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
4526240
label
Manufacturing Chemists Association, New York, NY, November 25, 1969
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526240
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Manufacturing Chemists Association, New York, NY, November 25, 1969
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Crime
Drug abuse
Electoral college
International relations
Legislation
Obscenity (Law)
Taxation
Welfare
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526240
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
f165f83683d023cd
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D28, folder "Manufacturing Chemists
Association, New York, NY, November 25, 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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
File
MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION
SEMIANNUAL MEETING
Presentation by
The Honorable Gerald Ford
Minority Leader
U. S. House of Representatives
New York, New York
November 25, 1969
PRO-TYPISTS, INC.
PROFESSIONAL TRANSCRIPTION SERVICE
AREA CODE 202 347-5395
1
2
3
4
MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION
5
SEMIANNUAL MEETING
6
7
8
9
10
11
Presentation by
12
The Honorable Gerald Ford
Minority Leader
13
U. S. House of Representatives
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
New York, New York
24
November 25, 1969
25
1
2
3
4
MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS ASSOCIATION
5
SEMIANNUAL MEETING
6
7
8
9
10
11
Presentation by
12
The Honorable Gerald Ford
Minority Leader
13
U. S. House of Representatives
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
New York, New York
24
November 25, 1969
25
2
1
PROCEEDINGS
2
MR. FORD: Thank you very much, Glenn; General Decker,
3
distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:
4
It's a great privilege, and I consider it a high honor
5
to have the opportunity of participating in the final meeting
6
of your Semi-annual Manufacturing Chemists Association Conclave
7
here in New York City. Those of us who make speeches occasion-
8
ally, I think, are deeply grateful for those like Glenn who
9
gild the lily just a bit in the introduction. Inadvertently,
10
I'm sure, they make a mistake now and then in the course of
11
their remarks. I pass no judgments on Glenn's observations and
12
comments. Oftentimes I've found that the introduction is far
13
more memorable than the speech that follows.
14
But I have had a few intances where, in the course of
15
an introduction, there is an inadvertent error; and I don't re-
16
late this story just because of my Alma Mater's success last
17
Saturday against Ohio State--
18
(Applause.)
19
--but I was down at a large political gathering in the
20
state of Ohio a year or so ago, and in the course of the intro-
21
duction by one of my colleagues from Ohio State University, he
22
S1 --- I'm sure, inadvertently - -- indicated that I was a graduate
23
of Ohio State University. Well, in such an adverse audience,
24
in the ememy's territory, I had to be, you know, a little cau-
25
tious how I would defend my Alma Mater's reputation.
3
answer
1
I didn't quite have the key, and I didn't know how
2
However
torespond without making it difficult for myself, and as I came
3
to the podium I thought of the incident of the man who had the
4
burden and the responsibility of introducing to a tremendous
5
political audience the Governor of the Virgin Islands.
1981
6
the
t he course of this introduction ------------------------- and this was a vast gathering,
Transmaster
7
fifteen, twenty thousand -- the man got up and talked for a long
8
time about the accomplishments, the achievements, and of course
9
the virtue of the Governor of the Virgin Islands. He concluded
10
with the final ringing sentence: "Ladies and gentlemen, it's
11
my privilege and honor to introduce to you, the Virgin of the
12
Governor's Island."
13
Glenn introduced me as the Minority Leader of the House.
14
I can't tell, because of the lights, whether there are any ladies
15
in the audience, but any time such an introduction comes along,
16
I'm a little uncomfortable in a mixed audience, because F think
17
all ladies know who the minority leader of a house is -- a
18
husband. On the other hand, I think all husbands know who the
19
speaker of the house is.
20
Let me say that I'm delighted to be here, and I must
21
relate to you the letter that I got from Jim Morton, when he
22
asked me to be your guest tonight. In the letter asking me to
23
join with you this evening, he listed about six very renowned,
24
outstanding public officials who had previously been your guests
25
of honor. And he ended with this sentence; he said: "Senator
4
1
Mansfield was our guest of honor a year ago, and we would like
2
you to join us this year; and up to now we've had outstanding
3
speakers."
4
(Laughter.)
5
Despite that warm invitation--
6
(Laughter.)
7
--- I'm delighted to join you tonight, and I have a
8
special reason for being here. Your retiring principal officer,
9
I guess -- I'm not quite sure of the title -- is an old and dear
10
friend of mine. And I speak now about General George Decker.
11
I was privileged to be precipitated moved from the Committee on Public
12
Works to the Committee on Appropriations in January of 1953.
13
And, having spent four years in the Navy, I was designated the
14
Chairman of the Army Subcommittee on Appropriations. I guess
15
this is the way the Congress works.
16
But anyhow, all of a sudden I had the responsibility
the
17
of sitting opposite table, in long and extensive hearings, with
18
General Decker, who was then the Comptroller for the United
19
States Army. I subsequently knew him in various capacities in
20
the Army, culminating, of course, in his responsibility as Chief
21
of Staff of the United States Army. And I can say without hesi-
22
tation or qualification -------- and I had quite a bit of experience
23
listening to witnesses, talking with the top officials, both
24
civilian and military -- that no person was trusted more by our
25
Committee, Democrat or Republican, in trying to get the straight
5
1
answers in dollars, programs, or policy, than we got from
2
General George Decker.
3
(Applause.)
4
His reputation for honesty and integrity before the
5
Committee was unmatched. I might add, parenthetically, that fine
6
reputation did not follow him to the golf course. He was much
our our best
7
too good and had much too high a handicap for any of us to
interest, P
8
compete. George, although you're leaving this organization, I
9
understand, and Bill Driver is taking over, you will be most
10
welcome by George Malion, us many, many hours
by The by Committee all of who for
11
listened your to you testiming and Jgot your words of wisdom,-and You'll be most
12
welcome before us or before the Congress at any time.
[ We wish
13
you well as you retire and improve that handicap a little.
14
It doesn't need much (laughing)
15
Let me say that I'm delighted to be here to follow
16
Senator Mansfield, who I understand was your guest here about
17
a year ago. I had the benefit of listening --- not listening to,
18
but reading Mike Mansfield's speech to this organization a year
19
ago. The title was, "Towards a Discerning Internationalism."
20
It was an erudite, thoughtful, and I believe totally constructive
21
discussion of what our nation should do in the area of foreign
22
policy. Even though we represent different political parties,
23
I consider Mike Mansfield a close personal friend; and one of
24
the things we learn in the political arena in Washington is
25
that you can disagree without being disagreeable.
6
1
In Mike's observations and comments shortly after the
2
election of 1968, he talked about the decision of the American
3
people in November, a year ago. He related the fact that the
4
American people had selected a Republican President but had re+
5
tained control of the Legislative Branch in the Democratic
6
Party, where in the Senate the margin is 57 to 43, and in the
7
244
House approximately 200 to 188 or 189, depending on vacancies.
8
Naturally, those of us on my side of the aisle were
9
pleased with the election for Chief Executive but a little dist
10
appointed with the results as far as the Congress was concerned.
11
We had been a little more kindly treated by the American people
12
in the elections in 1966, where in the races for the House of
13
Representatives we had made a very substantial gain after the
14
debacle of 1964 and had picked up a net gain of 47, with actually
15
59 new Republicans elected to the House. Some members had been
16
defeated; a few had retired, so we had 59 out of about 187 brand
17
new members. And those of us in the leadership on our side of
18
the aisle thought it would be a real good idea to have all these
19
new members and their wives and our leadership and our wives
20
at a conference center just outside of Washington, D. C., for
21
a three-day seminar of where we could talk about issues, where
22
we could talk about parliamentary problems, where we could get
23
acquainted.
24
And so we met at a place called Airlie House for three
25
days ---- a long, hard schedule. At the opening luncheon I was
and To speak
7
1
asked to say a few words, and I gob up and I looked out, and
2
here were 59 attractive, articulate, brand new bodies who would
3
substantially add to the number of votes we had on the floor
4
of the House. And I must have said in the course of my comments
5
and observations that I was happily clucking over this new
6
brood of Republicans.
7
Well, the meeting at lunch broke up, and we went on to
8
our business sessions. We had a social hour that night, got up
9
the next morning bright and early to go on to the business of
10
the days
I walked into the dining room and somebody handed
11
me a copy of the New York Times. Front page story, lead article,
12
first sentence -- and I quote precisely -- it said: "Congress-
13
man Jerry Ford, House Republican leader, was happily clucking
14
over his new broad."
15
(Laughter.)
16
Well, I thought it was amusing that a great newspaper
17
like the New York Times would make a simple typographical error
18
that would somewhat significantly change what I thought I had
19
said the previous luncheon. But I passed it off; I kidded the
20
New York Times correspondent who was there, and The had a hard
The mistable
21
time defending it. I went on to the business of the day. My
22
wife was down with us, as I indicated earlier; she came down to
23
a late breakfast. And she walked into the dining room, and
24
some friend of mine--
25
(Laughter.)
8
1
--immediately handed her a copy of the New York Times.
2
I have yet to satisfactorily explain who that "new broad" is.
3
But needless to say that the election of 1968 did
4
provide the American people for at least the next two years a
5
divided government, with the Executive Branch of the government
6
in the hands of one political party, and the Legislative Branch
7
of the government in the hands of another political party. This
8
is a most unusual circumstance in the history of American poli-
9
V
tics. Labbink you have to go back over a hundred years to find
similar
10
these circumstances. Oh, yes, we've had @ther instances where
11
a new President entered with a Congress of his own party, and
12
then in the next election his party last and control of the
13
Congress passed from his to another party.
14
But seldom in the history of American politics have we
15
had a new President elected, and the control of a coordinate,
16
co-equal branch of the government left in the hands of an oppo-
17
sition party. This was the will of the American people last
18
November. I pass no judgment on whether it was right or wrong;
19
it's a fact of life.
20
And so, since January of this year, Washington has not
21
really been a monolithic political setup. It's been a divided
22
political setup. And the net result has been that Lathink the
23
press and the public have been confused. But the ordinary
24
American, as I travel around the country --- and I've traveled
25
almost 200,000 miles this year -- the ordinary citizen in America
9
1
looks at the political situation in Washington as though it was
2
a monolithic political situation. I don't know whether that's
3
good or bad at the moment.
4
But as of today I think the President, a Republican,
5
and the Congress, Democratic, is tweated as one and the same.
6
There may be some benefits leabdrties to the country from this, I don't
7
know; there may be some detaiments. But the facts are that the
8
ordinary citizen looks upon Washington as one conglomerate, if
9
that's the right term. And I think that we in the Congress and
10
those of us who support the Administration ought to be cognizant
ob
11
how we as Americans -- not as politicians, Democrats or
12
Republicans -- can move to make sure that we do the right job
13
for the country as a whole, regardless of political affiliations
14
or backgrounds.
15
And whereas Mike Mansfield a year ago talked to you
16
about the subject, "Towards a Discerning Internationalism," let
17
me, if I might tonight, discuss with you the problem of legis-
18
lating for a better America. And because of the unique situation
19
that the American people determined a year ago, of a divided
20
government; and because the process of legislation is not just
21
what the Congress does, but what the President recommends, I
22
speak tonight about a program that is the co-equal responsibility
23
of the Executive as well as the Legislative Branch.
24
Now, the President when he took over in January had a
25
very specific decision to make --- a hard choice. And this
10
1
choice has now filtered down to what the Congress will do. But
2
the basic decision had to be made by the Chief Executive, and it
3
was precisely this: The President could have accepted taken that legis-
4
lation which was on the statute books, put on by previous con-
5
gresses, for the purpose of meeting Prenomo the demands of our society,
6
solving the problems of our society ------------------------- a program that from a
7
legislative based point of view had not satisfied the American people,
01968 anl then
8
predicated on the election, but just sought to solve the prob-
9
lems by the expenditure of more federal funds, using the legis-
10
lative tools that were there and available.
11
That was one choice. The alternative was to recognize
12
that we had problems in America that had to be solved domestically
13
as well as internationally, and at the same time, perhaps seek
14
a new approach or new directions for the future -- maybe costing
15
as much money, but at least new paths for us to follow in a
16
legislative way.
17
The President, by a very conscious decision, decided
18
that we should abandon the programs of the past, that we shouldn't
19
just seek to solve the problems by spending more money in old
President Mefor
20
programs> the determined that it was better to approach the prob-
21
lems that existed with some ideas of reform, bona fide, legiti-
22
mate, broad reform. And during the course from January 20 to
23
now, the President has submitted to the Congress approximately
24
forty messages4 and in most instances they have been followed by
25
specific legislative recommendations.
11
1
So far the Congress has not responded as well as I
2
think they should, but I-think it's premature to pass judgment
3
on whether the Congress has done as well as it ought under the
4
circumstances. I happen to agree they with the President
5
in his message of October 11, when he outlined what had been
& what should be The Carren
factor
6
submitted by the President, and the record of the Congress. I
7
think it's well under this divided government situation to get
8
the words of the President, who is trying to work as a partner
9
with the Congress in this situation; and let me quote -- these
10
are the words of the President's message urging us in the Legis-
11
lative Branch to move -- and I quote:
12
"If a working partnership between men of differing
13
philosophies and different parties is to continue, then
14
candor on both sides is required. There may be merit in
15
both charges, neither the Democratic Congress nor the
16
Republican Administration is without fault for the delay
17
of vital legislation; but in my view the American people
18
are not interested in political posturing between the Exec-
19
utive Branch and Capitol Hill. We are co-equal branches
20
of government, elected not to maneuver for partisan advan-
21
tage, but to work together to find hoppful answers to
22
problems that confound the people all of us serve. Both
23
the President and the Congress have been commissioned by
24
the same American people for a limited time to achieve
25
objectives upon which the great majority can agree. For
12
1
our part, we are willing to travel more than half way, to
2
work with Congress to accomplish what needs to be done.
3
The time for staking out political claims will come soon
4
enough.
5
"Let us resolve, therefore, to make the legislative
6
issue of the 1970 campaign the question of who deserves
7
greater credit for the 91st Congress record of accom-
8
plishment, not which of us should be held accountable be-
9
cause it did nothing. The country is not interested in what
10
we say, but in what we do. Let us roll up our sleeves and
11
go to work. Before us are urgent legislative priorities.
12
And with that introduction, let me take some of the
13
major legislative priorities that I think are on the desk of the
14
Congress at the present time. I might add that in reviewing
15
Mike Mansfield's speech of a year ago, I noted that Mike indicated
16
that we had gone through a rather traumatic experience in the
17
election night, because of the distinct possibility, that night,
18
because of a third-party candidate, that the Congress of the
19
United States, not the American people, would have had to choose
20
the next President of the United States.
21
Mike Mansfield certainly indicated that the Congress
22
ought to respond with an affirmative constitutional provision
23
that would change the method by which we select the President
24
of the United States. For about 180 years we have chosen a
25
President by an electoral college method, and although we have
13
1
in the main made good decisions, on two occasions in America's
2
history, the politicians, not the people, selected the President
3
of the United States. And Mike Mansfield a year ago seemed to
4
indicate a sigh of relief that we avoided that possibility in
5
1968. And by inference he was urging the Congress to move ahead
6
to find a new way in which we could choose a President of the
7
United States.
8
I'm glad to report to you that the House of Representa-
9
tives has now approved by the necessary two-thirds margin a
10
constitutional provision by which we will choose the next Presi-
11
dent of the United States by the direct election method. I hope
12
and trust the United States Senate will do the same. And if you
13
have any influence with your Senators, I urge you to contact
14
them to follow the lead of the House of Representatives.
15
There are other alternatives, I must confess -- the
16
district plan, the proportionate distribution of electoral col-
17
lega vote plan But, by any standard in the years ahead, as I see it,
18
and as better than two thirds of the members of the llouse thought,
19
we should choose our Presidents in the future by the direct
20
election method. This would avoid the possibility of the kind
21
of constitutional crisis we might have faced in '68, a kind of
22
constitutional crisis America cannot afford in 1972, 1976, or
23
years thereafter.
24
So I trust that if you can or are so disposed you will
25
urge the Senate to act affirmatively in order to avoid these
14
1
kinds of crises in the future. This is reform, I think, long
2
overdue, and greatly needed.
imporative
3
But there are other reform proposals before the Congress
such as
4
recommended by the President -- in this case, welfare reform.
5
Never in the history of -- or recent history, I should say, has
6
there been such an environment where the most extreme on the
7
political left -- such as Walter Reuther --- or the most extreme
8
on the political right, all agree that we ought to junk the
9
present welfare system. Everybody admits it's too costly; it's
10
effort
duplication, one after another. We ought to get rid of it,-and
11
the President has submitted to the Congress a program to substi-
12
tute "work-fare" for welfare. This, I think, would be a tremen-
13
dous step forward, not necessarily relieving the fiscal or fi-
14
nancial burden from the point of view of the federal government,
15
but the principal ingredient, which is reform, is that it would
16
help to get individuals and families off of the welfare cycle
17
through the incentive process. In other words, if an individual
4 ath
18
is willing to work, he or she will not lose their total wages.
19
amount
They will lose a proportionate share, but the incentive exists
20
for them to work and help and to gradually move themselves out
21
of the welfare cycle into the work cycle.
22
I think it's fair to say that no man stands taller
23
than when he gets a hand-up rather than a handout. I hope
24
and trust that the Congress will respond affirmatively to this
25
new approach --- this reform recommendation aimed at abandoning
15
1
the welfare program that has failed and shooting for a new
2
work-fare program that will revitalize our total approach to
3
those who are less fortunate than we.
4
Crime. Well, you're familiar with the statistics as
5
well as myself. In the last eight years we've had the crime
6
rate go up ten times faster than our population. You in your
7
communit like myself in my community, are cognizant of those
8
horrible crimes that unfortunately happen much too frequently.
9
The federal government is not the only governmental agency that
10
can do something about this. You have to rely on local govern-
11
ment and state government; but the federal government in certain
12
areas has a specific and, I think, greater responsibility. And
13
has proposed
the Congress ought to give to the Department of Justice new tools
Creme.
14
to meet the challenge of these areas that the criminal element
15
must be forced to have new charges wynánot them, new tools.
16
Let me say that there are three areas, particularly,
where
17
that Congress must respond: One, in organized crime. I don't
18
know all of you personally, but when I make the observation that
19
we need new tools to meet the challenges of organized crime in
20
a rural community, the audience doesn't understand what I'm
21
talking about. But if I talk to an audience in a major metro-
22
politan city, they surely understand it.
23
Organized crime, as you know, does have a stranglehold
political
24
on too many individuals, governmental units, organizations in
25
many of our large cities. They're the most sophisticated
ORD
16
we and
1
criminals that exist in America today. And if you re to meet
2
the challenge of organized crime, the Department of Justice
of the bist,
3
needs some toughest, strongest tools that it can get, legisla-
4
tively speaking -- and Congress better respond. We cannot
our society.
5
tolerate organized crime as we know it in Betreit And other
6
areas of our country.
The Attorney General and his people need the toughest
8
tools that Congress can give them -- and we'd better do it.
9
Let me turn also to the area of narcotics. Again, the
10
President has submitted a very broad program, and let me illus-
11
trate the program by describing to you a meeting that was held
12
in the Cabinet room about two or three weeks ago. I used to see
13
John Conner there occasionally when I, got invited down by
14
President Johnson. John can visanda and the meeting. we had
President Johnson
He
15
the Democratic, Republican leaderships they had three witnesses
he
16
--- not really witnesses in the typical sense, but they had three
special 17 gunts
to present the need and necessity for action by the Congress.
18
One, the head of the narcotics division; he told of the absolute
19
essentiality of legislation to make penalties tougher9 mandatory
20
for the pushers and the peddlers of narcotics.
21
The second person to describe the need and necessity
22
for legislation, the Secretary of HEW, Bob Finch. He wasn't
23
pushing for tougher penalties; the was advocatingor pushing A urging that
24
Congress give to the proper authorities greater flexibility in
inpunishment
25
the penalties, greater flexibility for the first offenders, so
17
1
that they wouldn't be treated as the hardened criminals,-
2
Dvery very dramatic presentation with many illustrati
3
But the third person to speak to all of us was a man
4
who had just lost his daughter. He spoke to us and said that
5
his daughter, who was not a hippie, his family, that was not
6
a way-out family, had suffered a grievous loss. And he urged
7
us -- those of us in the Congress of both political faiths ---
8
to respond to the kind of legislation that the President had
9
recommended, because he was embarking on a crusade to convince
10
the American people that we had to meet this challenge of the
11
drug traffic.
12
It was the most dramatic incident I've ever experienced,
13
either in the Congress or in the White House, or elsewhere.
meanting
14
I can't imagine the Congress not responding to the kind of
15
thill criminal penalties for the pushers the kind of flexibility
n
Congrlos has not responded
16
for the first offenders. So far we haven't, but this is on our
the public should damand action
17
d oorstep, and it must be accomplished.
18
The third area was that of the distribution of porno-
19
graphic material, obscene literature -- through the mails pri-
20
marily. I don't know your experience, but my wife and I have
21
four small well, not small we have four children from
on
22
nineteen to twelve. How we get in the mailing lists of some
23
of these organization people who distribute/the kind of literature that they
24
do is beyond my comprehension; but if they send it to us, I'm
IT is the
25
sure they send it to many like ourselves. Most disgusting kind
have ever seem 18
1
of photographs and literature that I a ever saw.
2
Isn't it unbelievable that our Post Office Department
3
is called upon to distribute to your family and to mine this
4
kind of literature should ---- and /we're paying for it. Well, the Post
15
Office Department ought to get the kind of legislation that's
6
needed, so they can move in, seize the plants, stop the product
7
tion, prohibit the distribution -- it's tough. I don't know
8
how the present Supreme Court will handle it; but maybe we'll
9
have a different one in the future that will do something about
10
it.
11
(Applause.)
legislation
12
But this kind of action is needed and necessary if we
13
are to protect the young. And this, I think, 18 fully justified
14
under any criteria I'm R Illar
15
And then, let me talk, if I might, about tax reform.
16
I'm treading a bit on difficult waters here, I surgect guess. I'm sure
17
many of you here feel that the investment tax credit is absolutely
18,
needed and necessary. I'm sure many of you here feel that the
19
extension of the surtax ought to be forgotten about. I'm sure
20
many of you disagree with the so-called tax reform provisions
21
in the House version, and may disagree with those provisions in
22
the Senate version. But let me Just point this out, and I con-
23
cede that there may be some honest areas of difference of opinion,
24
but the average citizen of this country -- for good reasons--
25
FORD
feels that there are inequities in our federal tax structure.
LIBRARY
19
1
This overall situation is brought to his attention by
2
the ever-increasing local taxes that he pays, by the ever-in-
3
creasing state tax burden that he pays, and the fact that our
4
federal burden has not decreased. And then he reads about certain
5
taxpayers, small in number, but symbolic, who pay no taxes at
6
the federal level -- and there are some.
7
The ordinary taxpayer, earning $8000 a year, who pays
8
roughly, maybe $1000 a year in taxes combined, doesn't understand
9
why some limited number of taxpayers at the federal level should
10
pay no taxes. And whether we like it or not, there's a ground-
11
swell of tax reform among the American people. And the Congress
12
is responding.
13
I think it's proven one thing for sure: That what is
14
a loophole in the mind of one person is a totally justified
15
equity in another, and I'm not sure that the 368-page tax bill
16
that the House passed is going to really eradicate all of the
17
loopholes. I'm not sure that tax bill, which was a monumental
18
proposal, is going to end all the inequities. I'm sure it won't.
19
But I am sertain of one thing -- that the ordinary taxpayer is
20
insisting on some form of tax reform, and that's why the Con-
21
gress has responded. I just hope and trust that we do come up
22
with a reasonably fair and reasonably equitable proposal. I
23
can't be certain, but I hope in the process we don't destroy
24
fiscal responsibility in the process.
25
There is a great temptation to not only have tax reform,
20
1
but to also incorporate in it tax reduction that under current
2
circumstances cannot be justified. Maybe a year from now, when
3
we're over the fiscal crisis that I trust we will overcome,
4
there can be bona fide, legitimate tax reduction at the federal
5
level, However right now H think it would be most unwise and hasard-
6
ous to incorporate in a tax reform proposal tax reductions be-
7
yond the capacity of us to handlem a responsible fiscal manner
8
Now, speaking of tax matters, I must tell one story,
9
and I do it with some hesitation, except that I'm a great ad-
10
mirer of the American voter, who's a terribly independent guy.
11
But who on occasion gets a little frustrated, understandably.
12
One of my next-door neighbors, in Alexandria, Virginia,
13
NO live, is a high-ranking official in the Bureau of Internal
14
Revenue. Last summer he said to me, "Jerry, have you ever no-
15
ticed in the upper right-hand corner of your Internal Revenue
16
tax return there's a blank area, and under that blank area in
17
large, black type there's the admonition which reads as follows:
18
'Please do not write here
19
Well, I confess I had never seen or noticed the blank
20
area; I hadn't been cognizant of the admonition not to trans-
21
gress.
Then he went on, and he smiled and said, "Jerry, have
22
you over he said, "You'd be amazed how many thousands of
23
taxpayers, after they've signed their name alleging that all the
24
facts and all the figures are the truth and nothing but the
25
truth on their return, and after they've signed that check
21
1
paying whatever they allegedly owe Uncle Sam, then in a typical,
2
frustrated, independent attitude of an ordinary American, in
3
their own handwriting, write across that blank area, 'I'll write
4
any damn place I please.
5
(Laughter.)
6
Well, I can understand that. But let me now turn, if
7
I might, to another area of reform which I think is of great
8
importance. And it relates to the previous subject. In the last
9
ten years, Uncle Sam, the federal government, has spent on local
10
programs, or state programs, an increasing percentage of the
11
federal governments funds. About ten years ago, we had roughly
12
a hundred programs of what we called categorical grants, and
13
the annual expenditure for those programs was in the range of
14
a half a billion dollars per year. The last fiscal year those
15
programs had expanded to roughly five hundred; and the annual
16
expenditure had gone from a half a billion dollars to nineteen
17
billion dollars.
18
And if you look at the projections, as John knows, these
19
projections for those same programs ten years from now would
20
be close to sixty billion dollars a year. Now, that's what the
21
experts in the federal government were projecting for your
22
federal government in what we call "categorical grants," where
23
the decision as to what you should do with your federal tax
24
money should be made by the people in Washington.
25
Now, there's an alternative method of helping the
22
1
local community and the state government -- what we call revenue
2
sharing. This is the only reasonable alternative. You are not
3
going to cut those ebisting programs off, and you're not going to hold
unless Myr have an atternative answer
4
them down. The public will demand and insist that federal funds
5
flow back to state and local government; they need the money,
6
they have problems to solve.
7
so your real choice is whether you do it by the cate-
8
gorical grant program, where some bureaucrat in Washington
9
makes the decision, or whether you send back to the state and
10
local community a fixed percentage of the federal funds so that
11
your lecally-elected officials can make the decision on the
12
ladder of priority. It's just that simple. And as anyone
13
knows who studies the federal budgetary situation, even if we
14
don't increase the rates of federal taxes, Uncle Sam takes in
15
approximately six to eight billion dollars more a year just be-
16
cause we're an expanding and growing economy. And it's this
17
dividend that would be utilized for these purposes.
18
Now, the choice is simple. You either continue these
19
bureaucratic, managed programs from Washington, or you turn over
the choices action
20
to responsible local officials that you pick to make the choice.
21
The probd are different in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Miami,
22
Florida, or San Francisco or Cincinnati. And I would much
23
prefer the final decision-making being done by the local people
24
rather than the bureaucrats in Washington.
25
And this is the choice I think we must take, the road
23
1
we must travel. And I think we can and we will. And I consider
2
this one of the highest matters of legislative priority by this
3
Congress -- maybe not this year, but certainly within the next
4
session beginning in January.
5
Let me turn, now, if I might, to a comment or two about
6
foreign policy. This morning I was privileged to be at the White
7
House for a breakfast with the President and others, where he
8
discussed the announcement that he made this after-- no, I guess
9
this morning -- about chemical and biological warfare. I didn't t
10
plan that breakfast or this announcement with the meeting that
11
I'm attending tonight; but it certainly is of interest, I'm sure,
12
to all of you, whether you're involved in various governmental
13
programs or not. think the decision of the President to re-
14
commend to the Senate that the Senate approve the treaty that
15
has been hanging in limbo since think is
16
a step forward in improving the image of the United States.
17
It will not be harmful under the terms, as I understand
18
it, of our course of action. Under our chemical warfare pro-
19
gram, the President said, "We reaffirm our oft-repeated renun-
20
ciation of the first use of lethal chemical weapons, and we
21
extend this renunciation to the first use of incapacitating
Smath
22
chemicale."
the President has recommended that the Congress
23
approve the Geneva Protocols of 1925.
24
In the area of biological warfare, the President has
25
said, We will stop the production of biological or germ warfare
24
1
from an offensive point of view. But it is in our interest to
2
continue research and development for immunization against those
3
germ warfare developments of an enemy so that we are prepared
4
in case of a first attack by an enemy.
5
I think this overall decision of the President is a
6
step in the right direction. It will not be harmful to our
7
overall national security.
8
One comment about Vietnam, and then I shall conclude.
9
Senator Mansfield in his comments to you a year ago was speaking
10
hopefully of progress in the year ahead. I think all of us
11
recognize such progress has taken place. A year ago we had
12
approximately 540,000 U. S. military personnel in Vietnam; as
13
of yesterday we had about 483,000, a de-escalation of our man-
14
power commitment -- 20 percent, roughly; about 12 percent cut-
15
back in our combat responsibilities. I believe that we're on
16
the road to the achievement of peace in Vietnam without sur-
17
rendering our leadership in the free world, without sacrificing
18
those who have given so much.
19
I can't forecast in certainty what's going to happen
20
in the months ahead. I'm optimistic. The vietnamization pro-
21
gram will work if we're patient, if we give support to the
22
South Vietnamese government. I'm convinced it's broadening its
23
base; it's more politically stable. I think we should pursue
24
what we can to meet the challenge in Paris, although obviously
25
little or no success has accrued to date. But we can achieve
25
1
peace in Vietnam without capitulation, without surrender.
2
And let me say this as I conclude. The other day I
3
was reading the book by, think It's William S. Schirer, The
4
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I think there's a lesson to
5
be learned. That book tells a story of Chamberlain announcing
6
to the British House of Commons that he had been called by Hitler
7
to come to Europe to agree on a peace treaty for peace in their
8
time, over the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. And when he
9
made this announcement in the House of Commons, there were cheers,
10
there were many accolades.
11
He went, as you all know; they made the deal. Czecho-
12
slovakia was dismembered. Chamberlain came back; he announced
13
the treaty that had been decided upon between Hitler on the one
14
hand and Chamberlain on the other. According to the author,
15
pandemonium broke loose in the House of Commons. Everybody was
16
overjoyed. Cheers, accolades, praise --- Chamberlain was the
17
hero of the hour. One lone voice rose in the House of Commons.
18
Winston Churchill. He tried to speak; he was drowned out; he
19
was condemned. His was the speech of strength, warning Britain
20
and the Allies that this was a false peace that would only lead
21
to a greater war.
22
Churchill was the strong man. He should have been
23
listened to. Chamberlain was the weakling, who regrettably was
24
followed. History ought to tell us something. We need in this
25
hour of crisis, as we have needed in other periods of tension
26
1
and problem -- a strong leader. A person who tells it as it is.
2
A person who says there will be perils and problems, but if we
3
persist with strength and stand up for America, we will prevail.
4
We don't need a Chamberlain. We need a Churchill.
5
America will be the better if we stand tall and strong in this
6
hour of crisis.
7
Thank you very much.
8
(Applause.)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
Distribution 20 copies Mat.
office Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
BEFORE THE MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION
TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 25, 1969
AT NEW YORK, NEW YORK
FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M. TUESDAY, Nov. 25
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "God offers to every mind its choice between
truth and repose. Take which you please -- you can never have both."
Tonight I am going to present to you some truths -- truths which I hope
will stir you up a bit.
Let me begin by saying that in Washington we have mapped new attacks on
problems that have plagued the American people for years.
As a consequence, we are now standing as a Nation and a people on the
threshold of an age of reform.
If the winds of change blow as vigorously as I hope, our Nation will travel
in new directions as we enter the decade of the Seventies.
Reform. To reform something by dictionary definition -- is to change it
into a new and improved form or condition; to improve by change of form and by
removal of faults or abuses.
That, my friends, is exactly what the Nixon Administration has set out to
do. Reform is the watchword of the Nixon Administration. But the story of the
new Administration as a Reform Administration is one which is not being told.
Very early this year, shortly after Richard Nixon assumed the office of
President, I began describing him in my speeches as a reformer and crusader.
What I envisioned was that the Nixon Administration would of necessity
become seized with a reforming spirit and crusading zeal.
I foresaw the advent of an age of reform in America because of President
Nixon's legacy -- the situation "as it was" when he took office.
Richard Nixon assumed the leadership of a country massively entangled in a
jungle war halfway around the world, a country which had suffered escalating
inflation for nearly four years, a country in which the crime rate had climbed
nearly 10 times as fast as the population, a country in which the problems of the
cities threatened to turn urban crisis into violent revolution, a country in which
major cities were being put to the torch, a country in which the Have-Nots continued
to be the Have-Nots and the welfare system was like a constantly festering sore,
(more)
LUVNOIT
-2-
a country in which local, state and Federal taxes had driven taxpayers to the rim
of revolt although government spending had not solved the horrendous problems
rushing in from all sides.
The new Administration took stock and charted a new course. This new
course, as yet unimplemented by the Congress, is a comprehensive strategy for an
attack on the most critical problems facing this country.
The major goals of this comprehensive strategy strike directly at the roots
of the underlying crises in our Nation.
The strategy is aimed at five objectives: Ending the war; Making the streets
safe again for the American people; Curbing inflation; Reforming and ultimately
ending the draft; and Giving the government back to the people.
If the Nixon Administration succeeds in achieving these objectives -- and
draft reform has been largely achieved -- I believe historians will rank Richard
Nixon among the greatest of our Presidents. And if this Congress responds with
action, its mark on history will be one of the finest.
The reforms that President Nixon has proposed are manifold. He has sent
more than 40 messages to the Congress. Those messages are related to the objectives
I have just outlined and to others as well.
The top priority is, of course, to end the war in Vietnam.
President Nixon is moving vigorously to end the American role in Vietnam
and, hopefully, to end the war. He is winding down the war and is doing everything
he reasonably can to achieve a breakthrough at the peace table.
With the peace negotiations stuck on dead center because of enemy
intransigence, "Vietnamization" has become the key to disengaging the United
States from the Vietnam War. Gradually but surely we are turning the war over
to the South Vietnamese, where it belongs.
We certainly cannot stay in South Vietnam forever. If the Saigon government
is to stand, it must ultimately learn to stand alone.
For the first time since the United States became involved in the Vietnam
War, we are taking troops out of Vietnam instead of adding to our numbers there.
This is a major reversal of policy aimed at an honorable end to the Vietnam
conflict.
I think a majority of the American people want a sound settlement of the
Vietnam War. I want a settlement that will discourage further Communist aggression,
whether it is in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, the Pacific, or in Europe.
To invite a Communist takeover of South Vietnam through a precipitous
withdrawal of U.S. troops might reopen the Korean War in 1970 and create additional
(more)
-3-
problems for us and our allies in Europe.
The President's recent declaration of alternatives in Vietnam has been
interpreted by some observers as a hard-line statement. They could not be more
mistaken. To negotiate does not mean to capitulate. You do not become a horse
trader by giving away the horse.
Despite the stubbornness of the Communists in Vietnam, I am fully convinced
President Nixon will succeed in inaugurating an era of negotiation in place of
an era of confrontation.
We have now entered upon strategic arms limitation talks with the Russians,
and President Nixon has laid the foundation of a new foreign policy. That new
foreign policy is innovative, flexible and adaptable. Basically, it is attuned
to the nationalistic and regional interests of Free World and Communist countries.
President Nixon no longer sees the Communist world as a monolithic enemy
alliance but as a group of nations whose common ideology is transcended by powerful
nationalistic aspirations. In line with that view, the President is adapting
United States policy to those nationalistic interests.
This new concept of U.S. foreign policy also is reflected in the new Nixon
Doctrine for Asia -- the "do-it-yourself policy" which Mr. Nixon has laid down
for the nations of Southeast Asia. This is a policy which declares to Americans
and to all the world that there will be no more Vietnams.
Under President Nixon, we have seized the initiative in foreign affairs
even in the face of Communist aggression. We have proclaimed and promoted
doctrines of international law and justice which have given the United States a
new and lofty standing in the court of world opinion.
Domestically, the President has succeeded in getting people to lower their
voices
and their arms, too.
In quest of domestic tranquillity, the Nixon Administration has launched a
strong crackdown against organized crime. The President also has sent Congress
legislation which would deal heavier blows against organized crime and would
improve the Nation's court system.
There has been special emphasis on law enforcement in each of the
Administration's anticrime measures. The President wants criminals off the
streets, and he knows there is no surer way to get them off the streets than to
help build up law enforcement in this country.
The Nixon Administration has made the fight against crime one of its
central concerns. While other departmental budgets have been cut in a hold-down
(more)
-4-
on Federal spending, the Justice Department budget has been increased. The level
of law enforcement activity and narcotics control has been stepped up.
The Nixon Administration recognizes, as do all of you, that the first
civil right of every American -- black or white -- is the right to protection from
crime and violence.
I wish our Negro leaders throughout America would recognize that. I wish
they would accept the responsibility for informing their people that it is
primarily the poor blacks who are the victims of violent crime in our country.
I wish all of our Negro leaders would emulate Sterling Tucker, vice-chairman of
the Washington, D.C., City Council, who recently spoke out in support of vigorous
law enforcement and condemned those who tacitly condone violations of the law.
It is said there can be no progress without order. I subscribe to that.
I would add that there cannot long be order without progress. I believe
the Nixon Administration is promoting the kind of order and the kind of progress
which will operate together to move this country forward.
We need a responsible common-sense approach to our urban problems. We are
getting it from President Nixon.
The primary Nixon answer to the urban crisis is jobs and job training. The
accent is on the solid American ethic of working for a living. The President's
approach is based on the idea that a man never stands so tall as when he stands
on his own two feet.
This is why President Nixon has proposed the first major reform of this
country's welfare system since it first was established. This is why the President
urges Workfare instead of Welfare. This is the way of dignity and decency. This
is the American way. A hand up instead of a handout. That's the only way to
bridge the gap between the Haves and Have-Nots in America.
I think President Nixon has managed to bring order to this country. He has
managed to do so because he has brought order to the Presidency. We now find
that the days of government by crisis have given way to crisis prevention. The
scatter-gun approach is yielding to an assembling of new priorities.
Welfare reform is just one of the great array of reforms proposed by
President Nixon -- reforms which I believe the American people have long wanted.
Draft reform which will make the selective service system as fair as possible
until we can establish a truly all-volunteer Army; postal reform which will create
a government-owned self-supporting postal corporation in place of the present
impossible system; poverty program reform which keeps the Office of Economic
(more)
-5-
Opportunity as an innovative agency but spins off successful experimental programs
to old-line Government departments; manpower training reform which consolidates
Federal manpower training programs; tax reform which takes millions of poor citizens
off the taxrolls, reduces taxes for millions of other low-income Americans, gives
a long-deserved break to middle-income individuals, and prevents the most wealthy
from escaping taxation altogether; a New Federalism which provides an increasing
slice of Federal income tax revenue for the cities and states and gives them new
vigor as solvers of the problems to which they are closest; a decentralization of
government authority which places greater reliance on local officials and greater
power in the hands of the people.
Decentralization of government authority -- flow of power back to the cities
and states, back to the people. This is a central theme of the Nixon Administration.
Power concentrated in Washington is not always effective power. It is
sometimes self-defeating. The Federal bureaucracy is most complex, and it feeds
upon itself. As it grows larger, the Federal Government's ability to help solve
local problems often grows less.
I would like to quote to you from remarks made last May 29 at the 75th
annual convention of the Pennsylvania Bankers Association in Atlantic City, N.J.
"Thirty odd years ago the federal establishment was small, as some of you
will remember, and income taxes were around 2 or 3 per cent. Most people didn't
pay any at all. And then Franklin Roosevelt was elected, and then for the first
time the control of our government fell into the hands of modern liberals and
their view was that the power of the federal government should be used to
treat and to cure this country's social ills. Well, they did treat a few and
they improved a few, but they didn't cure any. They started Social Security,
guarantees of bank deposits and a few other things that were useful and helpful,
but they also brought to Washington what might be called the illusion of
bureaucratic omnipotence, the illusion that if a government collects enough money,
creats enough agencies and enough bureaus, and worms its way far enough into the
private aspects of American life it will make us all prosperous, healthy and happy.
"Well, Max Weber, the sociologist, proved a long time ago that a big
bureaucracy, once it is established, ceases to work at the job it was given to do
and begins working only for itself, trying ahead of all else to increase its
budget, its staff, its size and its power."
I imagine every man in this room thinks those words were spoken by a
deep-dyed conservative. Not SO. The author of those words is David Brinkley,
(more)
-6-
the radio and television commentator who on more than one occasion has described
himself as a liberal -- and did so at the Pennsylvania Bankers convention.
Brinkley went on to say he had visited about 40 states in the last few
months and had found Americans wanting a change, "a basic change." He added that
"there is every sign of a deep distrust of the present size and style of the
Washington establishment and of the kind of leadership we have had from it for
about 20 years. 11
Richard Nixon is dedicated to producing the kind of change of which David
Brinkley spoke.
That is why he is talking about reversing the flow of power from Washington
to the states and cities. That is why he has reduced Federal employment by 48,000.
That is why he is talking about sharing Federal income tax revenue with the
cities and states. He wants to implement the basic change the people so desperately
desire.
Not long ago President Nixon, in a nice way, asked the Congress to help
him bring about the basic changes the American people are asking for. He conceded
that some of the slowness in the legislative process could be attributed to the
newness of his own administration.
Then he made the reform theme clear. He said: "The legislative program of
this Administration differs fundamentally from previous administrations. We do
not seek more and more of the same. We were not elected to pile new resources and
manpower on top of old programs. We were elected to initiate an era of change."
In effect, the President said to the Congress: I am not going to argue about
why SO little has been done to date. But this is what I have proposed. Now what
are you going to do about it?
That, I think, is a fair question. And it is a fair question not only to ask
of the Congress but of the American people. What are we going to do about it?
Let us not look only to the National Administration for correction of our
past mistakes. We all have a stake in our Nation. Let us all assume some of the
responsibility for setting the affairs of our country in order.
There is too much of an attitude today that "all is fine so long as I get
mine." We msut rid ourselves of that approach. We must all become selfless if
America is to survive as a Nation and a people. We must individually and
collectively seek the greatest good for the greatest number.
The responsibility for guiding the future of America rests not only with the
Congress, not only with governmental leaders, not only with the President. That
(more)
-7-
responsibility devolves upon us all. Each of our lives impinges upon the lives
of others. To the extent that we all live the good life, the unselfish life,
the lives of all others are enriched.
We all believe in the American Dream. Let us live so that all may share
in it.
###
Distribution 20 copies mr. Ford
a office Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
BEFORE THE MANUFACTURING CHEMISTS' ASSOCIATION
TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 25, 1969
AT NEW YORK, NEW YORK
FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M. TUESDAY, Nov. 25
Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "God offers to every mind its choice between
truth and repose. Take which you please you can never have both."
Tonight I am going to present to you some truths truths which I hope
will stir you up a bit.
Let me begin by saying that in Washington we have mapped new attacks on
problems that have plagued the American people for years.
As a consequence, we are now standing as a Nation and a people on the
threshold of an age of reform.
If the winds of change blow as vigorously as I hope, our Nation will travel
in new directions as we enter the decade of the Seventies.
Reform. To reform something -- by dictionary definition -- is to change it
into a new and improved form or condition; to improve by change of form and by
removal of faults or abuses.
That, my friends, is exactly what the Nixon Administration has set out to
do. Reform is the watchword of the Nixon Administration. But the story of the
new Administration as a Reform Administration is one which is not being told.
Very early this year, shortly after Richard Nixon assumed the office of
President, I began describing him in my speeches as a reformer and crusader.
What I envisioned was that the Nixon Administration would of necessity
become seized with a reforming spirit and crusading zeal.
I foresaw the advent of an age of reform in America because of President
Nixon's legacy -- the situation "as it was" when he took office.
Richard Nixon assumed the leadership of a country massively entangled in a
jungle war halfway around the world, a country which had suffered escalating
inflation for nearly four years, a country in which the crime rate had climbed
nearly 10 times as fast as the population, a country in which the problems of the
cities threatened to turn urban crisis into violent revolution, a country in which
major cities were being put to the torch, a country in which the Have-Nots continued
to be the Have-Nots and the welfare system was like a constantly festering sore,
FORD
(more)
GERALD
CIBRARY
-2-
a country in which local, state and Federal taxes had driven taxpayers to the rim
of revolt although government spending had not solved the horrendous problems
rushing in from all sides.
The new Administration took stock and charted a new course. This new
course, as yet unimplemented by the Congress, is a comprehensive strategy for an
attack on the most critical problems facing this country.
The major goals of this comprehensive strategy strike directly at the roots
of the underlying crises in our Nation.
The strategy is aimed at five objectives: Ending the war; Making the streets
safe again for the American people; Curbing inflation; Reforming and ultimately
ending the draft; and Giving the government back to the people.
If the Nixon Administration succeeds in achieving these objectives -- and
draft reform has been largely achieved -- I believe historians will rank Richard
Nixon among the greatest of our Presidents. And if this Congress responds with
action, its mark on history will be one of the finest.
The reforms that President Nixon has proposed are manifold. He has sent
more than 40 messages to the Congress. Those messages are related to the objectives
I have just outlined and to others as well.
The top priority is, of course, to end the war in Vietnam.
President Nixon is moving vigorously to end the American role in Vietnam
and, hopefully, to end the war. He is winding down the war and is doing everything
he reasonably can to achieve a breakthrough at the peace table.
With the peace negotiations stuck on dead center because of enemy
intransigence, "Vietnamization" has become the key to disengaging the United
States from the Vietnam War. Gradually but surely we are turning the war over
to the South Vietnamese, where it belongs.
We certainly cannot stay in South Vietnam forever. If the Saigon government
is to stand, it must ultimately learn to stand alone.
For the first time since the United States became involved in the Vietnam
War, we are taking troops out of Vietnam instead of adding to our numbers there.
This is a major reversal of policy aimed at an honorable end to the Vietnam
conflict.
I think a majority of the American people want a sound settlement of the
Vietnam War. I want a settlement that will discourage further Communist aggression,
whether it is in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, the Pacific, or in Europe.
To invite a Communist takeover of South Vietnam through a precipitous
withdrawal of U.S. troops might reopen the Korean War in 1970 and create additional
(more)
-3-
problems for us and our allies in Europe.
The President's recent declaration of alternatives in Vietnam has been
interpreted by some observers as a hard-line statement. They could not be more
mistaken. To negotiate does not mean to capitulate. You do not become a horse
trader by giving away the horse.
Despite the stubbornness of the Communists in Vietnam, I am fully convinced
President Nixon will succeed in inaugurating an era of negotiation in place of
an era of confrontation.
We have now entered upon strategic arms limitation talks with the Russians,
and President Nixon has laid the foundation of a new foreign policy. That new
foreign policy is innovative, flexible and adaptable. Basically, it is attuned
to the nationalistic and regional interests of Free World and Communist countries.
President Nixon no longer sees the Communist world as a monolithic enemy
alliance but as a group of nations whose common ideology is transcended by powerful
nationalistic aspirations. In line with that view, the President is adapting
United States policy to those nationalistic interests.
This new concept of U.S. foreign policy also is reflected in the new Nixon
Doctrine for Asia -- the "do-it-yourself policy" which Mr. Nixon has laid down
for the nations of Southeast Asia. This is a policy which declares to Americans
and to all the world that there will be no more Vietnams.
Under President Nixon, we have seized the initiative in foreign affairs
even in the face of Communist aggression. We have proclaimed and promoted
doctrines of international law and justice which have given the United States a
new and lofty standing in the court of world opinion.
Domestically, the President has succeeded in getting people to lower their
voices
and their arms, too.
In quest of domestic tranquillity, the Nixon Administration has launched a
strong crackdown against organized crime. The President also has sent Congress
legislation which would deal heavier blows against organized crime and would
improve the Nation's court system.
There has been special emphasis on law enforcement in each of the
Administration's anticrime measures. The President wants criminals off the
streets, and he knows there is no surer way to get them off the streets than to
help build up law enforcement in this country.
The Nixon Administration has made the fight against crime one of its
central concerns. While other departmental budgets have been cut in a hold-down
(more)
-4-
on Federal spending, the Justice Department budget has been increased. The level
of law enforcement activity and narcotics control has been stepped up.
The Nixon Administration recognizes, as do all of you, that the first
civil right of every American -- black or white -- is the right to protection from
crime and violence.
I wish our Negro leaders throughout America would recognize that. I wish
they would accept the responsibility for informing their people that it is
primarily the poor blacks who are the victims of violent crime in our country.
I wish all of our Negro leaders would emulate Sterling Tucker, vice-chairman of
the Washington, D.C., City Council, who recently spoke out in support of vigorous
law enforcement and condemned those who tacitly condone violations of the law.
It is said there can be no progress without order. I subscribe to that.
I would add that there cannot long be order without progress. I believe
the Nixon Administration is promoting the kind of order and the kind of progress
which will operate together to move this country forward.
We need a responsible common-sense approach to our urban problems. We are
getting it from President Nixon.
The primary Nixon answer to the urban crisis is jobs and job training. The
accent is on the solid American ethic of working for a living. The President's
approach is based on the idea that a man never stands so tall as when he stands
on his own two feet.
This is why President Nixon has proposed the first major reform of this
country's welfare system since it first was established. This is why the President
urges Workfare instead of Welfare. This is the way of dignity and decency. This
is the American way. A hand up instead of a handout. That's the only way to
bridge the gap between the Haves and Have-Nots in America.
I think President Nixon has managed to bring order to this country. He has
managed to do so because he has brought order to the Presidency. We now find
that the days of government by crisis have given way to crisis prevention. The
scatter-gun approach is yielding to an assembling of new priorities.
Welfare reform is just one of the great array of reforms proposed by
President Nixon -- reforms which I believe the American people have long wanted.
Draft reform which will make the selective service system as fair as possible
until we can establish a truly all-volunteer Army; postal reform which will create
a government-owned self-supporting postal corporation in place of the present
impossible system; poverty program reform which keeps the Office of Economic
(more)
-5-
Opportunity as an innovative agency but spins off successful experimental programs
to old-line Government departments; manpower training reform which consolidates
Federal manpower training programs; tax reform which takes millions of poor citizens
off the taxrolls, reduces taxes for millions of other low-income Americans, gives
a long-deserved break to middle-income individuals, and prevents the most wealthy
from escaping taxation altogether; a New Federalism which provides an increasing
slice of Federal income tax revenue for the cities and states and gives them new
vigor as solvers of the problems to which they are closest; a decentralization of
government authority which places greater reliance on local officials and greater
power in the hands of the people.
Decentralization of government authority -- flow of power back to the cities
and states, back to the people. This is a central theme of the Nixon Administration.
Power concentrated in Washington is not always effective power. It is
sometimes self-defeating. The Federal bureaucracy is most complex, and it feeds
upon itself. As it grows larger, the Federal Government's ability to help solve
local problems often grows less.
I would like to quote to you from remarks made last May 29 at the 75th
annual convention of the Pennsylvania Bankers Association in Atlantic City, N.J.
"Thirty odd years ago the federal establishment was small, as some of you
will remember, and income taxes were around 2 or 3 per cent. Most people didn't
pay any at all. And then Franklin Roosevelt was elected, and then for the first
time the control of our government fell into the hands of modern liberals and
their view was that the power of the federal government should be used to
treat and to cure this country's social ills. Well, they did treat a few and
they improved a few, but they didn't cure any. They started Social Security,
guarantees of bank deposits and a few other things that were useful and helpful,
but they also brought to Washington what might be called the illusion of
bureaucratic omnipotence, the illusion that if a government collects enough money,
creats enough agencies and enough bureaus, and worms its way far enough into the
private aspects of American life it will make us all prosperous, healthy and happy.
"Well, Max Weber, the sociologist, proved a long time ago that a big
bureaucracy, once it is established, ceases to work at the job it was given to do
and begins working only for itself, trying ahead of all else to increase its
budget, its staff, its size and its power."
I imagine every man in this room thinks those words were spoken by a
deep-dyed conservative. Not SO. The author of those words is David Brinkley,
(more)
-6-
the radio and television commentator who on more than one occasion has described
himself as a liberal and did so at the Pennsylvania Bankers convention.
Brinkley went on to say he had visited about 40 states in the last few
months and had found Americans wanting a change, "a basic change." He added that
"there is every sign of a deep distrust of the present size and style of the
Washington establishment and of the kind of leadership we have had from it for
about 20 years."
Richard Nixon is dedicated to producing the kind of change of which David
Brinkley spoke.
That is why he is talking about reversing the flow of power from Washington
to the states and cities. That is why he has reduced Federal employment by 48,000.
That is why he is talking about sharing Federal income tax revenue with the
cities and states. He wants to implement the basic change the people so desperately
desire.
Not long ago President Nixon, in a nice way, asked the Congress to help
him bring about the basic changes the American people are asking for. He conceded
that some of the slowness in the legislative process could be attributed to the
newness of his own administration.
Then he made the reform theme clear. He said: "The legislative program of
this Administration differs fundamentally from previous administrations. We do
not seek more and more of the same. We were not elected to pile new resources and
manpower on top of old programs. We were elected to initiate an era of change."
In effect, the President said to the Congress: I am not going to argue about
why so little has been done to date. But this is what I have proposed. Now what
are you going to do about it?
That, I think, is a fair question. And it is a fair question not only to ask
of the Congress but of the American people. What are we going to do about it?
Let us not look only to the National Administration for correction of our
past mistakes. We all have a stake in our Nation. Let us all assume some of the
responsibility for setting the affairs of our country in order.
There is too much of an attitude today that "all is fine so long as I get
mine." We msut rid ourselves of that approach. We must all become selfless if
America is to survive as a Nation and a people. We must individually and
collectively seek the greatest good for the greatest number.
The responsibility for guiding the future of America rests not only with the
Congress, not only with governmental leaders, not only with the President. That
(more)
-7-
responsibility devolves upon us all. Each of our lives impinges upon the lives
of others. To the extent that we all live the good life, the unselfish life,
the lives of all others are enriched.
We all believe in the American Dream. Let us live so that all may share
in it.
###