Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4526521",
    "label": "Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, October-December 1967",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526521"
}

{
    "id": "4526521",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526521",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, October-December 1967",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526521",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Weekly Radio Reports"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Great Britain",
        "Economics",
        "Federal budget",
        "Inflation (Finance)",
        "Legislation",
        "Meat",
        "National security",
        "Poverty programs",
        "Taxation",
        "Veterans",
        "Vietnam War, 1961-1975",
        "War protests"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642083/4526521.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642083/4526521.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642083/4526521.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526521",
    "naId": 4526521,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-12-31",
        "month": 12,
        "year": 1967
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-10-01",
        "month": 10,
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642083/4526521.pdf",
    "mediaId": "eff8d93dffe06772",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D36, folder \"Fifth District Weekly Radio\nReports, October-December 1967\" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and\nSpeech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box D36 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nRadio-Television Script\nNATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE\n312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL\nWASHINGTON 3, D. C.\nLINCOLN 4-3010\nScript No. 36\nOctober 2, 1967\nWHERE DO WE STAND WITH OUR DEFENSES?\nThis is Congressman\nreporting to you from Washington.\nWhat's the status of our defenses against an ememy attack? Are we prepared to\nmeet it--and to repel it-and to defeat the attacker?\nThese are questions which are presently plaguing many members of Congress who\nare, as you are undoubtedly aware, at \"odds' with the policies of Defense Secretary\nMcNamara. Whether Mr. McNamara or his critics is right, only time will tell. However,\nI might note that, if the Secretary is wrong, We might not be around to talk about it.\nI am going to discuss this vital issue with you--the battle between Mr. McNamara\nand concerned members of Congress.\nTo start with, let me put the whole matter briefly. Congress does not believe in\neconomizing in the strategic defenses of our country. I share the view of the vast majority\nof Congress men that this is false economy. It is folly to take chances in these critical times.\nSecretary McNamara disagrees and frequently makes major defense decisions based on cost\nrather than need. When the nation's security is at stake, however, cost should be the least\nsignificant factor.\nLet me give you some instances of McNamara's economy moves. The House\nArmed Services Committee has issued a report which gives some figures that quite frankly\nalarm me. The Soviet Union, says the report, is spending about 14.5 billion dollars on its\nstrategic forces--its attack force, in other words. We are spending only 8 billion dollars,\na little more than half as much. Actually, this is only 10 percent of our total military\nspending. All through the 1950's the comparable percentage was 25 percent.\nCongress, of course, wants to know why McNamara doesn't want to at least match\nthe Soviet increase in spending and military production and capability in this vital area.\nAlthough the Soviet Union's long-range bomber strength is twice ours, the Secre-\nORD\ntary of Defense wants to retire the B-52 bomber which has been the backbone of our striking\nforce. The Secretary contends that the usefulness of bombers is growing less and less.\nHe\nLIBRARY\nbelieves that, in a short time, they will be out-of-date as weapons of defense-that they\nmore -\n2 -\nwill be superseded by the Minutamen, Polaris and other missiles--none of which have ever\nbeen test-fired with nuclear warheads.\nCongress' opinion is that, though this may happen eventually, there is an \"in-\nbetween time\" that we have to worry about. In fact, many Congressmen believe that some-\ntime in the mid-1970's, we may be without any long-distance bombers at all.\nAs a matter of fact, we have, ready for engineering development, new manned\nstrategic aircraft. These aircraft were designed to fill the in-between time gap that has\nCongress so alarmed and worried. Funds to spend on this manned strategic aircraft project\nhave already been approved. But Mr. McNamara, in an economy move, impounded these\nfunds. The question now is: Can missiles fill our total defense need?\nAnother bone of contention between Congress and the defense secretary is the\nPolaris submarine. Mr. McNamara has decided to call a halt to their production after six\nmore units are finished. Congress questions this decision. Because of what we may be\nfacing in 1970, a halt in Polaris production could be most unwise, especially as the Soviet\nsubmarine fleet presently numbers some 400 units and is still growing.\nThe TFX airplane has spelled nothing but trouble. It has cost much more than\nanticipated and continues to remain far from the goal of being suitable for both the Air\nForce and Navy. Congress has learned of many technical problems connected\n:\nwith this plane. For example, the Navy version of the aircraft is too heavy for aircraft\ncarrier landings. There have been other reports that the Air Force version shakes so much\nwhen only half-loaded with bombs that the pilot cannot read his flight instruments. Once\nagain, McNamara's cost-effectiveness program seems to have broken down.\nWell that, in brief, is the story of Mr. McNamara and the Congress. Based on\nthe secretary's previous record for being wrong, I am seriously concerned about his present\npolicies--and will continue to keep you posted on what is, perhaps, the biggest problem\nnow facing our country.\nThis is Congressman\nreporting from Washington.\n(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV\nStudio. For additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts,\ncontact the Committee's Public Relations Office.)\n###\nGEERLD FORD LIBRARY\nJaped 10/4/67\nyou with 1 lydil adil\nSCRIPT TAPED FOR FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO USE ON WEEKEND\nThis is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nOne of the most important functions of Congress--one that Congress is to some\nextent\nneglecting these days--is its role of checking closely into the operation of many,many\nFederal programs.\nIt is Congress' duty to act as watchdog, so to speak, over its legislative\nonce\nacts. Too often, however having passed the legislation to put some program in\nthe execution 00 implementation as closely of as those it programs should\nforce, it doesn't follow up. It doesn't see to it that the program is run properly.\ninto In I effect honestly law it believe operate doesn't that as see if effecturely Congress that had the done be its they job/of overseer properly, 're if enacted\ndoes\nit had evaluated more thoroughly the programs it enacted, we would not be faced\nS the programs as they operate more Thoroughly\ntoday with the threat of a tax increase. that Pres. Johnson has recommended\nfor example are some of the areas where Congress has not\nRecently, and that Pid. two billion goo say that dollars who part do in arm not sales--two make an billion, honest rests not effort million--were to keep financed the agencies well Congress\nHere just one alarming example the of Congress' blame failure to followothrough. on\nof\nvarious\ninformed\nby Export-Import Bank credits, without the knowledge of the House Banking and Currency\nCommittee. Yet, this is the committee which has the responsibility for checking\na substantial part L the blame in this case\non\nExport-Import\nBank\naffairs.\nna conscious effort to prevent the Congress from\nrests with the bank ituly because it made\nknowing what was being done behind the scene,\nThis trend in the workings of Congress could have very serious results. It\ncould diminish the role Congress plays in our political system--unbalancing, in effect,\nthe tri-partite system of government which now serves us\nand has well serveding Congress over is one the year\nin oler Fid.gov\ninstitution, capable of humanizing the governmental process by correcting the often\narbitrary nature of administrative decisions.\njudgest\nCongress must, in my-opinion, reestablish its role in government--must play a\nmore aggressive and positive role not only now, but in the 1970s and beyond\nGERALD LIBRARY FORD\n-2-\nAs you know, during the last few years new programs have sprouted like\nmushrooms from the Executive Branch. 1 poured out in support of\nmany during We have many That many billions approved programs many them. Congress\nIn 1965 and and 1966 the white House recommended\nand the\nwell intertioned\nthese programs. Many were good programs and much needed. But, as you also know,\nmany have been woefully mismanaged. The poverty program for has been\nin many instor instances country Throughout Rad has\neven too high though one admin. the programed cost & and were at\nriddled with waste and extravagance in some instances. The same for the foreign the local\nlevel the management at the\naid program--and many others.\nwash. level has been for\nfrom the best.\nUnfortunately, the Administration too often keeps the facts on the operation of\nthese programs from the public 145 Too often, a rosy hue is put on program activities\nthat need instead a bright light. Only when things get really scandalous does the\nreal truth come out. But we just can't afford to wait till \"things get really\nscandalous\" before acting. Too much of the taxpayers' money is involved, and the\nresults that will accrue from giving the Administration a free hand in running the\nvarious programs are for too important to pass over. lightly This is where Congress and must of play emphasize must\navery key role.\nimprove to\nitemf\nTo better this situation, Congress should take four major steps:\n1. Establish a subcommittee on legislative review in each of the standing\ncommittees of the House.\n2. Give priority to this review function on at least two days each month.\ndig out information\n3. Increase each committee's power to obtain information from the Executive\nagencies.\n4. Make clear to new members of Congress the vital importance of the legislative\nreview function of Congress.\nGERALD LIBRARY FORD\nI believe these steps are necessary to keep the Federal government from\nassintials are\nyour goo, my gov,\nturning into a bureaucratic state. It is up to Congress to probe, assume to dig to and lind to the upose to\nonce facts public again opinion. its them the go of\nrightful role political eystem.\nthis is done better. then that's\nThis is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting from Washington. will what run all of wout. us\n####\nBERRID FORD NEBRARK\nScript taped Oct. 11, 1967 for weekend Good radio use.\nO.K.\npain\nRadio-Television Script\nNATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE\n312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL\nWASHINGTON 3, D. C.\nLINCOLN 4-3010\nScript No. 37\nOctober 9, 1967\nTHE CASE FOR ECONOMY\nThis your is Congressman Jerrytord, reporting to you from Washington.\nWhen the Great Society was first inaugurated, the theme song of the Congress\nmight well have been, \"we're in the mood to spend, simply because you ask it.\" It would\ntake its tune, of course, from that old hit song, \"I'm in the mood for love.\" \"\nCongress, in those days, was very much \"in the mood\" to love everything about\nthe Great Society--and to do everything its leader asked.\nToday, things are different indeed. Members of Congress-Democrats and Re-\npublicans alike--have decided that \"spending\" isn't the answer to all our problems, that it\nhasn't produced the results that were promised and that something drastic must be done about\nour growing national debt and deficit. and most of all inflation\nIn other words, Congress has now come to the conclusion that a new set of lyrics\nto that old favorite might well be written which would go, \"we're in the mood to cut.\"\nWhat has brought this about-face? Why have some Democrats at last joined\nwith Republicans to \"cut\" instead of to spend? The immediate answer, of course, is President\nJohnson's proposed 10 percent tax increase.\nThe Administration insists that a tax increase is one of the things that is necessary\nif inflation isn't going to run riot. But many legislators are convinced that a tax increase\nmust be accompanied by a sizable spending cut if it is going to do any good .for the economy.\nThey are sure that a tax increase alone will not prevent prices from rising still further.\nThis change in mood is shown very clearly by a recent vote in the House Ways\nand Means Committee, when Democrats joined Republicans in sufficient strength to put\non\nthe proposed 10 percent tax increase until the Administration has come up with some sizable\nand believe\nand meaningful spending cuts. The vote showed beyond doubt the mood of Congress. It was\nthe\n20 to table the tax increase and only five against doing so.\nConcerning the proposed 10 percent surcharge, I would like to quote from\neditorial in The New York Times the other day. \"Unfortunately,\" said The Times, \"the\non FORD LIBRARY\n- more -\n- 2 -\ndent's proposal for a 10 percent surcharge will do nothing now to halt the present wave of\ninflation...certainly it is too small to make a dent in a Federal budget deficit estimated to\nrun from 19 billion dollars to 29 billion dollars. A safer and surer way to guard against price\nrises is to reduce Federal spending.\" Unquote.\nWith a faraway war draining our resources, \"cut-spending-before-increasing-taxss\"\nseems to be the mood--not only of the House of Representatives but the country as well.\nAnd I emphasize I am talking about domestic spending--not funds needed to support the war\neffort.\nAs a matter of fact, the tax-shears have already been sharpened and used on some\nof these programs. Minor cuts have been made that are at least a first tentative step in the right\n'direction. For instance, the House rejected a 13.2 billion dollar appropriation bill for two\nCobinet Departments--Labor and Health, Education & Welfare--because it contained 20.6\nof press\nmillion dollars more than the Administration requested.\nBut even more encouraging is a statement made by Congressman George 0. Mahon,\nDemocratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He said his committee would\nprobably bring to the House this week a bill cutting back some of the funds that Congress has\nalready voted. This means that the committee believes Congress has voted too much money\nfor certain specific objectives and that the various agencies will have to get by on less money.\nWell, that, in brief, is the present mood of Congress and it looks as if it's a\nlasting mood. My guess is that specific and sizable cuts will have to be made in the present\nbudget if Congress is even going to consider--let alone agree--to the President's 10 percent\ntax raise.\nst hould be noted that\nsteadless the President has resisted curbs on his spending activities\nand has been reluctant to change his legislative proposals. Apparantly to wrong\nthan presidente\nThis your is Congressman Jerry Ford,\nto your\nreporting/from Washington. I'll\nbe\ntalking with you again next week over this same station.\n###\nFORD & LIBRARY\nRadio-Television Script\nNATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE\n312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL\nWASHINGTON 3. D. C.\nLINCOLN 4-3010\nScript No. 38\nOctober 16, 1967\nVETERANS' DAY, 1967\nNote: The following script on Veterans' Day is being sent to you in\nadvance so that you can make maximum use of it on radio-TV\nor in newsletters and news releases.\nThis is Congressman\nreporting from Washington.\nVeterans' Day--Armistice Day, as it used to be called--is one of our great\nnational holidays. It is the day when we quietly and solamnly remember and salute this\nnation's veterans, whatever war they may have fought in.\n\"Armistice Day,\" originally established in remembrance of the day on which\nWorld War One ended, became \"Veterans\" Day\" in 1954. General Eisenhower was our Presi-\ndent then. As one of America's most famous military leaders, President Eisenhower wanted\nall veterans remembered. He felt we should not limit the observance of a national holiday\nto the one happy occasion that ended the first world war. lke wanted it to be wider in scope,\nto be--as he put It--\"a day of rededication to the task of achieving an enduring peace.\"\n\"An enduring peace\"--is that just another dream always beyond our reach? Is\nit unfindable as the rainbow's end or the fountain of youth? That is what many Americans are\nasking themselves today.\nSince our country proclaimed itself a free Nation, Americans have fought many\nwars for an enduring peace. Today, we are fighting once again for that same elusive ob-\njective. Today, the same questions are again being asked: Is 'right' honestly and truly on\nour side? Are we right to be involved in the struggle in Vietnam? Does the ultimate peace\nof the world really depend on the outcome of that war?\nPerhaps the saddest part of it all is that the facts that we are getting about the\nwar are too often garbled and contradictory. We are told one thing today; tomorrow, we\nmay be told quite a different story. We say to ourselves, \"perhaps we could reach some sort\nof a conclusion if we only knew the facts.\"\nBut we are not getting the facts.\nI well remember Defense Secretary McNamara's comment only four short years\nago that-and I quote--\"the corner has been turned\" in the Vietnam war. He said American\n- more -\n- 2 -\ntroops would start being withdrawn from that country by the end of that year. That was 1963.\nI well remember the secretary telling Congress a few months later that most of the\n15,000 troops in Vietnam would be home by the end of 1965. He also stated at the time that\nthe United States--and again I quote him--\"should not assume the primary responsibility for the\nwar in South Vietnam.\"\nWithin months after making these statements, the United States escalated the bomb-\ning of North Vietnam and increased the number of American troops over there from about\n15,000 to 175,000. At that time--1965--McNamara said--again I quote him--\"we are no longer\nlosing the war.\"\nToday, as you know, we have nearly half a million men in Vietnam and have\nsuffered more than 100,000 casualties. And the end of that war is nowhere in sight.\nToday, too, Americans are asking the same questions about this frustrating war in\nSoutheast Asia that their forefathers must have asked in the midst of other wars: When will it be\nover? When will the armistice come?\nLike Americans everywhere, I share these concerns. But I want the war ended on\nterms which are just and ressonable--which will not desecrate the memories of the men and\nwomen who died in that faraway land for the freedoms which we hold so dear back home. That's\nthe thought I want to leave with you as we salute the nation's veterans on this day established in\ntheir honor.\nThis is Congressman\nreporting from Washington.\n(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.\nFor additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Com-\nmittee's Public Relations Office.)\n###\nSCRIPT RECORDED OCT. 18, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nQuite Frankly, It's time\nsomebody set the record straight on the fight over federal\nspending.\nThe lastor pace for the high level of federal spending we now are witnessing was\nset in the 89th Congress when the President was able to push through every\nprogram he sent to Capitol Hill.\nI and many others warned early in 1966 that national priorities should be\nestablished and that domestic spending should be scaled down to offset costs\nof the Vietnam Our warnings were ignored.\nWarn Regrettably,\nFed.\nIn January, 1966, the President sent Congress a $112.8 billion budget.\nBut a year later--last January--the President revealed that federal spending\nthe\nfor the period July 1966 through June 1967 would total $126.7 billion instead.\nmike\nlower\nThe President had more news for the Nation in January 1967. He submitted\na $136.5 billion budget which included a call for a 6 per cent income tax\nsurcharge and ran an estimated $8.7 billion into the red.\nBut then in August of this year the President officially confirmed the\nfact that this Nation has been plunged into fiscal chaos at the federal level.\nthen\nHe predicted a federal deficit of $28 billion and asked Congress for an income\ntax surcharge of 10 per cent to make a $7 billion dent in that expected deficit.\nFirst of all, let me point out to you that the $28 billion deficit fore-\ncast by the President is a consequence of the Administration's failure to scale\nback domestic spending as an offset to Vietnam War costs.\nFORD LIBRARI & GERALD\n-2-\nMay I also remind you that the cost of living rose by 3.3 per cent in\n1966 due to inflation touched off by excessive federal spending.\ntoday and probably will Tomorrow.\nInflation is continuing The current price rise is at an annual rate of\nmore than 4 per cent.\nCongress is refusing even to consider the President's proposed tax\nand The let melplain is that economy-minded why members of N)\nincrease at this time. Why? answer\nCongress are determined to force deep cuts in federal spending. My party is\nleading that fight. and we expect to continue in the future\nWe are concerned about inflation--deeply concerned. But we know--as\nnearly every economist appearing before the House Ways and Means Committee\nm\nhas testified--that a dollar cut out of federal spending has nearly twice as\nmuch impact on inflation as a dollar of tax increase.\nWe know that the American people agree with us that deep cuts in federal\nspending are a better way to fight inflation than is a federal income tax\nincrease. as proposed by the President\nWe are in Washington to speak for the American people--and that is exactly\nwhat we\nas are elected doing. officials are doing\nThe President would have the people believe that if prices go up it will\nbe because the Congress has refused to approve his tax increase proposal.\nPrices are going up and they will continue to go up as long as the federal\ngovernment spends far more than the people can afford.\nThe President would have the people believe that Congress is forcing him\nto cut highway construction by 50 per cent. The truth is that the highway\nGERALE money FORD LIBRARY\n-3-\ncomes from special gasoline and automotive tax funds and not from income tax\nreceipts. This an embarrass the Congress.\ngrame S just by tempt the WAT. to\nThose of us who are fighting for spending cuts instead of endorsing the\nPresident's income tax increase are doing so because we believe this is the\nthe must important stys\nfirst step in bringing fiscal sanity back to Washington.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the\nNation's capital. I'll be talking with you again next week over this same\nstation.\n####\nGERALD FORD LIORARY\nSCRIPT ACCORDED OCT. 10, 1907, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS\nThis is your congressmen, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nIt's time somebody set the record straight OR the fight over federal\nspending.\nThe pace for the high level of federal spending we now are witnessing was\nset in the 89th Congress when the President was able to push through every\nprogram he sent to Capitol Hill.\nI and others warned early in 1966 that national priorities should be\nestablished and that domestic spending should be scaled down to offset costs\nof the Vietnam War. Our warnings were ignored.\nIn January, 1966, the President sent Congress a $112.8 billion budget.\nBut a pear later--last January--the President revealed that federal spending\nfor the period July 1966 through June 1967 would total @126.7 billion instead.\nThe President had more news for the Nation in January 1967. He submitted\na $136.5 billion budget which included a call for a 6 per cent income tax\nsurcharge and ran an estimated $8.7 billion into the red.\nBut then in August of this year the President officially confirmed the\nfact that this Nation has been plunged into fiscal chaos at the federal level.\nHe predicted a federal deficit of $28 billion and asked Congress for an income\ntax surcharge of 10 per cent to mke a $7 billion dent in that expected deficit.\nFirst of all, let me point out to you that the $28 billion deficit fore-\nFORD\ncast by the President is a consequence of the Administration's failure GERALE to scale\nRARY\nback domestic spending as an offset to Vietnam War costs.\n-2-\nMay I also remind you that the cost of living rose by 3.3 per cent in\n1966 due to inflation touched off by excessive federal spending.\nInflation is continuing. The current price rise is at an annual rate of\nmore than 4 per cent.\nCongress is refusing even to consider the President's proposed tax\nincrease at this time. Why? The answer is that economy-minded members of\nCongress are determined to force deep cuts in federal spending. My party is\nleading that fight.\nWe are concerned about inflation--deeply concerned. But we know--as\nnearly every economist appearing before the House Ways and Means Committee\nhas testified--that a dollar cut out of federal spending has nearly twice as\nmuch impact on inflation as a dollar of tax increase.\nWe know that the American people agree with us that deep cuts in federal\nspending are a better way to fight inflation than is a federal income tax\nincrease.\nWe are in Washington to speak for the American people--and that is exactly\nwhat we are doing.\nThe President would have the people believe that if prices go up it will\nbe because the Congress has refused to approve his tax increase proposal.\nPrices are going up and they will continue to go up as long as the federal\ngovernment spends far more than the people can afford.\nRALD FORD LIBRARY\nThe President would have the people believe that Congress is foreing him\nto cut highway construction by 50 per cent. The truth is that the highway money\n-3-\ncomes from special gasoline and automotive tax funds and not from income tax\nreceipts. This is just an attempt to embarrass the Congress.\nThose of us who are fighting for spending cuts instead of endorsing the\nPresident's income tax increase are doing so because we believe this is the\nfirst step in bringing fiscal sanity back to Washington.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the\nNation's capital. I'll be talking with you again next week over this same\nstation.\n....\nALD SERALD LISEARY FORD\nSCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, OCT. 25,1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS\nThis is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to youfreen from Washington.\nThere have been an increasing number of news reports ing that more and more members\nsteries\nof the U.S. House of Representatives are turning dove-ish. At the same time,\nnewsmen writing these stories emphasize that if a vote were taken in the House a\nheavy majority would be recorded in support of our basic national Vietnam. interests as well\nas perhaps the struggle\nThere is a deeper meaning in all this--a meaning that shouldbe pointed up\nat this time.\nThe signifizanewzinction so-called increase in dove-ishness does not indicate\na slackening of our resolvexxx in Vietnam. But it does underscore the fact that\nonly one out of three Americans now is satisfied with the\nPresident's present Vie tnam policy. and This surveys is according that have to all been the polls reported\nin the news medio\nAt the same time, it should be noted that an overwhelming majority of\ntotal\nAmericans are opposed to U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.\nWhat it all adds up to is that the American people are feeling increasingly\nfrustrated by the Vietnam War. They xxx8x cannot understand why the greatest\nmilitary power on earth cannot subdue a tiny and soulex supposedly primitive enemy.\nThe incressingzx growing dissatisfaction withxtx in Congre SS and among the\npeople with the President's Vietnam policy has great sifn significance,\nthat we shoult and leern run\na need for constant review and modification if necessary of the policy. It also,\nIt does not mean that the policy should be drastically altered but it does indicates\nshows that the Congress and the American people believe the Johnson Administration\nmade a mistakex terrible mistake in its palimxxmbasic decision regarding conduct\nof the Vietnam War. That mistake was the decision to follow a policy of gradualism\nin Vietnam, and to turn up the pressure little by little instead of hitting the\nenemy hard and fast Y from the www.zhaginningx air and from the sea at the very\nI'm recall the recent comments by\nbeginning. former who undermed a palicy of\ngradualism when you are faced by an efnemy in war\nI think the fact that the President recently ordered air strikes against all\nbut one of the Mig airfields in North Vietnam is proof that he and other top\nAdministration officials privately recognize their mistake. The facts are that\nthe PrestNentx Johnson Administration now is carrying out air strikes in ****\nFORD\nNorth Vietnam that should have been ordered żwoxymarsxxgx nearly two years ago.\nEarly in August of I urged year that we stop pulling our air punch in Vietnam.\nthis\nSince\nLIBRARY\nthat time our bombers have hit all but five of the 57 targets which were on an off-limits\nlist until then. However, we still have not shut off the flow of supplies through\nthe port of Haiphong--and this the a most vital step.\naccording is to all the military experts\nn a step nuded to protect\nservicement who habe been\nthe lives of american\nordered to Wetnan by\nPres. Johnson\n-2-\nOur determination in Vietnam is not weakening. I am sure the American\npeople still feel it was right that we should seek to halt Communist aggression\nthe Administration has\nin South Vietnam. But I believe they also feel that made some serious\nmistakes in ENX its conduct of the war.\nAt the same time,\nthe American people are disgusted by the kind of\nanti Vio bream War protest recently staged at the Pentagon.\nIt should be NEW noted that there were two peace demonstrations in Washington\nthat day. One took place at the Lincoln Memorial. By all accounts itwas\norderwly and dignified. The other was the viodent and in some instances obscene\ndemonstration at the Pentagon.\nI\nfinend believe in the right of responsible dissent--the kind of dissent expre ssed\nby the protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial. But I believe the Pentagon\nprotest brought shama on America. No American has the right to preach\nanarchy or to demean our (men in uniform.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'll\nbe visiting with you again next week over this same station.\n####\nGERALD R. LISERAT FORD\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reparting to youfreen from Washington.\nThere have been an increasing number of news reports that more and more members\nof the U.S. House of Representatives are turning dove-ish. At the same time,\nnewsmen writing these stories emphasize that if a vote were taken in the House a\nheavy majority would be recorded in support of our struggle in Vietnam.\nThere is a deeper meaning in all this--a meaning that should be pointed up\nat this time.\nThe so-called increase in dove-ishness does not indicate\na slackening of our resolve:box in Vietnam. But it does underscore the fact that\nonly one out of three Americans now is satisfied with the\nPresident's present Vietnam policy.\nAt the same time, it should be noted that an overwhelming majority of\nAmericans are opposed to U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.\nWhat it all adds up to is that the American people are feeling increasingly\nfrustrated by the Vietnam War. They кинйх cannot understand why the greatest\nmilitary power on earth cannot subdue a tiny and mark supposedly primitive enemy.\nThe incremmingsx growing dissatisfaction withoctx in Congress and among the\npeople with the President's Vietnam policy has great xifn significance, in my view.\nIt does not mean that the policy should be drastically altered but it indicates\na need for constant review and modification of the policy. It also, I believe,\nshows that the Congress and the American people believe the Johnson Administration\nmade a mistakerx terrible mistake in its decision regarding conduct\nof the Vietnam War. That mistake was the decision to follow a policy of gradualism\nin Vietnam, and to turn up the pressure little by little instead of hitting the\nenemy hard and fast X from the air and from the sea at the very\nbeginning.\nI think the fact that the President recently ordered air strikes against all\nbut one of the Mig airfields in North Vietnam is proof that he and other top\nAdministration officials privately recognise their mistske. The facts are that\nthe ********* Johnson Administration now is earrying out air strikes in thax\nNorth Vietnam that should have been ordered nearly two years ago.\nEarly in August I urged that we stop pulling our air punch in Vietnam. Since\nthat time our bombers have hit all but five of 57 targets which were on an off-limits\nlist until then. However, we still have not shut off the flow of supplies through\nthe port of Haiphong--and this is tim a most vital step.\nOur determination in Vietnam is not weakening. I am sure the American\npeople still feel it was right that we should seek to halt Communist aggression\nthe Administration has\nin South Vietnam. But I believe they also feel that succion made some serious\nmistakes in ENE its conduct of the war.\nAt the same time, I am sure the American people are disgusted by the kind of\nanti-Vistnam War protest recently staged at the Pentagon.\nIt should be NEW noted that there were two peace demonstrations in Washington\nthat day. One took place at the Lincoln Memorial. By all accounts it was\nordermly and dignified. The other was the viodent and in some instances obscene\ndemonstration at the Pentagon.\nI believe in the right of responsible dissent--the kind of dissent expre ased\nby the protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial. But I believe the Pentagon\nprotest exexemisex brought shame on America. No American has the right to preach\nanarchy or to demean our men in uniform.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'll\nbe visiting with you again next week over this same station.\n####\nGERALD FORD\nScript recorded Turday, Oct. 31, 1967 For Weekend the ty\nFifth District Stations\nRadio-Television Script\nNATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE\n312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL\nWASHINGTON 3, D. C.\nLINCOLN 4-3010\nScript No. 40\nOctober 30, 1967\nTHE CRUELEST TAX--INFLATION\nThis is Congressman\nreporting to you from Washington.\nHigher prices a rise in the cost of living inflation Call it what you like. It\nseems like an inevitable economic disease in today's world--a kind of creeping paralysis for\nwhich there is no known cure. Some claim that a boost in taxes will stop the spread of the\ndisease. Some claim that a cut in Federal spending will do the trick. Some even claim that\na little inflation is desirable.\nIrankly can't subscribe to the theory that a little inflation is a good thing-because a\n\"little inflation\" doesn't stay \"little\" for very long.\nvery\nToday, in fact, inflation has reached a critical stage. Just the other day, for\nexample, the government announced that prices continued to rise at a very fast clip in September.\nNot only consumer prices went up, but wholesale prices pose CS well. This portends another jump in\nretail prices in the coming months.\nAt the same time this increase in the consumer price index was announced, another\ngovernment report dramatically pointed out the seriousness of today's inflation. It showed then\nthe nation's 45 million payroll workers on the average can't buy as much with their paychecks\ntoday as they could with smaller ones only two years ago.\nYet, this inflation--spurred on by ever-increasing doses of Federal spending--shows\nno sign of abating. In fact, a Congressional economist predicted a few days ago that a con-\ntinuation of the present spending policies will result next year in the \"worst price explosion in\nIn other words\nrecent history\" that the cost of living will jump between five and six percent in 1968.\nI do not like to think what this will do to those people on fixed incomes--particularly\nour older generation lotk. When they retired they didn't expect to insideous live extravagantly. But neither did\nthey expect their retirement income to be eaten away by inflation. Already, they have been\nand emphasize without\nforced to do without a lot of things that they were used to. Already, the price of food has\nFORD\nsirable housing. Another big jump in prices will really hurt them.\nseriously affected their eating habits. Rent increases have forced many of them into less GERALE de-\nLIBRARY\nBut inflation hurts everybody, of course, not just our senior citizens.\nmore -\n- 2 -\nHard-earned salary increases are wiped out almost overnight by the steady rise of\nprices The money young couples put into savings accounts for an emergency or fain rainy day is\nthat we have in the pact 2½ years\neroded.\nWho's responsible for this problem?\nThe chief culprit is the free-wheeling, big spending Administration in Washington.\nWhile preaching economy, government officials keep talking of spending more and more-thus\nits well to nott\nfeeding the fires of inflation, Since 1960, might note, the cost of living has shot up nearly\n13 percent. The dollar each you of (earned and spent in 1960 will buy only 77 cents worth of food cr\nclothing or shelter today.\nAlthough many of US in Congress have tried to head off this spending binge, trying\nto force the President to spend less, in short, we haven been entirely successful. But I assure\nhave been only partially\nthe Fed. level\nyou I will continue to support such efforts, because family believe less government spending at will mean\nmore purchasing power for individual Americans.\nnow the President really means what he says about inflation--such as the other day when\nhe called it the \"cruelest\" form of taxation-then he will agree with those of US in Congress who\nare pressing for a reduction in Federal expenditures.\npard and working day after day after day\nDreal\nThis is Congressman\nreporting from Washington.\n(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.\nFor additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Com-\nmittee's Public Relations Office.)\n###\nDEPALD R FORD LIBRARY\nSCRIPT RECORDED\n, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO\nSTATIONS.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nOne of the most sacred rights of the American people is their right to know,\ntheir right to be kept informed by their government about what is happening in\nthe country.\nCurrently it is obvious that the Administration is keeping from the American\npeople the true extent of the Communist role in the so-called peace demonstration\nOct. 21 at the Pentagon and the degree of Communist influence within the antiwar\nmovement throughout the United States.\nSecretary of State Dean Rusk earlier this month said: \"We haven't made\npublic the extent of our knowledge\" for fear of touching off \"a new McCarthyism.\"\nI believe this is an entirely erroneous approach to the question of the\npeople's right to know. The American people are entitled to this information\nwhich Mr. Rusk hints at--otherwise they may be misled with regard to the antiwar\nmovement in this country.\nAs for Mr. Rusk's fear of \"a new McCarthyism,\" I believe the American\npeople are far more mature now than they were when Joe McCarthy had them looking\nfor Communists behind every bush.\nWe all know that the Radical Left took the lead in planning and running the\nantiwar demonstration at the Pentagon. It was no accident, either, that demon-\nstrations were held simultaneously elsewhere in the world.\nThe leader of the mob here was David Dellinger, editor of the leftist\nFORD\nmonthly magazine, \"Liberator.\"\nGERALD R\n-2-\nLast November Dellinger visited North Vietnam and met with Ho Chi Minh.\nHis passport was taken away when he returned but he got it back by promising\nnot to return to Hanoi. Despite that promise, Dellinger made a second trip to\nHanoi last summer. And in September, he went to Bratislava, Czechoslovakia,\nwhere he was one of 41 Americans who talked with North Vietnamese officials and\na dozen Viet Cong delegates.\nThe hippies who took part in Dellinger's show at the Pentagon are simply\npathetic dropouts from society. But there were some honestly concemed antiwar\ndemonstrators who joined with the Communists and the New Leftists in protesting\nthe Vietnam War. Unfortunately, they played right into the hands of Hanoi.\nThe Communists got what they wanted--pictures of American troops and police-\nmen having to fight off a mob of their fellow citizens trying to storm the\nsymbol of U.S. military power, the Pentagon.\nOf course, our troops and policemen were just doing their duty--and doing\nit with magnificent restraint in view of all the abuse they had to take. But\nthat isn't the way it will look in the Communist propaganda organs.\nInretrospect, loyal Americans who are sincerely protesting the Vietnam War\nshould be more careful about the kind of company they keep. And it might be\nwell for government agencies with the power to withhold permits for demonstrations\nnear federal buildings to consider whether the proposed demonstration likely\nwill lead to violence.\nI believe firmly in the right of responsible dissent. But no American\ncitizen has the right to engage in anarchy and to seek to disrupt the functions of\n-3-\ngovernment in this country.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nI'll be talking with you again next week over this same station.\n###\nSCRIPT RECORDED TUESDAY,\nB, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO\nSTATIONS.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nOne of the most sacred rights of the American people is their right to know,\ntheir right to be kept informed by their government about what is happening in\nthe country.\nCurrently it is obvious that the Administration is keeping from the American\npeople the true extent of the Communist role in the so-called peace demonstration\nOct 21 at the Pentagon and the degree of Communist influence within the antiwar\nmovement throughout the United States.\nSecretary of State Dean Rusk earlier this month said: \"We haven't made\npublic the extent of our knowledge\" for fear of touching off \"a new McCarthyism.\"\nI believe this is an entirely erroneous approach to the question of the\npeople's right to know. The American people are entitled to this information\nwhich Mr. Rusk hints at--otherwise they may be misled with regard to the antiwer\nmovement in this country.\nAs for Mr. Rusk's fear of \"a new McCarthyism,\" I believe the American\npeople are far more mature now than they were when Joe McCarthy had them looking\nfor Communists behind every bush.\nWe all know that the Radical Left took the lead in planning and running the\nantiwer demonstration at the Pentagon. It was no accident, either, that demon-\nstrations were held simultaneously elsewhere in the world.\nThe leader of the mob here was David Dellinger, editor of the leftist\nmonthly magazine, \"Liberator.\"\n-2-\nLast November Dellinger visited North Vietnam and met with Ho Chi Minh.\nHis passport was taken away when he returned but he got it back by promising\nnot to return to Manoi. Despite that promise, Dellinger made a second trip to\nHanoi last summer. And in September, he went to Bratislava, Czechoslovakia,\nwhere he was one of 41 Americans who talked with North Vietnamese officials and\na dozen Viet Cong delegates.\nThe hippies who took part in Dellinger's show at the Pentagon are simply\npathetic dropouts from society. But there were some honestly concerned antiwer\ndemonstrators who joined with the Communists and the New Leftists in protesting\nthe Vietnam War. Unfortunately, they played right into the hands of Hanoi.\nThe Communists got what they wanted--pictures of American troops and police-\nmen having to fight off a mob of their fellow citizens trying to storm the\nsymbol of U.S. military power, the Pentagon.\nOf course, our troops and policemen were just doing their duty--and doing\nit with magnificent restraint in view of all the abuse they had to take. But\nthat isn't the way it will look in the Communist propaganda organs.\nretrospect, loyal Americans who are sincerely protesting the Vietnam War\nshould be more careful about the kind of company they keep. And it might be\nwell for government agencies with the power to withhold permits for demonstrations\nnear federal buildings to consider whether the proposed demonstration likely\nwill lead to violence.\nI believe firmly in the right of responsible dissent. But no American\ncitizen has the right to engage in anarchy and to seek to disrupt the functions of\n-3-\ngovernment in this country.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nI'll be talking with you again next week over this same station.\n...\nGERALD R. FORD\nVsed 11-8-47\nRadio-Television Script\nNATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE\n312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL\nWASHINGTON 3, D. C.\nLINCOLN 4-3010\nScript No. 41\nNovember 6, 1967\nTHE STATE OF THE ECONOMY\nThis is Congressman\nreporting from Washington.\nIt seems all we hear in Washington these days is talk about money--money for war,\nmoney for poverty, money for defense, money for welfare, money for hundreds and hundreds of\nother government projects.\nWhat is often forgotten is that this money we hear so much about doesn't belong to\nthe Government or the President or the Congress. It is your money and mine--and that of all\nit's their money\nAmericans who pay taxes A The government doesn't have any money of its own; it is merely the\nguardian of the American taxpayer's money.\nThis is why everyone must be fully of the manner in which Washington spends his\nmoney. After all, you watch your personal spending; you should watch what happens to your\nmoney after you give it to Uncle Sam. Honestly, in the form of Fed. taxation.\nAnd just what is happening I'd like to discuss with you today how your money is\nbeing spent--and where those spending policies are taking our gou., us. yours and mine\nsince 1960\nFirst, let me say flatly that the Federal Government has gone spend-crazy/and there\nhas been remarkably little outcry against it. If this trend continues, economists say that by the\nFed. goi\neach year\nend of this decade the budget will double to 160 billion dollars, deficits will total almost 100\nbillion dollars and the national debt will go up to 400 billion dollars.\nMeantime, the Administration in power and government agencies are behaving as if\nmoney grew on trees. Their demands are practically endless.\nThe postmaster general wants quite a few billion for new facilities. The space agency\nand even farcher\nwants a like amount to go to Mars and Venus. Transportation is scheduled for new billions of\nprobably freed\ngovernment help. Educational interests want more billions. Cleaning up water pollution is\ntalked about as a job. Air pollution may be just as costly. The needs of our\nand very 100 Billion seriously dollar and very Properly\ncities--so say the mayors--will run into hundreds of billions of dollars. Rent subsidies and\npurchase subsidies, more billions.\nyourd\nFORD LIBRARY\nThe list is endless. Although many of these are worthwhile projects, the taxpayers'\npockets do have bottoms to them--and they are beginning to get a little light.\n-\nmore\n-\n- 2 -\nA lot of people believe that it is solely the war in Vietnam that is responsible for\nthe huge increase in Fed government spending. This is not the case. Domestic programs are chiefly\nresponsible. Let me cite some figures.\nIn the last eight years, while defense spending has grown by 68 percent, non-defense\nspending has grown 97 percent. Welfare and health spending has grown 210 percent. To rewrite\na phrase that has been used over and over, our guns are swimming in butter.\nThe question is, of course, what can be done about this orgy of extravagance?\nIn the first place, nothing can be done until there has been a drastic change in our\nnational attitude towards government spending. We've got to realize that whatever temporary\nbenefits may accrue from unlimited spending are just that--temporary. The final results are\nvery likely to beNTragie. very\nWe've got to stop the so-called \"crash\" approach to our problems and we've got to\nface the fact that money in unlimited quantities will not solve every problem. We must also fight\nagainst the attitude of many that government knows best, that Washington can do it better--if\nonly we provide the money. That's simply not true.\nof the\nOne of the Nation's top economists--Maurice Stans President Eisenhower's budget\ndirector--add another recommendation, probably the most important of all. Mr. Stans says--\nand I quote him:\n\"We need somehow to bring realism into the expectations of the people, to do what\nis possible to help the underprivileged to help themselves, and to stop those agitators who whet\npublic appetites with slogans and undeliverable promises. At the heart of itall, we need some-\nhow to get people to realize that there is no instant tomorrow.\" Unquote.\nThis is Congressman\nreporting from Washington.\n(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.\nFor additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Com-\nmittee's Public Relations Office.)\n###\nFORD LIBRARY\nSCRIPT RECORDED\n, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nChanges updating a federal program which dates back to 1907 are being\nenacted in the Congress--changes which will benefit Michigan along with the other\nstates.\nLegislation which will help the states institute or greatly improve meat\ninspection programs now is halfway through the Congress. It recently passed\nthe House by a vote of 403 to 1. I was most happy to support it.\nThe new legislation, when it completes its trip through Congress, will\nbroaden and modernize meat inspection programs throughout the Nation. It will\nprovide payments to the various states of up to 50 per cent of their meat\ninspection costs if they come up to Federal standards. The bill also offers\nthe States federal help program lanninguand technical and laboratory\nassistanceX and federal help with program planning.\nThere has been a federal meat inspection law for 60 years, dealing with\nmeats that are shipped from one state to another. The new law now being\nfashioned breaks new ground by encouraging the states to do a better job of\ninspecting meats that do not cross state lines.\nMichigan is considered to have a model state meat inspection law. But you and I\nknow that\nthe State Agriculture Department lacks the funds to do a\ncomplete job, to cover every one of the slaughter houses doing business solely\nin Michigan. I want to see Michigan improve its program,\nand the\nnew federal legislation will make this possible.\nGERALD R. LIBRARY FORD\n-2-\nas those in Michigan.\n27 other states also have\nResidents of some states are not as fortunate\nWhile\nlaws requiring inspection of animals before and after slaughter, 12 states have\nonly a voluntary system, two have very limited inspection laws and eight have\nnone.\nThe aim of the federal meat inspection amendments now being fashioned into\nlaw is to help the states meet their responsibilities for providing high quality\nmeat inspection. I think it is highly important that the federal government\nand the states cooperate to eliminate practices which endanger the public\nhealth or in any way defraud consumers. The problem of meat inspection is a\nmatter which affects every family in America.\nThe House rejected a move to extend federal meat inspection to all packing\nplants intrastate as well as interstate which have gross sales of more than\n$250,000 a year. This would have cost the federal government $31.2 million\nmore a year, but it would not have assured the inspection of the small plants\ndoing business entirely within a state. I and a large majority of the House\npreferred the approach of federal-state cooperation.\nOnce the Senate has approved the House-passed meat inspection bill, we can\nlook forward to improved meat inspection throughout the country. Besides\noffering help to the states, the legislation clarifies and more clearly defines\nthe authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to regulate the marking,\nlabeling, and packaging of carcasses, meats and meat food products moving\ninterstate. The bill also extends to imported meats the same standards that\nGERALD R. LIBRARY FORD\n-3-\napply to meat and meat products produced and processed within the United States.\nThe net result is that new protection will be afforded the American\nconsumer.\nThis legislation should encourage the confidence of today's homemaker in\nthe wholesomeness of our meat supplies. It thus strengthens the meat packing\nand processing industry--an industry which has $16 billion in gross annual sales\nand buys $13 billion worth of livestock a year from the American farmer.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nI'll be talking with you again next week, same time, same station.\n# # #\nSCRIPT RECORDED\nL FOR WEEKEND use BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nChanges updating a federal program which dates back to 1907 are being\nenacted in the Congress--changes changes which will benefit Michigan along with the other\nstates.\nLegislation which will help the states institute or greatly improve meat\ninspection programs now is halfway through the Congress. It recently passed\nthe House by a vote of 403 to 1. I was most happy to support it.\nThe new legislation, when it completes its trip through Congress, will\nbroaden and modernise meat inspection programs throughout the Nation. It will\nprovide payments to the various states of up to 50 per cent of cheir meat\ninspection costs if they come up to Federal standards. The bill also offers\nthe States federal help with program planning and technical and laboratory\nassistance.\nThere has been a federal meat inspection law for 60 years, dealing with\nmeats that are shipped from one state to another. The new law now being\nfashioned breaks new ground by encouraging the states to do a better job of\ninspecting meats that do not cross state lines.\nMichigan is considered to have a model state meat inspection law. But it\nLIBRARY\nis acknowledged that the State Agriculture Department lacks the funds to do a\ncomplete job, to cover every one of the slaughter houses doing business solely\nand will\nin Michigan. I want to see Michigan improve its programs\nmakethispossitle.\n-2-\nResidents\nof many - other donothere states are not asgood as fortunate. aprogram While 20 Michigan states.hafe\nlaws requiring inspection of animals before and after slaughter, 12 states have\nonly a voluntary system, two have very limited inspection laws and eight have\nnone.\nThe sim of the federal meat inspection amendments now being fashioned into\nlaw is to help the states meet their responsibilities for providing high quality\nmeat inspection. I think it is highly important that the federal government\nand the states cooperate to eliminate practices which endanger the public\nhealth or in any way defraud consumers. The problem of meat inspection is a\nmatter which affects every family in America.\nThe House rejected a move to extend federal meat inspection to all packing\nplants-intrastate as well as interstate--which have gross sales of more than\n$250,000 a year. This would have cost the federal government $31.2 million\nmore a year, but it would not have assured the inspection of the small plants\ndoing business entirely within a state. I and a large majority of the House\npreferred the approach of federal-state cosperation.\nOnce the Senate has approved the House-passed meat inspection bill, we can\nlook forward to improved meat inspection throughout the country. Besides\noffering help to the states, the legislation clarifies and more clearly defines\nthe authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to regulate the marking,\nRD\nlabeling, and packaging of carcasses, meats and meat food products moving\nRARY\ninterstate. The bill also extends to imported meats the same standards that\n-3-\napply to meat and meat products produced and processed within the United States.\nThe net result is that new protection will be afforded the American\nconsumer.\nThis legislation should encourage the confidence of today's homemaker in\nthe wholesomeness of our meat supplies. It thus strengthens the meat packing\nand processing industry--an industry which has $16 billion in gross annual sales\n13\nand buys $10 billion worth of livestock a year from the American farmer.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nI'll be talking with you again next week, same time, same station.\n# # #\nFORD\nSCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, NOV. 15, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nThe big news last week on Capitol Hill was the Battle of the Poverty Bill.\nThat battle was fought in the House, where Republicans tried to redirect\nthe War on Poverty and make it a success.\nWe tried to save tax money but at the same time expand the total investment\nin the War on Poverty by enlisting the all-out help of business and industry.\nOur goal was to fund the program at roughly the same level in tax dollars as at\npresent but to bring billions more into the anti-poverty effort through the\nchannels of private enterprise. The Administration demanded $400 million more\nin taxpayer funds st a time when the Nation is threatened with a $30 billion\ndeficit.\nRepublicans wanted to remove all politics from the Anti-Poverty Program.\nInstead, the Administration injected far more polities into the program than it\nnow is suffering from.\nRepublicans unsuccessfully sought to bar all political activity from the\nanti-poverty program, partisan and nompartisan--to require that local community\naction boards be made up one-third of the poor, one-third of local public\nofficials and one-third of spokesmen for private and public community agencies.\nRepublicans wanted to make the anti-poverty program job-oriented is the\nbelief that the best answer to poverty is a goodepaying job. We wanted to increase LIBRAN\nthe productivity of the poor so that employers would be willing to pay for théer\n-2-\nservices. To that end, we sought to crease Job Opportunity Boards which would\nwork under and with the local Community Action Boards.\nRepublicans wanted to set up a State Community Action Commission to work\nwith local community action boards and coordinate the War on Poverty statewide.\nRepbblicans sought to give the Office of Economic Opportunity here in\nWashington primarily a policy-making and guidance role in the War on Poverty\ninstead of a largely operating role as at present. We felt the War on Poverty\ncould be fought much more effectively if OEO had only community action programs\nto worry about in terms of operations, so we sought to turn such programs as\nHead Start and the Job Corps over to the Nealth-Education-Welfere Department to\nbe administered through the U.S. Office of Education. We also wanted to create\na three-man Council of Economic Opportunity Advisers in the Office of the\nPresident to chart the longtern course of a crusade against poverty, just as the\nPresident's Council of Economic Advisers points up trends in the economy and\nmakes its recommendations to the President and to the Nation.\nWe sought to take all of these constructive steps and to redirect the\nanti-poverty program into channels of longterm success. We wanted to move it in\na New Direction for the good of the country, but we were accused of trying to\nkill it. Republicans are content to let the people decide the merits of the case.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nI'll be talking with you again next week, same time, same station.\nFORD LIBRARY\n....\nSCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, NOV. 15, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nin th House of Rep\nThe big news last week on Capitol Hill was the Battle of the Poverty Bill.\nThat battle was fought in the House, where Republicans tried to redirect\nthe War on Poverty and make it a success.\ndollars\nWe tried to save tax money but at the same time expand the total investment\nin the War on Poverty by enlisting the all-out help of business and industry.\nOur goal was to fund the program at roughly the same level in tax dollars as at the\npresent but to bring billions more into the anti-poverty effort through the\nchannels of private enterprise. The Administration demanded $400 million more\nin taxpayer funds at a time when the Nation is threatened with a $30 billion\ndeficit. The Democratic majority frustrated every Republican move to emlist private\nenterprise in the Poverty War as a full-fledged partner, but Republicans didxnams score\na victory for the taxpayer when tax money for the program was held to the current level.\nRepublicans wanted to remove all politics from the Anti-Poverty Program.\nWe regorrisly opposed the Greene amott.\nInstead, the Administration injected far more politics into the program than it\nnow is suffering from.\nRepublicans unsuccessfully sought to bar all political activity from the\nanti-poverty program, partisan and nonpartisan--to require that local community\naction boards be made up one-third of the poor, one-third of local public\nofficials and one-third of spokesmen for private and public communítyAagencies. service\nRepublicans wanted to make the anti-poverty program job-oriented in the\nbelief that the best answer to poverty is a good-paying job. We wanted to increase\nthe productivity of the poor so that employers would be willing to pay for their\nFORD LIBRARY \"y GERALD\n-2-\nservices. To that end, we sought to create Job Opportunity Boards which would\nwork under and with the local Community Action Boards.\nRepublicans wanted to set up a State Community Action Commission to work\nwith local community action boards and coordinate the War on Poverty statewide.\nRepublicans sought to give the Office of Economic Opportunity here in\nWashington primarily a policy-making and guidance role in the War on Poverty\ninstead of a largely operating role as at present. We felt the War on Poverty\ncould be fought much more effectively if OEO had only community action programs\nto worry about in terms of operations, so we sought to transfer surn such programs as\nHead Start and the Job Corps over to the Health-Education-Welfare Department to\nbe administered through the U.S. Office of Education. We also wanted to create\na three-man Council of Economic Opportunity Advisers in the Office of the\nPresident to chart the longterm course of a crusade against poverty, just as the\nPresident's Council of Economic Advisers points up trends in the economy and\nmakes its recommendations to the President and to the Nation.\nWe sought to take all of these very constructive steps and to redirect the\nanti-poverty program into channels of longterm success. We wanted to move it in\na New Direction for the good of the country, but infortenately we\\were accused of trying to\nkill it. Republicans are content to let the people decide the merits of the case.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nI'll be talking with you again next week, same time, same station.\n####\nFORD LIBRARY & GERALD\nSCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY Nov. 22, 1967, for weekend use by FifthDistrict Stations\nThis is your Congressman, JerryFord, reporting to you from Washington.\nThe biggest news right now is that the Johnson Administration wants to make a deal\non\nwith the Congress on spending and taxes.\nThe Administration's fiscal crisis now has reached the point where President\nmost\nJohnson has releuctantly agreed to lcut his spending this fiscal year by a least\nthe\ninretures\n$4 billion if Congress will give him an income tax increase in the same amount.\nThe fact that the President is willing to take such a spending cut after\nfetter than 4\nresisting any holddown in spending for years is an indication of how desparate\nhis Administration has become.\nIt is interesting to note, in this connection, that Republicans in the House\nhave tried to get the Johnson Administration to adopt an economy course ever since\nI became Minority Leader in January, 1965.\nWe have repeatedly sought to cut the President's spending plans 5 per cent across\nunfortunating the boards\nWe\nfailed in every instance in the overwhelmingly Democratic 89thCongress,\nwhich President Johnson proudly called \"my Congress.\"\nhave\nERALD R. LISAARY FORD\nWe scored some successes in the present Congress and we succeeded in getting\nthe House to adopt a spending limitation which would hold Administration spending\n2\nhave\nto the level we had been seeking. But theAdministration until now stubbornly\nthis economy\nresisted the move and the spending-minded Senate refused to follow the House lead.\nNow the President is talking about a possible $35 billion deficit and the\nAdministration has confessed to the need for just the kind of spending limitation\nin the house\nI and others have urged.\nUnfortunately the Johnson Administration is not contrite enought about\nhas\nthe spending binge it had been on for four years. The president is offering to\ncut his spending by $4 billion or more only in exchange for a tax increase.\nown\nHe is not letting his income tax increase proposal stand on its merits. He\nis saying, 'there are people in the Congress who insist spending should be\nreduced this year by five billion dollars; you let me have my tax increas and\nI'll cut spending by at least $4 billion.'\nIn other words, the President is agreeing to reduce the present level of\nthe House\nhis spending only because I and other economy-minded members of Congress have\nsaid he must do that if his income tax increas is to get any consideration.\nThe deal President Johnson now is offering Congress is a symbol. Written\nFORD\non it is the Bibilical warning, \"As ye sow, so shall ye reap.\" Or perhaps the\nthese\nJohnson Administration's present fiscal situation is best described in the 4 words,\n3\n\"They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind.\"\nThe desperation spending cut-tax increase package the Johnson Administation\nfilter\nnow is sending to Congress is the fruit of year after year of deficit spending--\nsince 1960, the last year the federal budget was balanced.\nbetter\nIt is the fruit of actions taken by the President and the 89th Congress,\nÀ The Congress that was in spistence in 1965 and 1966\nwhen the pattern was set for a sharp upward surge in federal domestic spending\nat the same time that Vietnam War costs were moving toward the present $26 billion\na-year level.\nbilter\nIt is the fruit of inaction on inflation in early 1966, when an attack on\nthe rise in living costswould have done the most good.\nAs your Congressman, I have done everything in my power to see to it that\nby the Federal Hoo.\nyour tax dollars are spent wiselyn But the voices of prudence and economy in\n1965, 1966\nand although we have more now\nthe Congress are simply too few.\nthan use had before who want\nwere\neconomy, we still are not in the\nThis is Jerry Ford, reporting to you from WAshngton. I'll be talking with 1)\nmajority Nevertheless we will\nyou again next week, same time, same station. continue our fight to\nsave your tax dollar.\nFORD LIBRARY \"If BERALD\nSCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY Nov. 22, 1967, for weekend use by FifthDistrict Stations\nThis is your Congressmen, JerryFord, reporting to you from Washington.\nThe biggest news right now is that the Johnson Administration wants to make a deal\nwith the Congress on spending and taxes.\nThe Administration's fiscal crisis now has reached the point where President\nJohnson has releuctantly agreed to lcut his spending this fiscal year by a least\n$4 billion if Congress will give him an income tax incream in the same amount.\nThe fact that the President is willing to take such a spending cut after\nresisting any holddown in spending for years is an indication of how desparate\nhis Administration has become.\nIt is interesting to note, in this connection, that Republicans in the House\nhave tried to get the Johnson Administration to adopt an economy course ever since\nI became Minority Leader in January, 1965.\nWe repeatedly sought to cut the President's spending plans 5 per cent across\nthe boards\nWe failed tn every instance in the overwhelmingly Democratic 89thCongress,\nwhich President Johnson proudly called \"my Congress.\"\nALD R. LIBRAR FORD\nWe scored some successes in the present Congress and we succeeded in getting\nthe House to adopt a spending limitation which would hold Administration spending\n2\nto the level we had been seeking. But theAdministration until now stubbogaly\nresisted the move and the spending-minded Senate refused to follow the House lead.\nNow the President is talking about a possible $35 billion deficit and the\nAdministration has canfessed to the need for just the kind of spending limitation\nI and others have urged.\nUnfortunately the Johnson Administration is not ;contrite enought about\nthe spending binge it had been on for four years. The president is offering to\ncut his spending by $4 billion or more only in exchange for a stax increase.\nHe is not letting his income tax increase proposal stand on its merits. He\nis saying, 'there are people in the Congress who insist spending should be\nreduced this year by five billion dollars; you let me have my tax inc reas and\nI'll cut spending by at least $4 billion.'\nIn other words, the President is agreeing to reduce the present level of\nhis spending only because I and other economyminded members of Congress have\nsaid he must do that if his income tax increas is to get any consideration.\nThe deal President Johnson now is offering Congress is a symbol. Writtapro\nLIBRARY 'y the\non it is the Bibilical warning, \"As ye sow, so shall ye reap.\" Or perhaps GERA\nJohnson Administration's present fiscal situation is best described in the words,\n3\n\"They have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind.\"\nThe desperation spending cut-tax increase package the Johnson Administation\nnow is sending to Congress is the fruit of year after year of deficit spending--\nsince 1960, the last year the federal budget was balanced.\nIt is the fruit of actions taken by the President and the 89th Congress,\nwhen the pattern was set for a sharp upward surge in federal domestic spending\nat the same time that Vietnam War costs were moving toward the present $26 billion\na-year level.\nIt is the fruit of inaction on inflation in early 1966, when an attack on\nthe rise in living costs would have done the most good.\nAs your Congressman, I have done everything in my power to see to it that\nyour tax dollars are spent wisely. But the voices of prudence and economy in\nthe Congress are simply too few.\nThis is Jerry Ford, reporting to you from WAshngton. I'll be talking with\nyou again next week, same time, same station.\nGERALD R-FORD\nSCRIPT RECORDED TUESDAY, NOV. 28, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Wash ington.\nThere may be a long, hard road ahead before Congress takes final action on\nincreases in Social Security benefits and in payroll taxes to pay for the rise\nin benefits.\nThe reason is that the bill passed by the Senate on Nov. 22 is substantially\ndifferent from the legislation approved by the House last August 17.\nThis means that certain members of the House and the Senate must get together\nto try to compromise the differences in the two bills. This group, known as\na conference committee, then will come back to the House and the Senate for\napproval of whatever compromise agreements they reach.\nSometimes such agreements are reached quickly. But the prospect on the\nSocial Security legislation is that some tough and perhaps lengthy bargaining\nlies ahead for the conference committee.\nThe Senate bill goes farther than the House in raising Social Security\nbenefits. But of course it also greatly increases future payroll taxes to pay for\nthem--the payr$11 taxes that must be paid by most working Americans every year of\ntheir working lives.\nUnder the House bill, an employee paying the maximum Social Security tax\nwould see his payroll tax go up from the present $290.40 to $334.40 next year\nand then rise steadily until it hit $429.40 in 1973. Under the Senate bill, the\nsame employee would have his payroll tax raised from the present $290140 to $352.00\nFORD LIBRARY \"y GERALD\n-2-\nin 1968 and then would see it go up steadily each year until it climbed to\n$610.20 in 1973. So, by 1973, the maximum payroll tax to be paid by an employee\nunder the Senate bill would be nearly $200 higher than under the House bill.\nWe should note too that payroll taxes paid by employees must be matched by their\nemployers. Although 1973 seems rather far off, it's really just a little more\nthan five years from now.\nThe House bill would provide that nobody on Social Security would get\nless than $50 a month in benefits. Minimum monthly benefits under the Senate\nbill would be $70. The minimum now is $44.\nThere is much more in the Social Security legislation than simply changes\nin benefits and in payroll taxes. The Senate bill, for instance, is 423 pages\nlong.\nThe legislation would make extensive changes in Federal-State welfare\nprograms, and this will give the House and Senate conferees a bone to chew on.\nThe House is trying to tighten up on welfare and to force as many persons as\npossible off the welfare rolls and into gainful employment. The Senate softened\nup these proposed changes in the welfare program.\nThere was some liberalizing of the Social Security program in the Senate\nbill without any action to pay the cost. One such amendment would allow retired\npersons and widows to earn as much as $2,400 a year without losing any of their\nold-age insurance benefits. Thischange would add about $500 million to the\ncost of the program. There WD uld be no offsetting increase in revenue to pay for it.\nThe present earnings limitation is $1,500 a year. The House bill would\nraise it to $1,680. This increased program cost is provided for in the\nbill. BERA FORD LIBRARY\nIn the first full year of operation, the Senate bill would raise the\n-3-\npresent level of Social Security benefits by about $6.5 billion, with no provision\nfor paying part of that cost. This is $1.7 billion more than the Administration\nasked for.\nolhing\nOur senior citizens desperately need help. But the level of federal payroll\ntaxes is climbing painfully high. For that reason it's a good bet something closer\nto the House bill than the Senate version will finally be adopted.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'll\nbe back with you next week, same time, same station.\n####\nFORD\nSCRIPT RECORDED TUESDAY. NOV. 28, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO\nThis is your congressman, Berry Ford, reporting to you from Wash ington.\nThere may be a long, hard road ahead before Congress takes final action on\nmore\nincreases in Social Security benefits and in payroll taxes to pay for the rise\nin benefits.\nThe reason is that the bill passed by the Senate on Nov. 22 is substantially\ndifferent from the legislation approved by the House last August 17.\nThis means that certain members of the House and the Senate must get together\nto try to compromise the differences in the two bills. This group, known as\na conference committee, then will come back to the House and the Senate for\napproval ofwhatever compromises agreements they reach.\nSometimes such agreements are reached quickly. But the prospect on the\nSocial Security legislation is that some tough and perhaps lengthy bargaining\nlies ahead for the conference committee.\nThe Senate bill goes considerably farther than the House bill in raising\nboth Social Security benefits and future payroll taxes to pay for them.\nThe House bill provides for #124 per cent increase in benefits; the Senate\nbill, for 15 per cent.\nUnder the House bill, an employee paying the maximum Social Security tax\nwould see his payroll tax go up from the present $290.40 to $334.40 next year\nand then rise steadily until it hit $429.40 in 1973. Under the Senate R.FD bill, LIBRA the\nsame employee would have his payroll tax raised from the present $290.40 to $352.00\n-2\"\nin 1968 and then would see It go up steadily each year until it climbed to\n$610.20 in 1973. So, by 1973, the maximum payroll tax to be paid by an employee\nunder the Senate bill would be nearly $200 higher than under the House bill.\nWe should note too that payroll taxes paid by employees must be matched by their\nemployers. Although 1973 seems rather far off, it's really just a little more\nthan five years from now.\nThe House bill would provide that nobody on Social Security would get\nless than $50 a month in benefits. Minimum monthly benefits under the Senate\nbill would be $70. The minimum now is $44.\nThere is much more in the Social Security legislation than simply changes\nin benefits and in payroll taxes. The Senate bill, for instance, is 423 pages\nlong.\nThe legislation would make extensive changes in Federal-State welfare\nprograms, and this will give the House and Senate conferees a bone to chew on.\nThe House is trying to tighten up on welfare and to force as many persons as\npossible off the welfare rolls and into gainful employment. The Senate softened\nup these proposed changes in the welfare program.\nThere was some liberalizing of the Social Security program in the Senate\nbill without any action to pay the cost. One such amendment would allow retired\npersons and widows to earn as much as$$2,400 a year without losing any of their\nold-age insurance benefits. Thischange would add about $500 million to the\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nproposed increase in benefits.\nThe present earnings limitation is $1,500 a year. The House bill would\nA1\n-3-\nraise it to $1,680.\nIn the first full year of operation, the Senate bill would raise the\npresent level of Social Security benefits by about $6.5 billion. That exceeds\nthe Administration's requestaby $1.7 billion. Wull-year benefits would total\n$3.2 billion under the House bill.\nIt's a pretty good bet that something closer to the House bill than the\nSenate version will would finally be adopted.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nI'll be back with you next week, same time, same station.\n....\nGERALD R. LISEARY FORD\nRadio-Television Script\nNATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE\n312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL\nWASHINGTON 3. D. C.\nLINCOLN 4-3010\nScript No. 45\nDecember 4, 1967\nLESSON FROM ENGLAND\nThis is Congressman\nreporting to you from Washington.\nWhen Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced to the world that he had decided to\ndevaluate the English pound, most Americans, I think, didn't quite understand what this meant.\nBut they did understand that the devaluation was a big event with even some unpleasant implica-\ntions for them.\nFor, suddenly the American dollar was under enormous pressure throughout the world\nas a result of the British action. Indeed, there was much talk that our dollar might also have\nto be \"officially\" devaluated. What happens in England is, therefore, of great interest to US.\nAnd what happened is basically this: The average British family faces hard times.\nIt is going to have to tighten its belt and \"do without.\" The roast beef of Old England is going\nto be off a lot of menus. The British people won't starve, but they may have eat. a lot of dull,\ndissatisfying meals in the future.\nI realize that the present Administration in this country has pledged \"unequivocably\"\nthat there will be no dollar devaluation. In recent months, Prime Minister Wilson had done the\nsame thing where the pound was concerned. He declared again and again that his government\nwas \"unalterably\" opposed to devaluation. Sruwhat has happened? The value of the pound has\nbeen lowered from two dollars and eighty cents to two dollars and forty cents by Mr. Wilson him-\nself. Pledges from No. 10 Downing Street couldn't save the pound. Can pledges from the White\nHouse save the dollar?\nThe British have been living beyond their income for a long time, just as we have in\nthis country. An economic policy of \"spend and spend\" has been theirs for a long time also. They\nwere warned, as we have been warned, that there would be a day of reckoning to face. Well,\nit arrived. The prime minister was forced to face the economic facts of life and break his oft-\nrepeated pledges.\nFORD\nis\nBut, devaluation for Britain is, I believe, only a beginning. Let me quote from on\narticle in the Richmond, Virginia, Times Dispatch, which makes the point well. The writer is\ntalking about the problems that led up to the present financial crisis. He says--quote==\"..nor\n-\nmore\n-\n- 2-\nwill these problems be solved quickly or alone by the drastic act of devaluation. Higher interest\nrates, increased taxes, spending cuts and possibly tough new controls on wages, prices and credit\nwill accompany devaluation, making the Labor government's earlier austerity program--which\nfailed to save the pound--seem almost like a picnic.\" Unquote.\nOf course, the White House is going to \"pledge unequivicably\" that there will be\nno devaluation of the dollar, as it has already done. I am only wondering how far away is our\nday of reckoning.\nThe only bright side to the picture that I can see is this. If the British crisis can force\nUS to cut spending--to put our financial house in order--then it will not have been in vain.\nBritain has learned somewhat brutally that it cannot live beyond its means. It has been forced\nto recognize that it must pay its way. It realizes now how ridiculous was that pledge about na-\ntional debts--namely, that \"it's only money we owe ourselves.\"\nHas Britain's tragic example taught US anything? That is the question. If it hasn't,\nthen the present Administration may well say--as Madame Pompadour did in France--\"after us,\nthe deluge.\"\nThis is Congressman\nreporting from Washington.\n(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.\nFor additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Com-\nmittee's Public Relations Office.)\n###\nSCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, DEC. 6, 1967, FOR werkend USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO\nThis is your congressmen, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nThe most significant developments in the Congress in recent days are\nthe reaching of an agreement between the House and Senate on the shape of the\nanti-poverty program through mid-1969 and the fact that the federal government's\nspending picture is coming into focus.\nYou may remember that the Senate passed a $2.2 billion anti-poverty bill\nand the House approved a $1.6 billion measure. Certain House and Senate members\npicked to work out the differences in the two bills finally agreed on a spending\nceiling for the program for this year of just under $2 billion.\nActually, this was perhaps the least important compromise on the anti-poverty\nbill as it applies to the fiscal year ending this June 30. The reason I say\nthis is that House Appropriations Committee Chairman George Mahon, Democrat of\nTexas, made it known long ago that his committee would not approve more than\n$1.6 billion in spending for the anti-poverty program this fiscal year.\nTwo actions by the Congress determine the course of the anti-poverty program.\nOne is the authorization bill just agreed to, with its spending ceiling of\nnearly $2 billion, and the other is the appropriation bill which actually spells\nout how much can be spent on the program.\nThe most important change in the anti-poverty program is one which was\nFORD\nopposed by House Republicans and mumbers of both parties in the Sem te. It\nRALD\nBRARY\nturns control of the community action phase of the anti-poverty program to City\nHall. Southern Democrats in the House wanted this change so local politicians\n-2-\nin their districts could ride herd on local community action programs. House\nRepublicans believe, along with Negro Congressman Augustus c. Hawkins,\nDemocrat of California, that this poverty program change will force the poor to\n\"go hat in hand to City Hall.\" Northern Democrats in the House agreed to the\nchange to win Southern support fortheir bill.\nThe final version of the anti-poverty authorization bill provides for a\nso-called bypass of City Hall control but I don't think it means much. The bypass\nwould allow the Office of Economic Opportunity to set up a community action\nprogram if local officials failed to do so and would let OEO turn the program\nover to a private agency if local officials failed to operate it to OEO's\nsatisfaction. In practice, I don't think this bypass provision will work. It\nwould have been far better to work toward greater involvement of the poor in\nthe operation of local community action programs--not less. I think the andnded\nanti-poverty program will tend to shut the poor out. Certainly it puts City Hall\nin the driver's seat, and in some cities this is a dismal prospect.\nI said earlier that the federal fiscal picture is beginning to come into\nfocus. I was referring tothe fact that the Johnson Administration's budget\ndirector recently indicated the federal deficit this year would run under\n$20 billion--without a tax increase.\nThis will come about only because economy-minded members of the House have\nbeen pressuring for deep cuts in federal spending in an attempt to bring\nGERALD R LIBRARY FORD\nrunaway federal spending under control.\n-3-\nWe should never put the dollar above the national good but we should\nseek balance in our fiscal affairs. We cannot solve every problem with\nfederal dollars, and we should remember that every dollar we spend must be\naccounted for. There is always a day of reckoning. It is always the people\nwho pay.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nI'll be back with you next week over this same station.\n#####\nBERALD FORD GRANN\nSCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, DEC. 6, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nThe most significant developments in the Congress in recent days are\nthe reaching of an agreement between the House and Senate on the shape of the\nanti-poverty program through mid-1969 and the fact that the federal government's\ndearer\nspending picture is coming into focus.\nYou may remember that the Sem te passed a $2.2 billion anti-poverty bill\nabill that involves\nand the House approved 1 $1.6 billion measure. Certain House and Senate members\npicked to work out the differences in the two bills finally agreed on a spending\nceiling for the program for this year of just under $2 billion.\nActually, this was perhaps the least important compromise on the anti-poverty\nnext\nbill as it applies to the fiscal year ending this June 30. The reason I say\nthis is that House Appropriations Committee Chairman George Mahon, Democrat of\nTexas, made it known long ago that his committee would not approve more than\n$1.6 billion in spending for the anti-poverty program this fiscal year.\nTwo actions by the Congress determine the course of the anti-poverty program.\nOne is the authorization bill just agreed to, with its spending ceiling of\nnearly $2 billion, and the other is the appropriation bill which actually spells\nout how much can be spent on the program.\nThe most important change in the anti-poverty program is one which was\nus.\nopposed by House Republicans and members of both parties in the Sem te. It\nover\nturns control of the community action phase of the anti-poverty program to City\nparticularly in the big metropolitan areas like Chicago, n.y., Dersit,etc,\nHall Hall, Southern Democrats in the House wanted this change so local politicians RD\nbadey\nGERALD LIBRARY\n-2-\nrespective\nin their districts could ride herd on local community action programs. House\nRepublicans believe, along with Negro Congressman Augustus C. Hawkins,\nDemocrat of California, that this poverty program change will force the poor to\n\"go hat in hand to City Hall.\" Northern Democrats in the House agreed to the\nchange to win Southern support for their bill.\nThe final version of the anti-poverty authorization bill provides for a\nso-called bypass of City Hall control but quite frankly I don't think it means much. The bypass\nvery\nwould allow the Office of Economic Opportunity to set up a community action\nprogram if local officials failed to do so and would let OEO turn the program\nover to a private agency if local officials failed to operate it to OEO's\nsatisfaction. In practice, I don't think this bypass provision will work. It\nwould have been far better to work toward greater involvement of the poor in\nthe operation of local community action programs-not less. I think the amended\nanti-poverty program will tend to shut the poor out. Certainly it puts City Hall, programs\nof their involvement in the many\nBig\nairyHall, in the major metropoliton and in areas,\nthe driver 8 seat, some cities this is a very dismal prospect.\nwith all the political ramifications\nI said earlier that the federal fiscal picture is beginning to come into\nfocus. I was referring toche fact that the Johnson Administration's budget\ndirector recently indicated the federal deficit this year would run under slightly under,\n$20 billion--without a tax increase,\nThis will come about only because economy-minded members of the House have\nbeen pressuring for deep cuts in federal spending in an attempt to bring\nrunaway federal spending under control.\nGERALD LIBRARY FORD\n-3-\nabriously,\nWe should never put the dollar above the national good but we should\nseek balance in our fiscal affairs. We cannot solve every problem with\nmove more\nfederal dollars, and we should remember that every dollar we spend must be\naccounted for. There is always a day of reckoning. It is always the people\nwho pay.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.\nI'll be hack with you next week over this same station.\n#####\nGETALO FORD LIBRARY\nRadio Television Script\nNATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE\n312 CONGRESSIONAL HOTEL\nWASHINGTON 3, D. C.\nLINCOLN 4-3010\nScript No. 47\nDecember II, 1967\nCHRISTMAS, 1968, AND BEYOND\nNote: We are sending you this holiday script in the\nthought it may provide material for a Christmastime\ntalk over your District stations or for newsletters or\nother use.\nThis is Congressman\nwishing you a Merry Christmas and a happy\nand prosperous New Year.\nI believe, that before next year is over and another Christmas rolls around, much\nwill happen to lighten our hearts and provide renewed confidence in the future. I believe that\nwhen next year is over, we will all be able to look back and say \"much has been gained.\"\nAnd I'm not speaking just about the elections coming up next November.\nThis year, 1967, has been a year of tension and gloom. It was, as if we, as a\nnation, were lost in a dark forest of critical events with no paths leading to sunlight 07 solutions.\nI think that most of US have dreaded the future, have been afraid to look ahead.\nNineteen-sixty-eight and beyond will be different, I believe. The trees in the\nforest will start to thin out and between the dark branches the sun will shine. We will even count\nthe passing days eagerly, because they will lead to a happy climax. I believe that so much we\nhave wished for will be closer to our reach next year.\nIn the last few years, too many of US have lost pride in our country, have been\nashamed of the road it has taken, have been bewildered at the twistings and turnings that seem\nto lead nowhere. We have asked ourselves, \"what goals are we striving for? What is our aim?\nWhere are we, as a nation headed?\" And because we have not known, we have drifted; we have\nbeen afraid.\nOverseas, we have witnessed United States prestige deteriorate to the point where\nUncle Sam is no longer revered and respected. We have seen our embassies stoned and sacked;\nour citizens set upon and attacked.\n(ORD\nIn Southeast Asia, we are fighting a war which we seem to have no determination\nto win. And we see casualties mounting daily. But, still, we can begin to see the faint glim-\nmerings of the end in sight--if only our resolve holds out.\n- more -\n- 2 -\nBefore 1968 is over, I am convinced we will have done much to restore our\nnational pride and to regain our national courage and international respect. We will know bet-\nter where we are headed. A definite course will begin to be laid out that Americans can approve\nof. And because it is definite and its goals known, we will tread proudly over that course. We\nwill not hesitate because of timidity or fear.\nA country that is loaded down with debt and no end in sight, like an individual\nloaded down with debt, cannot be a happy country. Explain it away as you will, shut your\neyes to it as you will, there is always the subconscious knowledge that the day of reckoning\nmust come. There is the continuing and subtle fear that the reckoning may be nearer and more\nbitter than we think. Next year, and beyond, we will--we must-face our debt situation and\nstop dreaming up alibis for our prodigal spending. We must--we will--stop our drifting toward\npossible bankruptcy.\nYes, I am optimistic about the future. My rose-colored glasses are freshly polished\nand clear. In my crystal globe, I see a far-reaching change. I see Uncle Sam a leader again\nand confident. 1 see him respected once more and admired. I see his opinions listened to and\nconsidered, instead of being sneered at and derided. I see his example being followed.\nBy Christmastime, 1968, I predict America will be headed back onto the course\nwhich made it the greatest nation in the world. And both Americans at home and people abroad\nwill breath a sigh of relief.\nSo I wish you with confidence, \"A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.\"\nThis is Congressman\nreporting from Washington.\n(Note: A copy of this script is available on Teleprompter in the House TV Studio.\nFor additional information on this script or to suggest ideas for future scripts, contact the Com-\nmittee's Public Relations Office.)\n###\nSCRIPT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, DEC. 13, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY DISTRICT STATIONS\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's\ncapitol.\nThis will be my last Washington report to you until next year. I think it is\nappropriate that I tell you what kind of a job I think Congress has done this\nyear and where it could have been better.\nFirst of all, Congress deserves a vote of taxpayer thanks for cutting federal\nspending this fiscal year by roughly $4 billion. If the budget bureau director's\narithmetic works out right, this should bring the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's\ndeficit down to $19.8 billion. That's still a huge deficit, but the Democratic\nmajority in the Congress successfully resisted the efforts of some of us to reduce\nit to a smaller figure.\nThe Congress refused to go along with the President's move to increase your\nincome tax bill by 10 per cent. I think that was wise. Not only are the American\npeople already heavily burdened with taxes, but there's good reason to believe a\ntax increase might damage the economy and create unemployment.\nThe 90th Congress passed some good legislation this year.\nWe put the Teacher Corps on solid footing, authorizing it for three years\nand turning the recruitment, selection and training of these teachers for slum\nschools over to local schools and colleges. This program eventually should pay\ndividends for us all in improved citizenship and earning potential for our slum\nchildren.\nCongress greatly improved federal and state meat inspection with a program of\n50-50 matching funds to get states voluntarily to bring inspection in intra-state\nmeat plants up to federal standards. This must be done within three years at the\nmost, or federal inspection becomes mandatory in the intrastate plants.\nThe House passed a Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act which\nmakes funds available to the states to launch a War on Crime in accordance with\napproved state plans.\nIn a tremendous show of bipartisan support, the Congress approved a three-year,\n$428 million program to attack air pollution problems on a regional basis.\nWe passed a Comprehensive Health Act, which allocates federal funds to\ncommunities to fight rats, communicable diseases and drug addiction.\nWe increased Social Security benefits, acted to improve the operations of\nMedicare, tightened up on Medicaid, revised the welfare laws to encourage welfare\nrecipients to go to work. We also prevented a nationwide rail strike by approving\nan Administration plan which required railroad management and the unions to submit\ntheir dispute to arbitration.\nThere were, of course, areas where Congress fell short.\nThe President should have proposed and Congress should have approved\nlegislation to improve our handling of national emergency strikes. I don't think\nthe kind of compulsory arbitration we forced on the railroads and the rail unions\nis the proper answer.\nI also regret that the 90th Congress failed to become a reform Congress.\nBy that I mean the Congress should have passed an Election Reform law, a clean\nelections law like the one reported out with bipartisan support by a House elections\nsubcommittee. The Congress also should have enacted into law a plan for modernizing\nthe operations of Congress so that it can better serve the people. The Senate passed\na congressional reorganization bill but the Democratic leadership of the House\nfailed to bring it to the House floor for action.\nOn the whole, however, the 90th Congress did a pretty good job.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you for the last time this\nyear and wishing you a Merry Christmas--and the very best in 1968. I'll be back\nwith you in the New Year over this same station.\n####\nFORD\ny\nGERALD\nSCRIFT RECORDED WEDNESDAY, DEC. 13, 1967, FOR WEEKEND USE BY DISTRICT STATIONS\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nationás\nCapitol.\nThis will be my last Washington report to you until next year. I think it is\nappropriate that I tell you what kind of a job I think Congress has done this\nyear and where it could have been better.\nFirst of all, Congress deserves a vote of taxpayer thanks for cutting federal\nspending this fiscal year by roughly $4 billion. If the budget bureau director's\narithmetic works out right, this should bring the Johnson-Humphrey Administration's\ndeficit down to $19.8 billion. That's still a huge deficit, but the Democratic\nmajority in the Congress successfully resisted the efforts of some of us to reduce\nit to a smaller figure.\nThe Congress refused to go along with the President's move to increase your\nincome tax bill by 10 per cent. I think that was wise. Not only are the American\npeople already heavily burdened with taxes, but there's good reason to believe a\ntax increase might damage the economy and create unemployment.\nThe 90th Congress passed some good legislation this year.\nWe put the Teacher Corps on solid feeting, authorising it for three years\nand turning the recruttment, selection and training of these teachers for slum\nschools over to local schools and colleges. This program eventually should pay\ndividends for us all in improved citizenship and earning potential for our alum\nchildren.\nFORD LIBRARY & GERALD\nCongress greatly improved federal and state meat inspection with a program of\n50-50 matching funds to get states voluntarily to bring inspection in intra-state\nmeat plants up to federal standards. This must be done within three years at the\nmost, or federal inspection becomes mandatory in the intrastate plants.\nThe House passed a Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Assistance Act which\nmakes funds THE available to the states to launch a War on Crime in accordance with\napproved state plans.\nIn a tremendous show of bipartisen support, the Congress approved a three-year,\n$428 million program to attack air pollution problems on a regional basis.\nWe passed a Comprehensive Health Act, which allocates federal funds to\ncommunities to fight rats, communicable diseases and drug addiction.\nWe increased Social Security benefits, acted to improve the operations of\nMedicare, tightened up on Medicaid, revised the welfare laws to encourage welfare\nrecipients to go to work. We also prevented a natienwide rail strike by approving\nan Administration plan which required railroad management and the unions to Submit\ntheir dispute to arbitration.\nThere were, of course, areas where Congress fell short.\nThe President should have proposed and Congress should have approved\nlegislation to improve our handling of national emergency strikes. I don't think\nthe kind of compulsory arbitration we forced on the railroads and the rail unions\nis the proper answer.\nI also regret that the 90th Congress failed to become a reform Congress.\nFORD\nBy that I mean the Congress should have passed an Election Reform law, a clean\nLIBRARY\nGERAL\nelections law like the one reported out with bipartisan support by a House elections\nsubcommittee. The Congress also should have enacted into law a plan for modernising\nthe operations of Congress so that it can better serve the people. The Senate passed\na congressional reogganization bill but the Democratic leadership of the House\nfailed to bring it to the House floor for action.\nOn the whole, however, the 90th Congress did a pretty good job.\nThis is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you for the last time this\nyear and wishing you a Merry Christmam--and the very best in 1968. I'll be back\nwith you in the New Year over this same station.\n####\nFORD"
}