nation again, the Soviet Union was the most abusive
they it has had ever been in the negotiations. Yet, there was a break and Austria was
restored to sovereignty. The Allies and the Soviet Union moved out, and Austria
lived again.
The same sort of thing took place at Panmunjom where negotiations went on
for two years between the United Nations negotiators and the North Koreans. The
abuse reached a peak. Then suddenly a settlement was reached in July of 1953.
So even though our Ambassador is abused every time he meets with the
North Vietnamese in Paris we should stick it out and keep pursuing meaningful
negotiations that may end in an honorable settlement of the Vietnam War.
Even if a settlement is not achieved, there is an alternative by which
the United States can phase out its military responsibilities in Vietnam and phase
in the combat responsibilities of the South Vietnamese. The term is "Vietnamization"
of the war. It can be successful, and I think it will be successful.
It does require that we have a degree of political stability in South
Vietnam. One of the most encouraging reports I have heard regarding the political
situation in Vietnam has come from a former colleague of mine. Not a Republican.
Not even a middle-of-the-road Democrat. But from a Democrat whose credentials are
as liberal as those of any Democrat I know. Many of you here I am sure have
met and know Neil Staebler. If my memory is correct, Neil ran for Mayor of Ann
Arbor on the Socialist ticket in the 1930's. He has been Democratic Party Chairman
in Michigan. He has been Democratic National Committeeman for Michigan. Neil
Staebler went over to South Vietnam a month or so ago at his own expense. He came
back and reported the following. He said: "Jerry, our country can be successful
in Vietnam with a program where we are replacing our military personnel with theirs.
GERALD
BRARY
-7-
The most encouraging sign is that the Thieu government is really getting broad-
based and has ever-increasing popular support."
We should listen to a man with Neil's experience. What he says coincides
with the observations and the analysis of officials in our government today. I
would simply say this. The President has a plan. It is a plan that can work. If
we get a minimum of cooperation from the enemy, this plan will bring peace in
Vietnam and will at the same time maintain the leadership and the prestige of the
United States in the Free World. In my judgment this is the best course for us to
take today, tomorrow and in the future. It would be tragic if the United States of
America should accept, as Chamberlain did, an easy peace that would only lead to a
broader war.
Now if I might, let me turn to some of the domestic problems that I think
fit within the context of "Legislating for a Better America." Early this year it
became evident that something had to be done to amend the Selective Service Act.
Most people don't realize it but the draft law that has been used in the last
several years for the annual induction of some two or three hundred thousand
young Americans is virtually the same Selective Service Act or Draft Law used to
induct most of us in World War II. It is basically the same. Most of us would
recognize that the problems of maintàining a military force of 15 million men as
we did in World War II are quite different from maintaining a military force like
the one we have today of approximately 3,600,000. And yet the same law is affecting
the lives of those who are subject to the draft.
Under present law, young men today are vulnerable to the draft for a
period of 7 years, from age 19 to 26. All the experts tell us that this extended
period of vulnerability is one of the principal causes of the unrest on our college
campuses. And I can understand why.
The President has recommended that Congress approve and I'm glad to state
to you that the House of Representatives two or three weeks ago approved it and
now it appears the Senate will do likewise -- a change, a significant change in
the Selective Service Act that makes young men vulnerable for just one year unless
we were to have a major conflagration or a military engagement far broader than
what we have. This in my opinion will be a first big step in trying to win our
young people back to the kind of dedication to America they fundamentally feel.
I believe that as we move toward peace in Vietnam and hopefully achieve it
we as a country ought also to move to a career or all-volunteer military force.
It's achievable. Many people'doubt it. But go back to 1959 -- four or five years
-8-
after the war in Korea - when we had a military force of about 2,600,000.
Virtually all of the young men then in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines
were volunteers.
Once we achieve peace in Vietnam and go from the present 3,600,000 in
the military to a far lower military manpower requirement, we can move to an all-
volunteer military force if we are willing to pay the necessary compensation and
fringe benefits.
Oh I know people have alleged that a professional army is not democratic
and that therefore we should not have it. Well, for most of the years of
America's history we've had a professional military force and yet democracy has
thrived in America. So I give no credence to the contention that a professional
army is bad for America. History has proved otherwise.
Now let me turn to a matter I suspect is of considerable interest to many
of you here -- tax reform. I was talking to Walker and Max at the head table and
they were curious, like many of you are, about what's going to happen. In my
judgment tax reform legislation will be enacted by this Congress before January 1,
1970.
The tax reform bill approved by the House of Representatives -- some 368
pages of major changes in the Internal Revenue Code calls for some 37 basic
revisions in the federal tax structure.
I know the proposed legislation that passed the House raised many questions,
to put it mildly. But let me say this. Whether you in this audience recognize it
or not, there is a tax revolt in America. I understand that revolt because over
the last decade we've seen a wide variety of local taxes increase year after year;
we've seen the state tax burden go up and up; and there's been virtually no relief
from the federal burden. The American people, paying more each year in total taxes,
naturally look to see whether there is equity in our federal tax structure. And,
admittedly, there are areas where inequities exist. I might parenthetically say
that what is one man's loophole is another man's thoroughly justified benefit.
It's all not black and white. But nevertheless there is this ground swell of
resentment on the part of the ordinary taxpayer who earns seven or eight thousand
dollars a year and pays a thousand dollars in taxes. He sees some wealthy
individuals who, under existing law, pay nothing. He doesn't understand it.
He's disturbed. The Congress responds to the majority of its constituents. The
Congress will do something about it. I hope it's as fair and equitable as we
can make it, bearing in mind the wide differences of viewpoint.
9-
The end result will be frustrating to many. It will make some people
angry, as a typically independent American should be.
I might tell you a story about such an American. My wife Betty and I have
a neighbor in Alexandria, Virginia, who is a high-ranking official in the Bureau
of Internal Revenue. Last summer he talked to me and he said, "Jerry, have you
ever noticed in the upper righthand corner of your Internal Revenue tax return
there's a blank area and underneath the blank area in large black type there's
an admonition: 'Please Do Not Write Here'."
I confessed I had never noticed the blank area. I had not been conscious
of the admonition.
Then he smiled and said: "Jerry, you'd be surprised. After they sign
their name at the bottom of the return alleging that all the facts and the figures
are the truth and nothing but the truth, and after they sign that check paying
Uncle Sam whatever they allegedly owe him, then literally thousands of taxpayers
in typical American frustration and total American independence write in their own
handwriting across the blank area: "I'll write any damned place I please."
(Laughter)
Let me discuss now another major Administration proposal -- the
President's recommendation for work fare rather than welfare. This is a measure
which should be approved by the Congress before adjournment in 1970. There's
never been a more propitious time for a change in our welfare system. Those on
the far left of the political spectrum in America agree that the system hasn't
worked. It's duplicative, it's expensive. And you can find those on the far
right of the political spectrum in the United States who agree that the system
has not really helped to get individuals or families out of the cycle of welfare.
Under the existing welfare setup, there's never been a real incentive for good
people to free themselves from the dole.
And so the President has suggested that the Congress abolish the old
welfare system, start from scratch and come up with a program labeled Workfare.
The House Committee on Ways and Means has started hearings on the President's
proposal. The principal ingredient in this White House proposal is incentive.
If people on welfare are willing to seek training for jobs that do exist, or if
people who are out of jobs are willing to seek training for new employment, they
will be given that opportunity. And if they start to earn they will not be
penalized dollar for dollar because they are supplementing their government checks.
It's the incentive ingredient that's vital and important in this new approach.
GERALD
IBRARY
10-
No man stands taller than when he stands on his own two feet. When a man
is down, he needs a hand up instead of a handout. In the final analysis, I
believe the Congress will approve this legislation,
It is a new approach, an innovative, imaginative answer to a problem
that has defied a solution for more than three decades.
Let us now turn to the need for affirmative action in the area of the
Postal operations. I made a speech in California the other day and totally
inadvertently, I spoke of the "Post Awful Department." Well, the truth is
that in the existing Post Office Department we keep getting poorer service, we pay
more for that service and we seem to have perpetually expanding deficits which
the ordinary taxpayer finances. Unfortunately, for as long as America has
existed, the Post Office Department has been rampant with partisan politics.
The President has said that there will be no more politics in the Post Office
Department and for that I applaud him. The President has recommended that we
move away from the kind of Post Office Department we have today to one that is
run by managers free and clear of any political influence. The Congress must
respond in this area. Every survey that is taken indicates the American people
want a new answer for a department that today has about 750,000 employees. Next
to the Department of Defense, it's the largest department in the Federal Government.
This is a responsibility of the Congress to all of the millions of people who
use the facilities of the Post Office Department.
Another area crime. You are familiar with the statistics -- the crime
rate increasing ten times faster than the population. The tools that we have,
legislatively speaking, are inadequate to meet the challenges of organized crime,
drug abuse, and the distribution of pornographic literature throughout the country.
Let me just give you quickly an observation that came out of a meeting
at the White House several weeks ago on the second problem . narcotics control.
The Congress hasn't responded as rapidly as it should in this area. I don't
understand why. As a consequence, the President invited the Democratic and
Republican leadership to the Cabinet room one morning and he had three people
there to present the problem. The first was the director of the Narcotics Bureau.
He discussed the need for stronger penalties for dope peddlers: tough, mandatory,
long sentences for those who prey on the weak.
The second speaker was the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, who
pleaded for the Congress to legislate more lenient, more flexible penalties for
-11-
youths who for the first time may have bought one or more of the narcotics that
are available. The Secretary of HEW was pleading for a more constructive approach
to help rehabilitate these unfortunate people. He pointed out that the courts
and juries need more flexibility in such cases.
The last one to speak to this group was Art Linkletter. Less than two
weeks earlier he had lost his youngest child -- his 20 or 21-year-old daughter.
This was the most dramatic presentation I have ever seen in my life. It took a
lot of courage for a man to talk to some 20 people, including the President of the
United States about his daughter's death. He pointed out that his daughter was
not a hippie, and that his was a close-knit family. He told us there, and he has
since carried out the promise, that he was going to crusade in any and every way
he could to arouse America to the narcotics crisis. He pleaded with the Congress to
do as the Secretary of HEW had recommended. He also urged stiffer penalties for
the peddlers and pushers.
Congress must respond in this area. Then it will be the responsibility of
the prosecutors, the courts and the juries to act.
One final observation. We must strengthen our federal system.
As I said earlier, local taxes are rising and have risen. State costs
have gone up. It would be my impression that state and local taxes have about
reached the limit. Our federal tax structure is different.
As our economy grows, without even a change in the Federal tax rate, the
Federal Government takes in six to eight billion dollars more a year.
Now, if we are to strengthen local and state governments -- and I happen
to believe that's a necessary ingredient to maintain our governmental system ---
the Administration proposes we share federal revenue with state and local
governments; share this growth income that comes to the federal treasury.
I know there are some who will say, "Well, why don't you reduce federal
taxes and allocate any extra amounts to the state and local communities?" Well,
history tells us that in the last 10 or 20 years any extra federal revenue has
gone into what we call grant-in-aid programs -- categorical grant programs.
Let me quickly tell you the history of categorical grants. Twelve years
ago there were less than 100 Federal categorical grant programs. They cost
about a half a billion dollars annually at the outset. Today, in this fiscal
year, we have almost 500 categorical grant programs and the annual cost to the
federal budget is nearly $20 billion. Categorical grant programs have mushroomed,
a
with all kinds of duplication and/ballooning cost to the taxpayers. The net result
-12-
is that, in the main, a federal administrator in Washington decides how you,
at the local level, are going to spend the money that comes from the Federal
Government to the City of Detroit.
If you look at the projections of those who believe in categorical aid,
you find they anticipate there will be expenditures out of the Federal Treasury
ten years from now of at least $50 billion a year for such programs. These
federal expenditures are not going to go away. You're faced with a choice of
expanding categorical aid programs, with a federal bureaucrat in Washington making
the basic decisions, or whether sending back to state and local governments a
fixed percentage of gross revenue from the Federal Treasury for local people -- the
people you elect in Detroit, the people you elect in Michigan . to use as they see
fit on their own list of priorities.
Now, who do you have more faith in? The people you elect in Detroit or
the people that are immunized from your control - the bureaucrats in Washington?
In my opinion the choice is very simple. I put my faith in those elected officials
whom you choose not some immunized career service individuals protected by
Civil Service in Washington, D.C. You can make better decisions on priorities
here, through your elected officials.
There are different kinds of priorities. The problems of San Francisco
are not the same as those of Detroit. The problems in my hometown of Grand Rapids
are not identical with those of Miami, Florida. And I happen to think that the
people you elect and we elect have a little better appreciation of how that money
should be spent.
Revenue-sharing is a basic ingredient for the growth, the perpetuation
of a true federal system in America.
Let me conclude now with this. I think we recognize that the things that
divide us in America - politically and otherwise -- are not nearly as enduring as
the things that unite us. It would be my observation that both Democrats and
Republicans are striving together, each in their own way, to create a more perfect
union. Although there are bitter debates and much controversy, I think our
compact of respect for the convictions of others and our faith in the decency of
others allows all Americans the luxury of rugged political competition.
As I look ahead I would ask only this. Let's all work to banish war from
our shrinking world and hate from our expanding hearts.
GLRALD FORD LIBRARY
-13-
MAX. M. FISHER: Jerry, you were marvelous. In fact, you did such a
good job that you've ruined quite a few of the questions I had already picked
out here for you. But there are a couple that may be interesting or
controversial. Here is one.
(Reading Question) "WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF VICE PRESIDENT AGNEW'S
SPEECH ON THE MEDIA AND HIS SPEECH ABOUT COLLEGE DEMONSTRATORS?"
And here's another one that ties right in.
(Reading Question) "WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THE DEMONSTRATION IN
WASHINGTON LAST WEEK?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: In my honest judgment there is a small segment of
the radio and television news media who have been prejudiced; prejudiced against
a Democratic president; prejudiced against a Republican president. I understand
this situation because we're all human beings and very few of us can hide our
subjective feelings as we say something or do something. I don't mean to condemn
the vast majority of the news media because I can say that in my own case, with
some very limited exceptions, they've been fair and very understanding. But what
they've got to understand is that when they report a factual situation they should
report it factually. and when they editorialize, which they have the right to
do, they should let the viewers know that they're editorializing, and not mix
the two. Unfortunately in some situations there has been editorializing when
theoretically a factual situation was being reported.
Let me give you my observations and comments concerning the Moratorium
March in Washington last week. There were some 250,000 people there. A small
number behaved badly. In the main, those who were there lived within the law.
They were exercising their right of dissent, their guaranteed right of petition
to their government. I was proud of the way 99 per cent of them exercised this
inalienable right given them under our Constitution.
But I add this. There were those on Friday night who met at Dupont Circle,
which is on Massachusetts Avenue, and sought to move heavily armed to the South
Vietnamese Embassy for what our government knew would have been an attempt to
destroy the South Vietnamese Embassy. Fortunately the government was prepared
and they prevented it.
Then on Saturday afternoon, Mr. David Dellinger got up before this vast
group of Americans - I won't give you the record of Mr. Dellinger but you can
read it and exhorted this group to move in and destroy the Department of
Justice. And some tried in a highly organized way. Fortunately they were prevented
-14-
from carrying out their plans.
Now those who exploited the good people who were there I think ought to be
condemned and prosecuted if they violated the law. This small highly organized
group wasn't there for the purpose of legitimately petitioning the government; they
were there to destroy our government.
MAX M. FISHER: We have a list here, Jerry, on Vietnam.
(Reading Question) "WHAT, IN YOUR OPINION, WILL DETERMINE SUCCESS IN
VIETNAM: (a) MILITARY VICTORY; (b) WITHDRAWAL; (c) COMPROMISE?"
(Reading Question) "WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'BEING SUCCESSFUL' IN VIETNAM?"
(Reading Question) "WILL YOU PLEASE COMMENT ON WHAT YOU THINK IS THE
CURRENT CONGRESSIONAL FEELING ON PRESIDENT NIXON'S RESTATED VIETNAM POLICY."
(Reading Question) "DO YOU DISAGREE WITH GRIFFIN WITH REFERENCE TO THE
HAYNSWORTH MATTER?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: I knew there would be a question asking me to define
what I construed to be "successful" in Vietnam. That's a very logical and proper
question. I define success in Vietnam as follows: the withdrawal of the United
States military forces and the replacement of the forces by the South Vietnamese
so that they themselves can prevent aggression from the North or internal destruction
from within. And I'm convinced that the program that's under way today will
provide that opportunity.
It also means that there will be a freely elected government in South
Vietnam; freely elected by the people of South Vietnam under international
supervision if that's the only way it can be done and I suspect it is. A
government that has the support of the South Vietnamese people. This is what we
really want. And, according to all the information I have, it can be achieved.
Every once in a while I get into an argument with people who say that
elections in South Vietnam -- and there have been many are not perfect. "there
is corruption," they say "and some candidates are not permitted to run." I think
it ought to be remembered that there has never been an election in North Vietnam;
so, by any standards, South Vietnam has at least given its people a number of
chances to elect individuals to their Assembly or to other public office. So,
on that basis, South Vietnam is far ahead of North Vietnam.
Secondly, I get a little irritated with some of our people who get quite
sanctimonious about corruption in politics in America. You know, we've had some
recent history in America -- 180 years after this Nation was established where
there has been corruption in politics. So I don't really think we're in a very
GERALD
LISTARY
-15-
good position to talk so piously to the South Vietnamese, particularly when
they're fighting for their very existence and their nation's future. I think
we ought to give them a chance, a hope.
One other ingredient of success in Vietnam is a pacification program which
really means that the peasant in the field has a right to the land and that he's
able to sell what he produces and make a profit from it. The pacification program,
the land reform program is an absolutely essential ingredient of success in Vietnam.
I will just summarize by saying this. We must have a stable, broad
political structure in South Vietnam. We must have a government able to meet
military challenges. We must have an economy so strengthened by the pacification
program that it gives hope to the 20 million people in South Vietnam.
Now to answer the other question. Max, I am not a member of the United
States Senate. Therefore I have no vote on this controversial issue of whether
Judge Haynsworth should be confirmed. And I want it clearly understood, Max,
that I did not seek to discuss that question here today. I would simply say this.
If I were in the United States Senate, I would vote for the confirmation of Judge
Haynsworth. (Applause)
MAX M. FISHER: (Reading Question) "FROM YOUR LONG EXPERIENCE AS A MEMBER
OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT A
SO-CALLED PENTAGON-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?"
And here's another one.
(Reading Question) "ARE WE WINNING THE BATTLE AGAINST INFLATION?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Well, I did serve on the Defense Subcommittee on
Appropriations for 12 years and I was the senior Republican member for 6 of those
12 years. I used to spend the better part of my legislative career in Washington
listening to Secretaries of Defense, Chiefs of Staff, civilian and military
witnesses, so I have a little background in this area. The facts are that Congress
has been tougher on the military and the producers of military hardward than the
Executive branch of the government has been. Almost without exception the
Congress has cut expenditures in the Pentagon below that which a President
recommended, whether it was Mr. Truman, Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Johnson,
and probably President Nixon. On procurement, Congress has been tougher on both
the uniformed personnel and on the supplier of military hardware. The Congress
in the future undoubtedly will be even tougher.
I happen to believe, however, despite this pressure from the Congress and
the public, that we're fortunate in America to have the high caliber of military
-16-
people that we have had and have today, protecting us through our national
defense program. I also happen to believe that the suppliers of military
hardware over the years have done a good job. They have done a far better job than
the suppliers in any other country that I know.
The Congress has to choose the weapons system we use and the number that
we buy. However we should not destroy the integrity and the prestige of military
leaders in the process. Nor should we destroy the industrial organizations that
have produced those weapons that have kept America free. Overall, I applaud
rather than condemn both the military and the industrial leaders in our country.
(Applause)
MAX M. FISHER: The final question has two parts to it, Jerry.
(Reading Question) "DID YOU HAVE AN EASIER JOB AS MINORITY LEADER WHEN
JOHNSON WAS PRESIDENT?"
(Reading Question) "AS A UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ALUMNUS, HOW MANY POINTS
ARE YOU GIVING OHIO STATE THIS SATURDAY?"
HON. GERALD R. FORD: Well, I had a lot less responsibility when I was
the Minority Leader under a Democratic president because my function then was
to try to rally our troops to defeat those programs recommended by Mr. Johnson
that we thought were bad, or on the other hand to develop and get on the legislative
record those programs that we thought were constructive alternatives to the programs
recommended by Mr. Johnson. Starting in 1965, we made a deliberate effort to
produce what we called "constructive alternatives" to the legislative recommendations
of Mr. Johnson. Now, with 188 Republicans versus 245 Democrats, my problem is
to find Democrats who will join us so that we can get President Nixon's legislative
program through the House. Mathematically we have to have Democratic support to
achieve success.
So we start with the Speaker, who is a great and good friend of mine and we
go from there. If he can't help us, then we scrounge around and try to find any
other Democrats who will help us. You just have to get 60-some Democrats to add
to our Republican forces in order to get a majority. We do have some Republican
defections at times. And so it gets a little tough.
Now, Max, I want to report to you on that last question. You're a wise,
kind and generous man. I want you to know that an alumnus of Ohio State, a member
of the Congress of the United States, gave me 40 points today on the Ohio State-
Michigan game (Laughter) and I'll take 40 points from you, and the sooner we
shake on it, the better.
-17-
RUSSEL A. SWANEY: Thank you, Jerry. We appreciate your taking time to
come out here from your busy schedule and give us this very illuminating and
worthwhile discussion on what's going on in Washington. And certainly no one is
better qualified to do this than you are. Mr. Fisher, we appreciate you acting
as our Presiding Officer. We know that you're spending a good deal of time in
Washington, too. We thank you all for coming. This meeting is adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD