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
4526354
label
Howard Payne College, Brownwood, TX, March 22, 1971
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526354
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Howard Payne College, Brownwood, TX, March 22, 1971
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Cambodia
Israel
Soviet Union
Environmental protection
Middle East conflicts
Revenue sharing
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526354
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1971-03-31
month
3
year
1971
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1971-03-01
month
3
year
1971
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
ce9f8262b9e06dce
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D31, folder "Howard Payne College,
Brownwood, TX, March 22, 1971" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D31 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
HOWARD PAYNE COLLEGE, BROWNWOOD,
TEXAS , 10 A.M. MONDAY,
MARCH 22, 1971
I.T IS A PLEASURE TO BE HERE WITH
YOU. TODAY 1 WOULD LIKE TO TALK WITH
YOU ABOUT CHANGE- -- THE CHALLENGES OF
CHANGE IN THE SEVEN TIES.
WE ALL KNOW THAT MEN MUST BE
CHALLENGED TO STRIVE MIGHTILY AND TO
ACHIEVE LOFTY GOALS. WE KNOW THAT CHANGE
IS THE ESSENCE OF PROGRESS, THAT CHANGE
REQUIRES CHALLENGE, AND THAT CHALLENGE
INVOLVES THE CLASH OF DIFFERING IDEAS.
THIS IS THE KIND OF TIME WE ARE
LIVING IN -- A TIME OF CHALLENGE, A TIME
OF CHANGE A TIME WHEN DIFFERENT IDEAS ARE
COLLIDING
-2-
WE MEET IN EXCITING -- AND
TRYING TIMES. THESE ARE TIMES WHEN
MOMENTOUS DECISIONS MUST BE MADE --
DECISIONS TODAY WHICH WILL DETERMINE THE
QUALITY OF OUR LIVES TOMORROW.
IT IS A TIME FOR A REALISTIC
ASSESSMENT OF OUR PROBLEMS -- A TIME FOR
A RESOLVE TO SOLVE, THOSE PROBLEMS AS
QUICKLY AND EXPERTLY AS CIRCUMSTANCE WILL
PERMIT.
IT IS A TIME FOR POSITIVE ACTION,
FOR LEADERSHIP, FOR CREATIVITY, AND FOR
BOLDNESS.
THE CHALLENGE OF OUR TIMES IS TO
CONFRONT THE GREAT PROBLEMS AND TO EMPLOY
THE AMERICAN GENIUS AND THE SPIRIT OF
ENTHUSIASM NEEDED TO OVERCOME THEM.
HOW ARE WE TO DO THIS? THERE
MUST BE CREATED WITHIN OUR COUNTRY A
-3-
NEW FEELING OF COMMON PURPOSE -- A RESOLVE
WHICH WILL PRODUCE TWO-WAY COOPERATION
BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE, A
WORKING TOGETHER OF ONE WITH THE OTHER
TOWARD NEEDED SOLUTIONS.
I WILL TALK WITH YOU TODAY ABOUT
A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES -- THE CHALLENGE OF
MILITANT COMMUNISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND
INDOCHINA AND THE SEARCH FOR PEACE THE
CHALLENGE POSED BY THE ECONOMY, WHERE WE
MUST WRESTLE WITH THE HANGOVER FROM THE
INFLATIONARY BINGE OF THE LATE 1960's WHILE
MAKING A TRANSITION FROM WARTIME TO PEACETIME
THE CHALLENGE OF THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE
ASTRONOMICAL SUMS WILL BE NEEDED TO RESTORE
AND MAINTAIN OUR PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND
TO ASSURE OUR SURVIVAL, AND THE CHALLENGE
OF GOVERNMENTAL REFORM, WHERE WE MUST
RESTRUCTURE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SO IT
-4-
BECOMES THE SERVANT AND NOT THE MASTER
OF THE PEOPLE
I SPEAK FIRST ABOUT THE MIDDLE
EAST -- BECAUSE WHILE IT IS VIETNAM WHICH
HAS TORN THIS NATION APART AND RAVAGED ITS
SOUL IT IS IN THE MIDDLE EAST THAT THE
DANGER OF WORLD WAR III IS THE GREATEST
IT IS THERE THAT WE HAVE MOST TO FEAR
A
HEAD-ON COLLISION WITH THE OTHER NUCLEAR
SUPER-POWER, THE SOVIET UNION.
WE WORK CEASELESSLY FOR PEACE IN
THE MIDDLE EAST BUT ALL THE TIME WE ARE
AWARE THAT THE SOVIET UNION HAS ARROGANTLY
AND FLAGRANTLY EMBARKED ON A DRIVE TO TURN
THE MEDITERRANEAN INTO A RED SEA
UNDERMINE THE SOUTHERN FLANK OF NATO AND
EXPAND RUSSIAN INFLUENCE ACROSS AFRICA FROM
THE INDIAN OCEAN TO THE SOUTH ATLANTIC.
-5-
IF WE WERE TO ALLOW THE SOVIET
UNION TO CRUSH ISRAEL INDIRECTLY, THROUGH
THE WEAPONS THE SOVIETS HAVE PLACED IN
EGYPTIAN HANDS, THIS WOULD MEAN THE END
OF HOPE FOR ALL FREE NATIONS OF THE
MEDITERRANEAN AND EVEN WESTERN EUROPE. IT
WOULD GIVE THE SOVIET UNION DOMINANCE
THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST -- THROUGHOUT
THE ENTIRE MEDITERRANEAN AREA. / WE WILL NOT
LET THAT HAPPEN
THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST
IS MOST COMPLE
THERE WILL BE NO
SETTLEMENT UNTIL BOTH SIDES ARE PREPARED
TO MAKE SOME SACRIFICES.
THE ADMINISTRATION LAST AUGUST
PUT FORWARD THE INITIATIVE WHICH RESULTED
IN A CEASE-FIRE AND NOW THE JARRING TALKS.
SOME PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH
INDIRECT NEGOTIATIONS. THERE ARE
-6-
INDICATIONS THAT THE JARRING TALKS WILL
CONTINUE. THIS GIVES US REASON TO HOPE
THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE INCLINED
TO CONDEMN THE ISRAELIS FOR REFUSING TO
PULL BACK TO THEIR PREWAR BOUNDARIES.
PERSONALLY, IN VIEW OF PAST HISTORY, I FIND
ISRAEL'S ATTITUDE COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE.
A NATION WHICH IS CONFRONTED BY HOSTILE
POWERS BACKED BY THE MILITARY MIGHT OF THE
SOVIET UNION CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR SEEKING
SECURE AND DEFENSIBLE BORDERS.
WHILE WE SEEK TO ACHIEVE A SETTLE-
MENT OF THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT, WE
CONTINUE TO RESIST COMMUNIST AGGRESSION IN
SOUTHEAST ASIA AND TO WORK FOR PEACE IN
THAT WAR-TORN REGION OF THE WORLD.
SOME CRITICS CHARGE THAT PRESIDENT
NIXON HAS WIDENED THE VIETNAM WAR THIS IS
A FICTION. IT IS NORTH VIETNAM WHICH MADE
-7-
THE
^ VIETNAM WAR AN INDOCHINA WAR -- BY USING
LAOS AND CAMBODIA AS SUPPLY AND STAGING
AREAS FOR ATTACKS ON SOUTH VIETNAM.
THE VIETNAM WAR IS A POLITICAL
WAR, BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE
ALLIED FORCES SHOULD IGNORE SOUND MILITARY
POLICY.
SOUND MILITARY POLICY DICTATED
THAT THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE MOVE INTO
CAMBODIA AND LAOS, SEEK TO DISRUPT THE
COMMUNISTS SUPPLY LINES AND HIT THE ENEMY
IN SANCTUARIES USED TO LAUNCH ATTACKS
AGAINST SOUTH VIETNAM.
THE CAMBODIAN OPERATION WAS A
GREAT SUCCESS. I SUPPORTED IT FROM THE
OUTSET / THE TREMENDOUS IMPROVEMENT IN OUR
CASUALTY FIGURES IS TANGIBLE PROOF OF OUR
SUCCESS.
TWO
YEARS AGO AMERICAN COMBAT
DEATHS AVERAGED 278 A WEEK. IN 1969 THE
-8-
FIGURE DECREASED TO AN AVERAGE OF 180.
IN 1970 U.S. CASUALTIES FELL TO 80 AND IN
THE LAST SIX MONTHS THEY HAVE DIMINISHED
TO 51.
I ALSO SUPPORT THE LAOTIAN
INCURSION. IF IT IS SUCCESSFUL -- AND I
BELIEVE IT WILL BE DESPITE THE TOUGH
GOING -- GREAT BENEFITS WILL FLOW FROM IT.
AT A MINIMUM, EFFECTIVE
DISRUPTION OF ENEMY SUPPLY LINES IN LAOS
WILL PREVENT MAJOR ENEMY ATTACKS ON SOUTH
VIETNAM FOR SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR.
MEANTIME, U.S. WITHDRAWALS FROM SOUTH
VIETNAM WILL BE ACCELERATED IN TIME AND
NUMBER
WE HAVE DRAWN OUR FORCES IN
VIETNAM DOWN FROM AN AUTHORIZED STRENGTH
OF 549,500 MEN TO 326,000 -- AND WE WILL
BE DOWN TO 284,000 MEN BY MAY 1. IN APRIL,
-9-
THE PRESIDENT WILL HAVE AN OPTION TO
ANNOUNCE FURTHER WITHDRAWALS.
OUR GOAL IN VIETNAM IS TO MAKE
IT POSSIBLE FOR THE SOUTH VIETNAMESE TO
DETERMINE THEIR OWN FUTURE. WITH THE
INCURSIONS INTO CAMBODIA AND LAOS AND
CONTINUED PROGRESS IN VIETNAMIZATION, WE
HAVE MOVED CONSIDERABLY CLOSER TO THAT
GOAL. PROSPECTS ARE GOOD THAT WE WILL
ACHIEVE IT.
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SEE THE
SOUTH VIETNAMESE GOVERNMENT GAIN THE
UPPER HAND AGAINST THE COMMUNISTS CANNOT
HELP BUT BE HEARTENED BY THE INCURSIONS
INTO CAMBODIA AND LAOS.
A YEAR AGO AT THIS TIME THE ENEMY
HAD A PORT THROUGH WHICH SUPPLIES WERE
POURING -- THE PORT OF STHANOUKVILLE,
NOW CALLED KAMPONG SOM. WITH THE HELP OF
-10-
PRINCE SIHANOUK'S GOVERNMENT, ENEMY SUPPLIES
CAME UP HIGHWAY 4 THROUGH PNOMH PENH AND
FLOWED INTO THE SANCTUARY AREAS OPPOSITE
THE BORDER OF SOUTH VIETNAM, 30 MILES
FROM SAIGON.
THE NORTH VIETNAMESE HAD SEIZED
A CORRIDOR OF LAND EXTENDING ALL THE WAY
FROM THE NORTHERN PANHANDLE OF LAOS THROUGH
THE HO CHI MINH TRAIL AND ALONG THE BORDER
WITH SOUTH VIETNAM AND CAMBODIA, ALL THE
WAY TO THE SEA. FROM THIS SANCTUARY AREA
THE ENEMY MOUNTED HIS ATTACKS AGAINST
SOUTH VIETNAM AND AGAINST U.S. FORCES.
FOLLOWING THE CAMBODIAN
CROSS-BORDER OPERATIONS LAST SPRING, THIS
SANCTUARY AREA WAS CLEANED OUT ALONG THE
SOUTH VIETNAMESE BORDER, AND THE NEW
GOVERNMENT OF LON NOL IN CAMBODIA SHUT OFF
THE USE OF SIHANOUKVILLE PORT SO THAT THE
-11-
ENEMY FOUND HIMSELF TOTALLY DEPENDENT ON
THE SUPPLIES COMING DOWN THE HO CHI MINH
TRAIL.
IN 1971 IT MADE GOOD SENSE NOT
ONLY TO MOVE IN AGAINST THE SANCTUARIES
THE ENEMY WAS ATTEMPTING TO REESTABLISH
IN CAMBODIA BUT TO MOVE INTO THE TRAIL AREAS
IN LAOS AT THE MOST VULNERABLE POINTS IN
ORDER TO COMPLETELY DISRUPT THE ENEMY SUPPLY
EFFORT.
IF THE LAOTIAN OPERATION SUCCEEDS,
IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THE SOUTH
VIETNAMESE CAN STAND UP AGAINST THE
COMMUNIST THREAT WHEN THE MILITARY BURDEN
IS TURNED OVER TO THEM COMPLETELY. I LOOK
FORWARD TO SALUTING AN INDEPENDENT AND VIABLE
SOUTH VIETNAM,
OUR WITHDRAWAL FROM SOUTH VIETNAM
HAS, OF COURSE, HAD A TREMENDOUS IMPACT
-12-
ON OUR ECONOMY. AND AT THE SAME TIME THAT
WE HAVE REDUCED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
PERSONNEL BY 750,000 AND CUT VIETNAM WAR
SPENDING IN HALF, WE HAVE DELIBERATELY
COOLED OFF THE REST OF THE ECONOMY TO
BRING INFLATION UNDER CONTROL.
NOW WE MUST STIMULATE THE ECONOMY
WHILE CONTINUING TO FIGHT INFLATION. WE
ARE DOING EXACTLY THAT.
WE HAVE CRACKED DOWN ON STEEL
AND OIL PRICE INCREASES AND ON INFLATIONARY
PRESSURES IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.
THE PRESIDENT HAS SENT THE CONGRESS
A FULL EMPLOYMENT BUDGET WHICH IS
OBVIOUSLY EXPANSIONARY. THE FEDERAL RESERVE
IS COO PERATING ALTHOUGHIT
BOARDACANNOT MAKE ANY COMMITMENTS.
WE HAVE ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION
ON NEW PLANT AND EQUIPMENT FOR TAX PURPOSES.
-13-
WHAT WE NEED NOW IS AN UPSURGE
CONSUMER
OFXCONFIDENCE TO GET THE ECONOMY ROLLING.
WE CAN RELY ON PRESIDENT NIXON'S
PREDICTION THAT 1971 WILL BE A GOOD YEAR
AND 1972 WILL BE BETTER.
I ALSO SEE 1971 AS A GOOD YEAR
AND 1972 AS BETTER AS WE STEP UP OUR
EFFORTS TO ENHANCE OUR PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT.
TWO KEY ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN
ESTABLISHED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL TO FIGHT
POLLUTION, AND BOTH ARE WORKING
AGGRESSIVELY. ONE IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, WHICH HAS TAKEN STRONG
ACTION AGAINST POLLUTION an THE LAND, IN
THE AIR AND IN THE WATER. THE OTHER IS
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY.
WHILE 1970 WAS A YEAR OF PROGRESS,
WE MUST GREATLY IMPROVE UPON WHAT HAS BEEN
-14-
DONE. PRESIDENT NIXON HAS PROPOSED A
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM, EMBRACING NOT ONLY
TOUGH PLANS FOR AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL BUT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL
LAND USE POLICY. HIS PROGRAM WILL BE
IMPLEMENTED THROUGH BILLS SENT TO
CAPITOL HILL. IT IS TIME FOR THE CONGRESS
TO ACT.
CONGRESS ACTED LAST YEAR ON AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL WITH THE TOUGH CLEAN AIR
AMENDMENTS OF 1970. THOSE PROVISIONS WILL
BE CARRIED OUT IN THE MONTHS AHEAD.
I AM SURE THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MEET
AUTOMOTIVE CLEAN AIR STANDARDS BY THE
DEADLINES OF 1975 AND 1976. AT THE SAME
TIME, I FEEL SURE THAT REALITIES WILL BE
RECOGNIZED IN THE EVENT THAT ALL POSSIBLE
EFFORTS FAIL TO BRING ACHIEVEMENT OF GOALS
-15-
BY THE DEADLINES NOW ESTABLISHED.
THERE IS STILL GREATER CHALLENGE
THAN RESTORING OUR ENVIRONMENT -- ONE THAT
IS PERHAPS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT OF
ATTAINMENT.
I SPEAK OF PROVIDING ALL OF OUR
CITIZENS WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO
PARTICIPATE IN AMERICAN SOCIETY AND IN
THE SHAPING OF GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS
AFFECTING THEIR LIVES.
THIS IS A CHALLENGE WHICH
ECLIPSES ALL OTHERS
IT IS CENTRAL TO OUR
FUTURE AS A NATION
IT IS BASIC TO OUR
GROWTH AS A PEOPLE
IT GOES TO OUR
PHILOSOPHY OF GOVERNMENT AND TOUCHES THE
LIVES OF EVERY ONE OF US.
THE CHALLENGE IS WHETHER ANY MAN
WOMAN OR CHILD REALLY COUNTS IN AMERICA
ANYMORE -- WHETHER THE SYSTEM HAS BECOME
-16-
MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE INDIVIDUAL --
WHETHER WE HAVE ALL BECOME JUST DIGITS
CRANKED INTO A COMPUTER OPERATED BY A
FACELESS BUREAUCRACY.
THERE IS A BETTER WAY -- A
BETTER
WAY TO CONTROL THE VAST FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY.
THE ANSWER IS "FEDERAL REVENUE
SHARING." IT IS AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS
COME.
I TALK ABOUT IT TODAY NOT IN A
PARTISAN VEIN. THERE ARE DEMOCRATS WHO
SUPPORT IT, AS WELL AS SOME WHO OPPOSE IT.
LET'S LOOK AT REVENUE SHARING
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
WHAT IS THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS FOR
REVENUE SHARING? I BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENT
IS BEST WHICH IS CLOSEST TO THE PEOPLE.
WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT ASKING? HE
IS ASKING THE CONGRESS TO APPROPRIATE
-17-
$5 BILLION TO BE SHARED BY THE STATES AND
CITIES WITH NO STRINGS ATTACHED. THIS
COMES UNDER THE HEADING OF GENERAL REVENUE
SHARING. HE IS ALSO ASKING THE CONGRESS
TO TAKE ABOUT 130 CATEGORICAL GRANT-IN-AID
PROGRAMS, LUMP THEM TOGETHER UNDER THE SIX
GENERAL PURPOSE HEADINGS OF EDUCATION,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
TRANSPORTATION, JOB TRAINING AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND LET THE STATES AND CITIES
DECIDE HOW TO PURSUE THEIR PRIORITIES UNDER
THOSE BROAD PURPOSES.
WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS SAYING IS
GIVE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT A CHANCE
LET'S TRANSFER TO THE LOCAL POLITICAL ARENA
HUNDREDS OF DECISIONS NOW BEING MADE IN
WASHINGTON OR THE ADMINISTRATION'S REGIONAL
OFFICES
WHEN THIS NATION FIRST WAS FORMED,
-18-
COUNTLESS IMPORTANT DECISIONS WERE MADE
IN TOWN MEETINGS ACROSS THE LAND
THEN
SLOWLY
BUT SURELY, MORE AND MORE OF THE POWER
FLOWED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THIS WAS
INEVITABLE AS THE NATION GREW. MORE AND
MORE OF ITS PROBLEMS BECAME NATIONAL IN
SCOPE, DEMANDING NATIONAL ANSWERS.
WITH THE ADVENT OF THE NEW DEAL,
A REVOLUTION OCCURRED. A PEOPLE PARALYZED
BY A GREAT DEPRESSION SAW THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ASSUME POWERS NEVER BEFORE
VISUALIZED. A CRISIS WAS AT HAND. EXTREME
MEASURES WERE CALLED FOR.
TODAY WE ARE LIVING THROUGH A NEW
KIND OF CRISIS -- A CRISIS WHICH HAS SO
SLOWED THE WHEELS OF SOCIAL PROGRESS AS TO
CREATE A NEW KIND OF PARALYSIS, THE
PARALYSIS OF MUSCLEBOUND GOVERNMENT WITH
TOO MUCH POWER AND MONEY IN THE HANDS OF
THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY.
-19-
PRESIDENT NIXON HAS POINTED TO
A WAY OUT OF THIS CRISIS -- A WAY TO PROVE
THAT GOVERNMENT CAN WORK.
IT CAN BE DONE BY BRINGING
GOVERNMENT BACK TO THE PEOPLE -- BY MAKING
AN INVESTMENT IN THE LOCAL POLITICAL
PROCESS THROUGH FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING.
STATUS QUO GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE
ACCEPTED. AS TIMES CHANGE, WE MUST REFORM
GOVERNMENT -- SO THAT INSTEAD OF SLIDING
FURTHER INTO MUSCLEBOUND INEFFECTIVENESS
IT AT LAST CAN DELIVER THE SERVICES IT
PROMISES AND BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN PROMISE
AND PERFORMANCE.
THROUGH FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING --
BY PUTTING THE MONEY WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE --
WE WILL BE RETURNING GOVERNMENT TO THE
PEOPLE. AS ABRAHAM LINCOLN SO WELL
EXPRESSED IT, "IN LEAVING THE PEOPLE'S
-20-
BUSINESS IN THEIR HANDS, WE CANNOT BE
WRONG."
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL BE
HEARD -- AND THEY SHOULD BE HEARD, AT ALL
LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT.
THERE IS OPPOSITION TO REVENUE
SHARING. BUT WHAT MAN HAS MADE, MAN CAN
CHANGE. AND WE MUST HAVE THE COURAGE TO
CHANGE WHAT SHOULD BE CHANGED
MONEY IS POWER. MOVING MONEY BACK
TO THE STATES AND CITIES MEANS A FLOW OF
POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE. THIS IS WHERE
THE POWER BELONGS.
EVERY INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO COUNT
FOR SOMETHING. UNDER THE REVENUE - SHAR ING
PHILOSOPHY OF GOVERNMENT, HE CAN.
WE MUST THINK IN TERMS OF PEOPLE,
NOT JUST PROGRAMS. WE MUST REPLACE
COMPUTERS WITH COMPASSION.
-21-
LINCOLN SAID: "THIS COUNTRY,
WITH ITS INSTITUTIONS, BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE
WHO INHABIT IT."
LET'S MAKE THIS COUNTRY BELONG TO
THE PEOPLE AGAIN. LET'S GIVE THE
INDIVIDUAL THE FEELING OF DETERMINING HIS
OWN DESTINY OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE THINGS
HAPPEN.
THIS IS OLD POLITICS. THIS IS
NEW POLITICS. THIS IS THE SHAPE OF THINGS
TO COME. THIS IS THE RIGHT RESPONSE TO THE
GREATEST CHALLENGE OF THE SEVENTIES. THIS
IS THE WAY TO BUILD A NEW AND GREATER
AMERICA.
-- END --
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOWARD PAYNE COLLEGE
BROWNWOOD, TEXAS
10 A.M. MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1971
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
It is a pleasure to be here with you. Today I would like to talk with you
about change--the Challenges of Change in the Seventies.
We all know that men must be challenged to strive mightily and to achieve
lofty goals. We know that change is the essence of progress, that change requires
challenge, and that challenge involves the clash of differing ideas.
This is the kind of time we are living in--a time of challenge, a time of
change, a time when different ideas are colliding.
We meet in exciting--and trying times. These are times when momentous
decisions must be made--decisions today which will determine the quality of our
lives tomorrow.
It is a time for a realistic assessment of our problems-- time for a
resolve to solve those problems as quickly and expertly as circumstance will permit.
It is a time for positive action, for leadership, for creativity, and for
boldness.
The challenge of our times is to confront the great problems and to employ
the American genius and the spirit of enthusiasm needed to overcome them.
How are we to do this? There must be created within our country a new
feeling of common purpose--a resolve which will produce two-way cooperation
between government and the people, a working together of one with the other toward
needed solutions.
I will talk with you today about a number of challenges--the challenge of
militant Communism in the Middle East and Indochina and the search for peace; the
challenge posed by the economy, where we must wrestle with the hangover from the
inflationary binge of the late 1960s while making a transition from wartime to
peacetime; the challenge of the environment, where astronomical sums will be needed
to restore and maintain our physical environment and to assure our survival; and
the challenge of governmental reform, where we must restructure the Federal govern-
ment so it becomes the servant and not the master of the people.
(more)
-2-
I speak first about the Middle East--because while it is Vietnam which has
torn this Nation apart and ravaged its soul it is in the Middle East that the
danger of World War III is the greatest. It is there that we have most to fear a
head-on collision with the other nuclear super-power, the Soviet Union.
We work ceaselessly for peace in the Middle East, but all the time we are
aware that the Soviet Union has arrogantly and flagrantly embarked on a drive to
turn the Mediterranean into a red sea, undermine the southern flank of NATO, and
expand Russian influence across Africa from the Indian Ocean to the South Atlantic.
If we were to allow the Soviet Union to crush Israel indirectly, through
the weapons the Soviets have placed in Egyptian hands, this would mean the end of
hope for all free nations of the Mediterranean and even western Europe. It would
give the Soviet Union dominance throughout the Middle East--thrcughout the entire
Mediterranean area. We will not let that happen.
The situation in the Middle East is most complex. There will be no settle-
ment until both sides are prepared to make some sacrifices.
The Administration last August put forward the initiative which resulted in
a cease-fire and now the Jarring Talks. Some progress has been made through
indirect negotiations. There are indications that the Jarring Talks will continue.
This gives us reason to hope.
There are those who are inclined to condemn the Israelis for refusing to pull
back to their prewar boundaries. Personally, in view of past history, I find
Israel's attitude completely understandable. A nation which is confronted by
hostile powers backed by the military might of the Soviet Union cannot be blamed
for seeking secure and defensible borders.
While we seek to achieve a settlement of the Middle East conflict, we
continue to resist Communist aggression in Southeast Asia and to work for peace
in that war-torn region of the world.
Some critics charge that President Nixon has widened the Vietnam War. This
is a fiction. It is North Vietnam which made the Vietnam War an Indochina War-by
using Laos and Cambodia as supply and staging areas for attacks on South Vietnam.
The Vietnam War is a political war, but this does not mean that the Allied
Forces should ignore sound military policy.
Sound military policy dictated that the South Vietnamese move into Cambodia
and Laos, seek to disrupt the Communists' supply lines and hit the enemy in
sanctuaries used to launch attacks against South Vietnam.
(more)
-3-
The Cambodian Operation was a great success. I supported it from the outset.
The tremendous improvement in our casualty figures is tangible proof of our success.
Two years ago American combat deaths averaged 278 a week. In 1969 the figure
decreased to an average of 180. In 1970 U.S. casualties fell to 80, and in the
last six months they have diminished to 51.
I also support the Laotian incursion. If it is successful--and I believe it
will be despite the tough going-great benefits will flow from it.
At a minimum, effective disruption of enemy supply lines in Laos will
prevent major enemy attacks on South Vietnam for six months to a year. Meantime,
U.S. withdrawals from South Vietnam will be accelerated in time and number.
We have drawn our forces in Vietnam down from an authorized strength of
549,500 men to 326,000--and we will be down to 284,000 men by May 1. In April,
the President will have an option to announce further withdrawals.
Our goal in Vietnam 1S to make it possible for the South Vietnamese to
determine their own future. With the incursions into Cambodia and Laos and
continued progress in Vietnamization, we have moved considerably closer to that
goal. Prospects are good that we will achieve it.
Anyone who wants to see the South Vietnamese government gain the upper hand
against the Communists cannot help but be heartened by the incursions into Cambodia
and Laos.
A year ago at this time the enemy had a port through which supplies were
pouring--the port of Sihanoukville, now called Kompong Som. With the help of
Prince Sihanouk's government, enemy supplies came up Highway 4 through Pnomh Penh
and flowed into the sanctuary areas opposite the border of South Vietnam, 30 miles
from Saigon.
The North Vietnamese had seized a corridor of land extending all the way
from the northern Panhandle of Laos through the Ho Chi Minh Trail and along the
border with South Vietnam and Cambodia, all the way to the sea. From this sanctuary
area the enemy mounted his attacks against South Vietnam and against U.S. forces.
Following the Cambodian cross-border operations last spring, this sanctuary
area was cleaned out along the South Vietnamese border, and the new government of
Lon Nol in Cambodia shut off the use of Sihanoukville port so that the enemy found
himself totally dependent on the supplies coming down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
In 1971 it made good sense not only to move in against the sanctuaries the
enemy was attempting to reestablish in Cambodia but to move into the trail areas
(more)
-4-
in Laos at the most vulnerable points in order to completely disrupt the enemy
supply effort.
If the Laotian operation succeeds, it is reasonable to assume that the
South Vietnamese can stand up against the Communist threat when the military burden
is turned over to them completely. I look forward to saluting an independent and
viable South Vietnam.
Our withdrawal from South Vietnam has, of course, had 8. tremendous impact
on our economy. And at the same time that we have reduced Defense Department
personnel by 750,000 and cut Vietnam War spending in half, we have deliberately
cooled off the rest of the economy to bring inflation under control.
Now we must stimulate the economy while continuing to fight inflation. We
are doing exactly that.
We have cracked down on steel and oil price increases and on inflationary
pressures in the construction industry.
The President has sent the Congress a full employment budget which is
obviously expansionary. The Federal Reserve Board is cooperating as far as
monetary policy is concerned, although the Board cannot make any commitments.
We have accelerated depreciation on new plant and equipment for tax
purposes.
What we need now is an upsurge of consumer confidence to get the economy
rolling.
We can rely on President Nixon's prediction that 1971 will be a good year
and 1972 will be better.
I also see 1971 as a good year and 1972 as better as we step up our efforts
to enhance our physical environment.
Two key organizations have been established at the Federal level to fight
pollution, and both are working aggressively. One is the Environmental Protection
Agency, which has taken strong action against pollution on the land, in the air and
in the water. The other is the President's Council on Environmental Quality.
While 1970 was a year of progress, we must greatly improve upon what has
been done. President Nixon has proposed a comprehensive program, embracing not only
tough plans for air and water pollution control but the establishment of a national
land use policy. His program will be implemented through 21 bills sent to Capitol
Hill. It is time for the Congress to act.
Congress acted last year on air pollution control with the tough Clean Air
Amendments of 1970. Those provisions will be carried out in the months ahead.
(more)
-5-
I am sure the automotive industry will do everything possible to meet
automotive clean air standards by the deadlines of 1975 and 1976. At the same
time, I feel sure that realities will be recognized in the event that all possible
efforts fail to bring achievement of our goals by the deadlines now established.
There is a still greater challenge than restoring our environment--one that
is perhaps even more difficult of attainment.
I speak of providing all of our citizens with an opportunity to participate
in American society and in the shaping of governmental decisions affecting their
lives.
This is a challenge which eclipses all others. It is central to our future
as a Nation. It is basic to our growth as a people. It goes to our philosophy
of government and touches the lives of every one of us.
The challenge is whether any man, woman or child really counts in America
anymore-whether the system has become more important than the individual--whether
we have all become just, digits cranked into a computer operated by a faceless
bureaucracy.
There is a better way--a better way to control the vast federal bureaucracy.
The answer is "Federal Revenue Sharing." It is an idea whose time has come.
I talk about it today not in a partisan vein. There are Democrats who
support it, as well as some who oppose it.
Let's look at revenue sharing from the standpoint of political philosophy.
What is the conceptual basis for revenue sharing? I believe that government
is best which is closest to the people.
What is the President asking? He is asking the Congress to appropriate
$5 billion to be shared by the states and cities with no strings attached. This
comes under the heading of general revenue sharing. He is also asking the Congress
to take about 130 categorical grant-in-aid programs, lump them together under six
general purpose headings of education, urban development, rural development,
transportation, job training and law enforcement and let the states and cities
decide how to pursue their priorities under those broad purposes.
What the President is saying is
give State and local government a chance.
Let's transfer to the local political arena hundreds of decisions now being made
in Washington or the Administration's regional offices.
When this nation first was formed, countless important decisions were made
in town meetings across the land. Slowly but surely, more and more of the power
(more)
-6-
flowed to the central government. This was inevitable as the nation grew. More
and more of its problems became national in scope, demanding national answers.
With the advent of the New Deal, a revolution occurred. A people paralyzed
by a great depression saw the Federal Government assume powers never before
visualized. A crisis was at hand. Extreme measures were called for.
Today we are living through a new kind of crisis-a crisis which has so
slowed the wheels of social progress as to create a new kind of paralysis,
of musclebound government with too much power and money in the hands of the federal
bureaucracy.
President Nixon has pointed to a way out of this crisis--a way to prove that
government can work.
It can be done by bringing government back to the people--by making an
investment in the local political process through Federal revenue sharing. Status
quo government cannot be accepted. As times change, we must reform government--so
that instead of sliding further into musclebound ineffectiveness it at last can
deliver the services it promises and bridge the gap between promise and performance.
Through Federal revenue sharing--by putting the money where the problems
are--we will be returning government to the people. As Abraham Lincoln so well
expressed it, "In leaving the people's business in their hands, we cannot be wrong."
The American people will be heard--and they should be heard, at all levels
of government.
There is opposition to revenue sharing. But what man has made, man can
change. And we must have the courage to change what should be changed.
Money is power. Moving money back to the states and cities means a flow
of power back to the people. This is where the power belongs.
Every individual wants to count for something. Under the revenue-sharing
philosophy of government, he can.
We must think in terms of people, not just programs. We must replace
computers with compassion.
Lincoln said: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people
who inhabit it."
Let's make this country belong to the people again. Let's give the individual
the feeling of determining his own destiny, of being able to make things happen.
This is old politics. This is new politics. This is the shape of things to
come. This is the right response to the greatest challenge of the Seventies. This
is the way to build a new and greater America.
# # #
Distribution 15copies to mr. Ford only
moffice Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOWARD PAYNE COLLEGE
BROWNWOOD, TEXAS
10 A.M. MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1971
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
It is a pleasure to be here with you. Today I would like to talk with you
about change--the Challenges of Change in the Seventies.
We all know that men must be challenged to strive mightily and to achieve
lofty goals. We know that change is the essence of progress, that change requires
challenge, and that challenge involves the clash of differing ideas.
This is the kind of time we are living in--a time of challenge, a time of
change, a time when different ideas are colliding.
We meet in exciting--and trying times. These are times when momentous
decisions must be made--decisions today which will determine the quality of our
lives tomorrow.
It is a time for a realistic assessment of our problems--a time for a
resolve to solve those problems as quickly and expertly as circumstance will permit.
It is a time for positive action, for leadership, for creativity, and for
boldness.
The challenge of our times is to confront the great problems and to employ
the American genius and the spirit of enthusiasm needed to overcome them.
How are we to do this? There must be created within our country a new
feeling of common purpose--a resolve which will produce two-way cooperation
between government and the people, a working together of one with the other toward
needed solutions.
I will talk with you today about a number of challenges--the challenge of
militant Communism in the Middle East and Indochina and the search for peace; the
challenge posed by the economy, where we must wrestle with the hangover from the
inflationary binge of the late 1960s while making a transition from wartime to
peacetime; the challenge of the environment, where astronomical sums will be needed
to restore and maintain our physical environment and to assure our survival; and
the challenge of governmental reform, where we must restructure the Federal govern-
ment so it becomes the servant and not the master of the people.
(more)
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
I speak first about the Middle East--because while it is Vietnam which has
torn this Nation apart and ravaged its soul it is in the Middle East that the
danger of World War III is the greatest. It is there that we have most to fear a
head-on collision with the other nuclear super-power, the Soviet Union.
We work ceaselessly for peace in the Middle East, but all the time we are
aware that the Soviet Union has arrogantly and flagrantly embarked on a drive to
turn the Mediterranean into a red sea, undermine the southern flank of NATO, and
expand Russian influence across Africa from the Indian Ocean to the South Atlantic.
If we were to allow the Soviet Union to crush Israel indirectly, through
the weapons the Soviets have placed in Egyptian hands, this would mean the end of
hope for all free nations of the Mediterranean and even western Europe. It would
give the Soviet Union dominance throughout the Middle East--throughout the entire
Mediterranean area. We will not let that happen.
The situation in the Middle East is most complex. There will be no settle-
ment until both sides are prepared to make some sacrifices.
The Administration last August put forward the initiative which resulted in
a cease-fire and now the Jarring Talks. Some progress has been made through
indirect negotiations. There are indications that the Jarring Talks will continue.
This gives us reason to hope.
There are those who are inclined to condemn the Israelis for refusing to pull
back to their prewar boundaries. Personally, in view of past history, I find
Israel's attitude completely understandable. A nation which is confronted by
hostile powers backed by the military might of the Soviet Union cannot be blamed
for seeking secure and defensible borders.
While we seek to achieve a settlement of the Middle East conflict, we
continue to resist Communist aggression in Southeast Asia and to work for peace
in that war-torn region of the world.
Some critics charge that President Nixon has widened the Vietnam War. This
is a fiction. It is North Vietnam which made the Vietnam War an Indochina War-by
using Laos and Cambodia as supply and staging areas for attacks on South Vietnam.
The Vietnam War is a political war, but this does not mean that the Allied
Forces should ignore sound military policy.
Sound military policy dictated that the South Vietnamese move into Cambodia
and Laos, seek to disrupt the Communists' supply lines and hit the enemy in
sanctuaries used to launch attacks against South Vietnam.
(more)
-3-
The Cambodian Operation was a great success. I supported it from the outset.
The tremendous improvement in our casualty figures is tangible proof of our success.
Two years ago American combat deaths averaged 278 a week. In 1969 the figure
decreased to an average of 180. In 1970 U.S. casualties fell to 80, and in the
last six months they have diminished to 51.
I also support the Laotian incursion. If it is successful--and I believe it
will be despite the tough going--great benefits will flow from it.
At a minimum, effective disruption of enemy supply lines in Laos will
prevent major enemy attacks on South Vietnam for six months to a year. Meantime,
U.S. withdrawals from South Vietnam will be accelerated in time and number.
We have drawn our forces in Vietnam down from an authorized strength of
549,500 men to 326,000--and we will be down to 284,000 men by May 1. In April,
the President will have an option to announce further withdrawals.
Our goal in Vietnam is to make it possible for the South Vietnamese to
determine their own future. With the incursions into Cambodia and Laos and
continued progress in Vietnamization, we have moved considerably closer to that
goal. Prospects are good that we will achieve it.
Anyone who wants to see the South Vietnamese government gain the upper hand
against the Communists cannot help but be heartened by the incursions into Cambodia
and Laos.
A year ago at this time the enemy had a port through which supplies were
pouring--the port of Sihanoukville, now called Kompong Som. With the help of
Prince Sihanouk's government, enemy supplies came up Highway 4 through Pnomh Penh
and flowed into the sanctuary areas opposite the border of South Vietnam, 30 miles
from Saigon.
The North Vietnamese had seized a corridor of land extending all the way
from the northern Panhandle of Laos through the Ho Chi Minh Trail and along the
border with South Vietnam and Cambodia, all the way to the sea. From this sanctuary
area the enemy mounted his attacks against South Vietnam and against U.S. forces.
Following the Cambodian cross-border operations last spring, this sanctuary
area was cleaned out along the South Vietnamese border, and the new government of
Lon Nol in Cambodia shut off the use of Sihanoukville port so that the enemy found
himself totally dependent on the supplies coming down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.
In 1971 it made good sense not only to move in against the sanctuaries the
enemy was attempting to reestablish in Cambodia but to move into the trail areas
(more)
-4-
in Laos at the most vulnerable points in order to completely disrupt the enemy
supply effort.
If the Laotian operation succeeds, it is reasonable to assume that the
South Vietnamese can stand up against the Communist threat when the military burden
is turned over to them completely. I look forward to saluting an independent and
viable South Vietnam.
Our withdrawal from South Vietnam has, of course, had a tremendous impact
on our economy. And at the same time that we have reduced Defense Department
personnel by 750,000 and cut Vietnam War spending in half, we have deliberately
cooled off the rest of the economy to bring inflation under control.
Now we must stimulate the economy while continuing to fight inflation. We
are doing exactly that.
We have cracked down on steel and oil price increases and on inflationary
pressures in the construction industry.
The President has sent the Congress a full employment budget which is
obviously expansionary. The Federal Reserve Board is cooperating as far as
monetary policy is concerned, although the Board cannot make any commitments.
We have accelerated depreciation on new plant and equipment for tax
purposes.
What we need now is an upsurge of consumer confidence to get the economy
rolling.
We can rely on President Nixon's prediction that 1971 will be a good year
and 1972 will be better.
I also see 1971 as a good year and 1972 as better as we step up our efforts
to enhance our physical environment.
Two key organizations have been established at the Federal level to fight
pollution, and both are working aggressively. One is the Environmental Protection
Agency, which has taken strong action against pollution on the land, in the air and
in the water. The other is the President's Council on Environmental Quality.
While 1970 was a year of progress, we must greatly improve upon what has
been done. President Nixon has proposed a comprehensive program, embracing not only
tough plans for air and water pollution control but the establishment of a national
land use policy. His program will be implemented through 21 bills sent to Capitol
Hill. It is time for the Congress to act.
Congress acted last year on air pollution control with the tough Clean Air
Amendments of 1970. Those provisions will be carried out in the months ahead.
(more)
GERAL
LIBRARY
-5-
I am sure the automotive industry will do everything possible to meet
automotive clean air standards by the deadlines of 1975 and 1976. At the same
time, I feel sure that realities will be recognized in the event that all possible
efforts fail to bring achievement of our goals by the deadlines now established.
There is a still greater challenge than restoring our environment--one that
is perhaps even more difficult of attainment.
I speak of providing all of our citizens with an opportunity to participate
in American society and in the shaping of governmental decisions affecting their
lives.
This is a challenge which eclipses all others. It is central to our future
as a Nation. It is basic to our growth as a people. It goes to our philosophy
of government and touches the lives of every one of US.
The challenge is whether any man, woman or child really counts in America
anymore-whether the system has become more important than the individual--whether
we have all become just, digits cranked into a computer operated by a faceless
bureaucracy.
There is a better way--a better way to control the vast federal bureaucracy.
The answer is "Federal Revenue Sharing." It is an idea whose time has come.
I talk about it today not in a partisan vein. There are Democrats who
support it, as well as some who oppose it.
Let's look at revenue sharing from the standpoint of political philosophy.
What is the conceptual basis for revenue sharing? I believe that government
is best which is closest to the people.
What is the President asking? He is asking the Congress to appropriate
$5 billion to be shared by the states and cities with no strings attached. This
comes under the heading of general revenue sharing. He is also asking the Congress
to take about 130 categorical grant-in-aid programs, lump them together under six
general purpose headings of education, urban development, rural development,
transportation, job training and law enforcement and let the states and cities
decide how to pursue their priorities under those broad purposes.
What the President is saying is give State and local government a chance.
Let's transfer to the local political arena hundreds of decisions now being made
in Washington or the Administration's regional offices.
When this nation first was formed, countless important decisions were made
in town meetings across the land. Slowly but surely, more and more of the power
(more)
-6-
flowed to the central government. This was inevitable as the nation grew. More
and more of its problems became national in scope, demanding national answers.
With the advent of the New Deal, a revolution occurred. A people paralyzed
by a great depression saw the Federal Government assume powers never before
visualized. A crisis was at hand. Extreme measures were called for.
Today we are living through a new kind of crisis-a crisis which has so
slowed the wheels of social progress as to create a new kind of paralysis,
of musclebound government with too much power and money in the hands of the federal
bureaucracy.
President Nixon has pointed to a way out of this crisis-a way to prove that
government can work.
It can be done by bringing government back to the people--by making an
investment in the local political process through Federal revenue sharing. Status
quo government cannot be accepted. As times change, we must reform government--so
that instead of sliding further into musclebound ineffectiveness it at last can
deliver the services it promises and bridge the gap between promise and performance.
Through Federal revenue sharing--by putting the money where the problems
are--we will be returning government to the people. As Abraham Lincoln so well
expressed it, "In leaving the people's business in their hands, we cannot be wrong."
The American people will be heard--and they should be heard, at all levels
of government.
There is opposition to revenue sharing. But what man has made, man can
change. And we must have the courage to change what should be changed.
Money is power. Moving money back to the states and cities means a flow
of power back to the people. This is where the power belongs.
Every individual wants to count for something. Under the revenue-sharing
philosophy of government, he can.
We must think in terms of people, not just programs. We must replace
computers with compassion.
Lincoln said: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people
who inhabit it."
Let's make this country belong to the people again. Let's give the individual
the feeling of determining his own destiny, of being able to make things happen.
This is old politics. This is new politics. This is the shape of things to
come. This is the right response to the greatest challenge of the Seventies. This
is the way to build a new and greater America.
# # #