Speech given by Sen. John J. Williams at a Nixon Lodge rally on 11/5/60 at Lane High School, Charlottesville, Va.

Senator John J. Williams: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator John J. Williams: I will address here is ladies Senator John J. Williams: and gentlemen, fellow Americans, Senator John J. Williams: all without any regard as to

Senator John J. Williams: what political party you're affiliated with, Senator John J. Williams: either the Republican, Senator John J. Williams: Democratic, or Independents. Senator John J. Williams: I am very proud to be

Senator John J. Williams: here tonight and to speak in Senator John J. Williams: this state which is known as Senator John J. Williams: the mother of our Presidents. A state, Senator John J. Williams: which has produced many great Americans,

Senator John J. Williams: men who have served their country well. Senator John J. Williams: I will refer not so Senator John J. Williams: much to those in the past, Senator John J. Williams: so much as those who are serving you today.

Senator John J. Williams: I have, for the past 14 years, Senator John J. Williams: had the honor and the privilege of serving in Senator John J. Williams: the United States Senate with Senator John J. Williams: a man whom I consider to be,

Senator John J. Williams: and not only I, but men and women throughout Senator John J. Williams: the country consider to be one of the greatest of all Americans. A man who has done more to keep

this country in a conservative pattern of government and to maintain the stability of our American dollar and our economy than any other individual.

And I refer to your senior senator, Senator Harry Byrd. [Applause] I am likewise, proud to say that I

also have equal respect for another man who is serving you in the Senate and that as Willis Robertson

[Applause] Of course, while we don't know him quite as intimately as I do these other two men, nevertheless,

I do know of the great work that he's done, the congressman from this district, Mr. Smith, [Applause]

These men have been bulwarks of strength, not only in protecting the rights of the American people throughout the country,

but also they had done much to preserve what little areas remaining of the rights of our individual states. And I've been proud on many occasions to join

these men in their fight to preserve those freedoms. And I'm speaking, as I said in the beginning here tonight,

not as a member of either political party, but rather I'm addressing you as just another conservative American citizen, one who is interested in keeping

this country solvent and keeping us moving forward as we have been in the past under our great free enterprise system.

And to say a few words, towards the support of asking all of us to join together, o support the conservative team of Nixon and Lodge at this next Tuesday.

Because I believe that this is one of the most important elections which going to face us in the years to come. I am making that statement and I

emphasize at the same time that I am not questioning the sincerity or the patriotism, those who are the candidates

on the other ticket. But at the same time, I do think that there is a difference in the philosophies for which they stand,

and I don't think that we can afford some of the promises which have been made in the Los Angeles platform. Now I said early

in his campaign that Vice President Nixon, as he started out campaigning for the presidency, I said you should remember one thing,

and that is, in this campaign, you cannot, and you should not out promise, you can't outspend, nor you can't out tax those who are dealing,

believing in that New Deal philosophy as being advocated under the Los Angeles platform. Now, I was interested

yesterday or day before it was to notice the statement was made by Senator Kennedy as he was campaigning in, I believe it was Virginia,

where he said, and placed great emphasis upon the fact, that he believed in a balanced budget just as much as any other man.

And if elected, he would try to balance the budget and at the same time, he would maintain a stable and solid American dollar.

I point out though, that that is what we have been told for the past several years. I'd like to read to you and

I know no more appropriate place to read it, then the quote from the 1948 platform, when another gentleman, was running on the same promise.

And I'm quoting from the 1948 platform of the Democratic Party at that time, under Mr. Truman. "We pledge the continued maintenance

of those sound fiscal policies under Democratic leadership had brought about a balanced budget and a reduction in the public debt."

Now, if you will examine the record, we will find that in the past 26 years when this philosophy has been prevailing under that,

that we can spend ourselves into prosperity, that they have spent $268 billion more than we've taken it. It's true a lot of that has gone to pay for

wars and should not be charged against the political party which is in power. Because I am not for one moment

inferring that wars are a political issue, or that either party is a war party. But $70 billion of our national debt today was created

under peacetime administration. It was created in carrying out promises which were being made to the American people

during the campaigns. Promises which they were going to give to the American people something for nothing. In reality, it was not something for nothing,

but they were merely charging it up to your children and grandchildren for the generations to come. Now, an analysis of

the Los Angeles platform shows that it will cost approximately $14 billion to carry out this platform. Either they're going to

renege on the promises, or if they carry it out, it will cost an additional $14 billion. Now there's one thing we must

remember always, that government of the United States does not have access to any mysterious source of income. The only money that we in

government can give to you as citizens of this country under any federal aid program is money which we have first taken, either directly or

indirectly, out of your pocket as a taxpayer. And the alternative to taking this out of your pocket in the form of taxes is to borrow the money

and charge it up to the future generations to pay. Now as far as the argument that we can finance this out of increased growth of our economy

as I pointed out before, that is the same argument we've been receiving for the past several years

under the preceding administration, which could not do it, nor can it be done now. And it's just about as ridiculous

for to emphasize that you could spend an additional 13 or 14 billion dollars next year and

not cost anybody anything but pay it out of the increased earning capacity of the country, as it would be for

a young married couple who for the preceding years had likewise been living beyond their income just as

your federal government had been doing, and then to say, we're going to trade the Ford in for a Cadillac. We're going to buy a lot of new luxuries.

We're not going to create any further debt though, because we're going to pay for it out of additional salaries that we think

the boss may be able to give him. Now, I don't think that would be solid and I don't think that it's good business for we

in government to sit back and say we can give you 13 or 14 billion dollars additional next year, not going to raise your taxes

because you're going to make so much more money that you'll have more and more to send down to Washington.

Now what happens if we borrow this money? We've had an example of seeing our debt skyrocket up til today it's $290 billion, with the result that the American dollar has

lost one half of its purchasing value. Now what does that mean to the average individual? It means that we have,

as a result of the erosion of the American dollar, we have destroyed one half the life savings of every American citizen.

One half the value of your pension funds, your life insurance policies, and your savings account. And if any of you don't think that it's done that,

take your government bond, which ten years ago you bought for $75 with the understanding that the government at the end of

this 10 years would pay you back $100. You get the a $100 today, but you can't buy with the $100 what you could have bought with $50 ten years ago.

It has destroyed on half their purchasing value of all your savings. And as a result of that, we have been pauperizing

the aged here in America. And I think that's one of the greatest disservices that had been to the,

under the preceding administration were in our dollar did lose $0.48 of each value was this taking away from the American people their life savings?

And I know that there is no man in this room tonight nor a man who's listening on the air, who but can picture some case in your own town

or on your own street, some elderly couple who ten or fifteen years ago retired on what at that time they thought

and on what at that time you would have said yourself was adequate to provide for them for the remainder of their life. Today as a result of

the diminishing purchasing power of this pension or these savings which they have, those people are actually having to

appeal to the state or the federal government for assistance. And I think it's a shocking indictment on any administration that will

debase the currency of our country. And I think it's something that we must stand by in order to preserve. And again, I pay

tribute to the man who has done as much as any other individual or more toward leading the fight in cutting down

these excessive government expenditures. And I'm again referring to you're able senator here from this old state. Now, I'd like to briefly point

out a few statements that have been made in this campaign at which I won't say they were distortions deliberately or anything,

but nevertheless, the statements themselves did leave a misunderstanding on the part of many of the people who were listening to them.

I'm referring to a statement which was made by Senator Kennedy when he was campaigning in one of our Midwestern cities.

He placed great emphasis upon the fact that 15% of our American people were today living in substandard housing. Now that is true.

The government statistics for which he quoted it from are accurate. But nevertheless, what he did not say was that

eight years ago under this administration, thirty two and a half percent of the government, of the American people were living in substandard housing in 1953.

And that there has been progress during these eight years. And I think that should be spelled out clearly that we have

made great progress and that we're continuing to do it and we can do it without crash programs. Likewise, the statement was made that

the government employees were at an all-time high. Now based upon reports put out by the committee of which Senator Byrd is Chairman,

it shows that the government employees today are not at an all-time high, but that they had been cut substantially from their number that were on

the payroll in 1953. And then last week, I was listening to the senator as he made his speech in one of the

depressed areas in Michigan. Again, he repeated the same statement when he was speaking in a depressed area in Pennsylvania.

He was expressing his sympathy for those men and women who were unemployed. And I join in expressing sympathy to any man who is out of a job.

He also called attention to the fact that in addition to their unemployment insurance, that they were getting assistance from the federal government in the form of

free food furnished out of these government warehouses. And then he went on further and he said, but you should have had more.

And he asked this question, he said, Did you know that in the year 1954 our government was actually allowing dried milk to

be fed to hogs here in America. And then he went on to say that point out that their children perhaps needed this extra milk.

And at the hungry children and the hungry men and women throughout the world likewise needed this milk. Now it so happens that

Long before I went in the Senate, I was engaged in the grain and feed business and I'm still connected with it today. It's been about 35 years

since they first develop the process, so-called prep spraying process, where they can dry mill. And in each year since that time,

in every one of the years, not 1954, not 1944 for 34, but in every year since then, dried milk has been a standard ingredient

in the manufacture of poultry and animal feeds. As most any of you farmers here know, it's being used

widely throughout the country. And yet, I think that statement in itself left much misunderstanding. Likewise, we hear so much said about

our steel capacity today operating at 55%. That is true. But what we have is a reserve capacity in

the event of an emergency. We have doubled our steel capacity in the past 10 years. And with this double capacity,

when it's operating at 55%, were putting out more tonnage today in steel then was being put out ten years ago and this is

reported that will be expected. And I speaking last night with the gentleman from the second largest steel company in America,

and he said that they were expecting this to be the third highest year in the output of steel.

So I think that again, figures and percentages can be misleading. Likewise, another statement was

made by the candidate Senator Kennedy, and I'm quoting, "Last year United States had the lowest rate of economic growth of

any major industrialized society in the world," end of quote. Now, the fact is, and I'm quoting this time

from a report put out by the Senate Joint Economic Committee, of which Senator Kennedy is a member. So this report was put out by

a committee of which he is a member. And this report shows that the growth in the United States of 1958 and 59 was 6.9%.

Their growth in Canada, it was 4.4%, France, 4.7%. And you can go on down the line with all of the free nations of the world.

And the United States government last year had the highest economic growth of any of these countries.

So I think this should be pointed out and made very clear because I am one that's getting somewhat concerned and a little bit

impatient at this continuous downgrading of the United States of America. [Applause] We are living in a great country and we're all proud of it.

And I know no better example to point out, since this referring to this question of prestige of our country. Yesterday, there was a rumor, and we

understand it was a rumor only, to the effect that they had been a drastic change in the government of Russia. Now the significant point is,

is not whether or not that's true. But the point is that the nations throughout the world, as they heard it, they

did not completely discount it. It was not an utter impossibility, and we recognized it as such.

Now on the other hand, suppose this same reporter in Vienna had started the rumor that the government of the United

States had been overthrown and that we had put our own president in jail. Who in the world

in what capital of the world would anyone have paid any attention to that rumor at all? It would never have gotten across

even to make the drugstore gossip. So I think that in itself shows the difference in the opinion of what

the world holds for our government, the stability of our government, as well as a comparison with how they view the government of Russia.

Now again, we've heard much in this campaign about concern for the aged. Now the fact is, and I know there's been great emphasis

placed on the fact that, well, it was only the Republican Party that blocked this bill for the aged.

This bill, the so-called Kennedy Medical Care bill, was presented to the Senate Finance Committee,

of which I am a member and of which your own Senator Byrd was chairman. This bill was presented to our committee and on a roll call vote in the committee,

and the committee, by the way, composed of seventeen members, 11 members of the Democratic Party, and six members of the Republican Party.

On a roll call vote for this candidate medical aid care bill was defeated 12 to 5. It was repudiated by a majority of the members of his own party.

And I was glad to join those members in repudiating what we felt was an unsound piece of legislation. Now, I'd like to say some more about

these committee attendances. In this political campaign there has been much criticism of the administration,

the Eisenhower-Nixon team, and particularly criticism of the Vice President Nixon on the fact that he is

not given enough attention to these new nations that are developing in Africa and Asia. Now it's been about two years ago that

Senator Nixon was visited that area. Upon his return to Washington, he conferred with the President and the Secretary of State,

and upon his recommendation, a special department was established in the State Department do work with these new nations.

At the same time, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which both Senator Kennedy and I are members,

established a special subcommittee to deal with the same problem and to work with this undersecretary or this department in the State Department,

Senator Kennedy was the chairman of this special Afro-Asian subcommittee, which he says is very important. He hasn't called a single meeting

in the year 1960. That's the importance that he personally attached to it. Likewise, there's been much

said about the need of our government giving more attention to the problems of disarmament. Looking through the time when nations

of the world can reach an agreement where we can start disarming rather than feverishly rearming for

another worldwide conflict. This is a very important question. The United States Senate recognized the importance of this problem.

It was so important that we established a special committee, the Senate Disarmament Subcommittee, to deal with this problem and to study it.

They have been studying it for the past two years. Senator Kennedy is a member of that committee,

and since August 1958, he's never been present at a single meeting. [Applause with some laughter] There has been much

said of theproblem of automation. He has placed great emphasis upon the fact during this campaign

that this problem of automation, the development of new machinery in our plants and factories and homes, and ever more modern equipment is

going to replace men from jobs. He said there hasn't been enough attention given in Washington to studying the problem of

those people who are going to be replaced. And he said that there should be more attention. And if elected President,

he's going to appoint a committed to work on it. Now, again, the Senate has a subcommittee of automation.

This subcommittee in the past two years has had five committee meetings. One of those committee meetings was held in Boston

Massachusetts, the home state of our candidate. And at the same time he is a member of this all important committee. But he has never seen fit again to attend

a single committee meeting during this period. Likewise, there has been much criticism of the fact that

the economic growth in this country is not keeping pace as he thinks it should. As I pointed out before, he even was under the impression that

countries were ahead of us. But had he read the report of his own committee he would have known differently.

[Applause] But the Senate, recognizing the importance that we must keep abreast of this problem, they have established a joint committee

of both the House and the Senate, of which are composed of some of the members of the Senate and certain members of the House.

Again, Senator Kennedy is a member, not the chairman, a member of this joint economic committee. This is that all

important committee upon which he's place so much emphasis during this campaign. This committee, recognizing the importance of their problem,

under the chairmanship of Senator Douglas from Illinois, has held 54 meetings during the past two years.

Senator Kennedy has been present at one out of the 54 meetings. Significantly, he was present at that the opening meeting when they organized,

which is a time when we organize our committees, we elect the chairmen and the press comes in and picture our pictures.

Now those are the records of his attendance on subcommittees, but how about the full committees? I am also a member of

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as is Senator Kennedy. Now on the full committee sessions, both executive and open sessions.

In 1959, we had a total of 117 committee sessions. Senator Kennedy was present at 24 of a 117 full committee meetings

of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In the year 1960, we had 96 sessions open and executive. And out of the 96 sessions, Senator Kennedy,

as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, attended three out of 96 meetings. [Applause]

Again, as I heard him throughout the country express widespread concern and what at times seem to be criticism of the Nixon-Eisenhower team for not

having given proper attention to some of these major problems. I, after examining his record, I came to the conclusion that it

was not intended as a criticism, but rather an honest confession on his own part that he had not been attending to

his duties in the United States Senate. [Applause] And I hope that we can at this session all joined together,

not as members of any political party as we approach this election because I think this is far too important.

But I think we've, we can join together as American citizens. And when they go into that booth, try to think what is best for

our country regardless of political party. I believe that we can come up with a good head for our government and good government officials.

And I don't mind saying I'm somewhat prejudiced in that viewpoint because I do think that the experience that our Vice President

and Mr. Lodge has had in the United Nations does show that proper necessary background and experience to do this all important job.

And I'm confident that we can do it. Now, again, speaking of the absenteeism, here's one I almost overlooked. In the last eight years

because it may be said that, well, he's been campaigning for president and had an excuse to be absent. So we went back for the past eight years

and we examined the record of the United States Senate and you will find we have had 1189 roll call votes since 1953.

Of those 1189 roll call votes, Senator Kennedy has missed 331 out of the 1189. And many of those that he missed are on

those important pieces of legislation with which is now expresses such a great interests. Now we have excluded from

this tabulation that 36 roll call votes which he missed while he was in the hospital and which should not be charged to him.

But while he was able to attend a total of 1189 votes, he missed 331. Well, I have those listed here in short, single space, and it takes 18 feet

of paper to show the list of them, you can see it. [Applause] [Applause] And not other than his running mate, Senator Johnson,

when speaking, I think it was in the state of Washington, referred to that record as the most miserable attendance record of any member of the United States Senate. [Applause]

I'd like to make one point very clear. And that is that I would not want anything that I say in this connection to do be in anyway

interpreted as a blanket indictment against the members of either political party or as a blanket indictment against government employees. I am one who is thoroughly

convinced that the overwhelming percentage of the American people and I care not whether they're working in government or out of government,

I care not what their political affiliation may be, they are honest law abiding American citizens,

and I think we should always recognize that. Likewise, we should recognize that men go bad, not because of something that

their political affiliation or their religious background... We've had incidents in our own church, of which we've not been proud.

We've had incidents in our lodges, we have it in our political parties. But the point is, when you find it, you should do something about it.

When you speak of it politically, we had that famous, or I should say, the infamous Teapot Dome Scandal, which took part under

the Republican administration. And I would not want any man to say that that should be interpreted as an indictment against

the members of my own party. But I am not unmindful of the fact that there was a difference in which that goes hand and

the difference in which it was handled under the preceding administration, when it was called to their attention that there were conditions

existing which were not quite proper. And remember, and I've read the record where Senator Wheeler exposed the corruption under

the Teapot Dome Scandal, he made a speech in the United States Senate after he completed it in which he thanked the then

President Coolidge for his cooperation. And he pointed out that after he had discovered this corruption at that time,

the so-called Teapot Dome episode that he went to the President and asked for his cooperation, the cooperation of the executive branch.

The president said he would make available to him the facilities of the Department of Justice. But he advised the president that

the Department of Justice was likewise under suspicion. So the President Coolidge then appointed two men. One, Owen J Roberts.

A Republican. Adelaide Palmarine, a former senator from the state, I think it was Indiana, a Democrat,

he assigned to those two men, one member of each political party, the duties of cooperating with this congressional committee in any manner in

which they could to bring to light anything that was done wrong and then to prosecute those who were found guilty.

And as a result of that cooperation, a member of the President's own cabinet and others were sent to the penitentiary. And Senator Wheeler expressed his

cooperation and congratulated the Presidentupon his assistance. I wish I could say the same thing in

connection with a preceding administration, but I as one who worked with the job of exposing the corruption of that administration.

I will say here without any fear of contradiction, and I served on the committee and was assisted greatly in getting this

uncovered by your own senator Harry Byrd from Virginia again, who was the chairman of the subcommittee which we were working of which I was

one of the other members, and he cooperated fully did everything. In fact, that couldn't have been done without his help.

But I say this without any fear of contradiction. That which we uncovered as existing in the preceding administration was

done in spite of any assistance from the executive branch rather than as a result of any cooperation we received.

We received no cooperation, whatever from the executive branch. Now, briefly, what did we find when we started in? There

were in one 18 month period after these exposures started, there were 214 indictments of Treasury agent in the federal courts.

And again, I emphasize the fact that this is not a blanket indictment against even the members of that agency

because, again I say, the overwhelming percentage and majority of those men are dedicated public servants. But 214 employees in

that department were indicted. And in the same 18 months period, 101 were convicted in the courts and the other case it had not been

disposed of. 101 convictions. Now, what were the charges of these men that we found? 88 were indicted for

accepting bribes, for fixing taxes. 88, and some of those were for fixing the taxes are the most notorious racketeers

here in this country. When we started on this, we were told, and Senator Byrd was also working with him, that the racketeers

had an in at the high level of our government wherein they could avoid the payment of the taxes. I'm convinced that they did,

and I think the record shows that we broke up the rig. 88 were indicted for accepting bribes. 40 officials were indicted for

the embezzlement of government funds. 51 of these tax collectors were indicted for failure to file their own income tax returns.

[Applause] 50 were indicted for falsification of government records, and two were indicted

and convicted for operating a bookie in the second largest tax collecting office in America. [Crowd gasp]

And three were convicted for operating what they admitted in federal court was in effect a blackmail ring. They admitted that they were operating,

they were faking false assessments against what they described as timid taxpayers and then shaking them down for a pay

off on the side and in effect fixing it what was really a non-existent tax claim. It was less than short of blackmail for

people who were threatened with being brought into federal court if you don't pay off. You couldn't get much lower than that.

Now, what was this... where were these officials placed? We have 64 tax collecting offices in America. 64, that includes Hawaii and all of them.

Out of those 64 tax collectors, tax collecting offices, eight of those 64, twelve and a half percent were indicted in the federal court, and five of those eight

went to the federal penitentiary. Again, a former commissioner, an assistant commissioner, the chief of the alcohol tax unit at the national level,

this is, and the chief of the Tax Division and the Department of Justice, the four highest placed

men in the text collecting divisions of our United States government. Four men that have more to say over how you and

I pay taxes, or are prosecuted, or what happens to our tax case than any 4000 men anywhere else, all four of those men

indicted in the federal courts for the abuse of their office. I cite that do show you the extent to which it had gone when we

took over and at the end of the preceding administration. And I repeat again what I said. And I regret we do have to

say it, that it was exposed in spite of, and not as a result of any cooperation which we receive from the executive branch. But I want to, again,

pay respect to the many loyal government employees who cooperated in doing that job and men who gambled the security of their job,

that in order to help us, not knowing whether we could protect their names or whether they could be given

protection without losing their jobs or being fired. Those men gambled more than we did, and I salute them for

their sincerity and their dedication to their public duty. Now I'm going to conclude my remarks by telling a brief story.

We often get asked the question, well, how do men who are not fit for public office ever get in, in the first place?

We often get asked that question and rather than me try to tell you how I think it happened, I'm going to pass on to you

a little story which you can take in the spirit in which it's given. Supposedly that this gentleman was sitting in

the park one day when he was asked the question and he explained this matter. He said, Once upon a time, there was in the White House,

a man, president who liked fishing. Thus President, he said, enjoyed his fishing so much that on this particular occasion,

on the weekend he was headed down to Annapolis to board the presidential yacht along with several members of

the cabinet and other friends. In the course of the trip down to Annapolis, they had to detour down to small and narrow road.

While they were going down this road, they met a farmer headed in the opposite direction with a load of hay and the donkey, he's driving his donkey.

Well, recognizing the road was now, being a nice gentleman. the president, he's stopped the caravan and allowed this farmer to drive

by. And as he was going by the presidential car, he passed the time of the day with him and mentioned the fact that they were going on a weekend fishing trip.

Whereupon this gentleman said, 'Have you got your raincoats?' The President said 'No, we don't think we'll need our raincoats because before leaving Washington,

I checked with the chief of the Weather Bureau, the United States and received his assurance that we would have clear weather this weekend.'

Farmer said, 'I don't care what the weatherman said. If you don't have your raincoat, you better get one.' He said, 'Get up jack.'

So he drive on. Their party goes on down to Annapolis. As they get out of the car, they noticed the sun was drifting behind the cloud,

they get into the... when they got on the yacht, it started raining. They had one of the most miserable weekends they'd ever experienced.

On his return to Washington, the first official action of the precedent was to fire the weatherman.

And then he asked his aides to go get this farmer and bring him in and he said, 'I'm going to appoint him as the chief weatherman of the United States.'

Shortly thereafter, this farmer was standing in the office of the president and was offered this job.

The farmer thanked him, but he said, 'Mr. President, I can't accept it because I don't know anything at all

about predicting the weather." He said, 'I just could not accept it.' 'But,' said the president, 'you were so sure the other day what

the weather was going to be, Even though my weatherman said differently. You certainly must have some method of telling the weather and I'd

like for you to take the job.' Farmer said, 'I know Mr. President, can't do it. All I know about the weather

is what information I get from that old donkey.' He said, 'When the ears are standing straight up its fire weather ahead.' He said, 'When they start to drop look

out. And when they hanging as it did last week,' he said, 'I knew that was going to be trouble.' So the president said, 'Well, I've determined that whoever

sits in the office of the chief of the Weather Bureau is going to be someone that knows how to tell the weather.'

So whereupon he appointed that donkey. [Laughter] And according to this story, as this fella told it, that was the beginning of jackasses getting in public office. [Applause]

Male voice: The preceding has been an address given by Senator John J. Williams at the Lane High School auditorium in Charlottesville,

Virginia at a Nixon-Lodge rally on November 5, 1960.