WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, OCTOBER 30, 1972 1577

nation in the world. We must continue to move it up so 

that we can produce more peacetime jobs, so that Americans can have full employment without war and without 

inflation. I think we can achieve that goal.

Let’s see also what this new world of peace can mean 

to a State like Kentucky, to this entire region. Mention 

has been made of the farm programs. I am going to make 

a major farm speech on radio at 12:05 tomorrow on all 

the major networks, if you would like to listen, in the 

middle of the day.

I won’t go into details now, but let me say, when you 

see the sales we have made, a billion dollar sale to Japan 

this year, a 3-year sale to the Soviet Union, unprecedented, 

in feed grains, and the beginnings of sales to the People’s 

Republic of China, where, note again, one-fourth of all 

the people in the world live, you can see the future for 

American agriculture.

Our exports are the highest in history. They are going 

to be higher because the markets of the world are opening 

up. That is what our peace initiatives mean to the farmers 

and I think the farmers of Kentucky like that kind of an 

initiative, too.

There is another area that hits the bread-and-butter 

issue. As our economy grows, we are going to have an 

enormous energy crisis in this country, and that means 

we have to produce coal, we have to produce oil. We have 

the means of meeting that crisis, and that is why a State 

like this has so much to offer.

What I am simply saying is that as we move from this 

period of war to a period of peace, it means enormous 

opportunities, it means prosperity without war and without inflation, it means developing the new markets in a 

period of peace that could not develop in a period of war, 

and it means also the opportunity to turn the enormous 

energies of this country, and the people of this country, to 

the progress that we all want, with opportunities for every 

American to go as high as his talents will take him—better schools, better housing, all of those things that we want 

and that we have laid forth in such great detail before 

the Congress over these past 4 years.

What I am saying to you very simply is this: I could 

talk tonight—and it usually is customary in the closing 

days of a campaign—about we have a great record over 

the past 4 years and send us back. But let us not look back, 

and let us not be angry at those who oppose us.

But let us look to the future. The future is a good future. 

The future can be a future of peace. The future can be one 

in which the United States can play the role this Nation 

was destined to play in building a world of peace and continuing to raise the standard of living of all our people 

and increasing the opportunities for all of our people.

One final note: I have mentioned what Kentucky has 

meant to me personally, and to my wife—your hospitality, your friendship, your energy, your coal, your agriculture, your industry. But most important, what has impressed me as I went along that street, I must say, I saw

those young people and older people in the dark. They 

could only see the light of the car as we went by. They 

had their flags out.

What impressed me was not simply the patriotism. It 

went further than that. It was something I call character. 

I looked back to the beginning of this country. I remember 

then, and Louie Nunn referred to the fact that the bicentennial of Kentucky is in 2 years, and the bicentennial of 

the United States is in 4 years, as you know—look at that 

young country 196 years ago, 13 States, weak, poor, but 

the hope of the world. Why? Because we stood for something other than power, something other than wealth. We 

stood for an ideal, for a moral and spiritual strength that 

caught the imagination of the world, and here in this State 

of Kentucky I sense it. I sense it across our country, but I 

sense it in this audience tonight.

I sensed it as I went around, let me say, as much as your 

hard works—and I know you work hard—and as much 

as what you produce in your mines and as much as what 

you produce on your farm, what we are most grateful for 

is the character and the moral and spiritual strength of 

the people of this State. You have it, and that means a 

great deal.

And so I have heard them say “Four More Years.” Let 

me tell you what my hope is for these next 4 years. It is a 

very simple statement. I want the next 4 years to be the 

best 4 years of your lives and the best 4 years America has 

ever had.

Thank you.

n o t e : The President spoke at 9:02 p.m. As printed above, this item

follows the text of the White House press release.

Vetoes of Legislation

The President’s Memorandum of Disapproval of Nine

Bills Passed by the Congress. October 27, 1972

I have promised the American people that I will do 

everything in my power to avoid the need for a tax increase next year. Today, I take another important step 

in the fulfillment of that sincere pledge.

This effort really began last January, when I submitted 

the Federal Budget for fiscal year 1973 to the Congress. 

As I explained at the time, that budget was carefully prepared so that all justified Federal programs could be provided without any need for higher taxes—and without 

causing higher prices.

When it became clear that the Congress was exceeding 

the budget in many bills, I proposed that a spending ceiling of $250 billion be adopted as insurance against a 1973 

tax increase. The Congress rejected that spending ceiling. Instead, it 

approved spending far in excess of my no-new-taxes 

budget.
1578 WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, OCTOBER 30, 1972

Some of these bills have presented very difficult decisions about whether to sign or to veto. A number of them 

have attractive features, or would serve very worthwhile 

purposes—and of course I have received strong advice 

that to veto them just a few days before the Presidential 

election would be politically very damaging.

However, in this memorandum are nine measures 

which I cannot sign without breaking my promise to the 

American people that I will do all in my power to avoid 

the necessity of a tax increase next year.

I made that promise in good faith, and I believe in 

keeping the promises I make—and in making only those 

promises that I am confident I can keep.

If I were to sign these measures into law, I would, in 

effect, be making promises that could not be kept—since 

the funds required to finance the promised services are 

not available, and would not be available without the 

higher taxes I have promised to resist.

I believe that political leaders must lay the facts on 

the line, to talk straight to the people and to deliver on 

the promises they make to the people.

Although the choices are not easy, I am withholding 

my approval from 9 Congressional spending programs 

that would breach the budget by $750 million in fiscal 

year 1973 and by nearly $2 billion in fiscal year 1974.

Each of these measures by itself might seem justifiable, 

or even highly desirable. But the hard fact is that they 

cannot be considered by themselves; each has to be considered in the broader context of the total budget—in 

terms of how that total weighs on the taxpayers, and how 

it affects the struggle to curb rising prices.

I am withholding my approval from the following 

bills:

Labor— HEW and Related Agencies Appropriation

Act {H.R. 16654) —

This is the second time I have vetoed inflated appropriations this year for the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. This amounts to a textbook example 

of the seeming inability or unwillingness of the Congress 

to follow a prudent and responsible spending policy. 

In my budget for fiscal year 1973, I requested that the 

Congress provide an increase of $2.1 billion over fiscal 

1972 funds for the HEW programs contained in this bill. 

On top of that generous increase—which would have 

provided substantial expansion while recognizing competing priorities in other program areas—the Congress 

amassed a budget-breaking additional increase of $1.8 

billion. I vetoed this in August because it was clearly 

excessive and unwarranted.

The bill now before me contains the same face amount 

as the measure I previously vetoed. In a partial concession to that veto, however, H.R. 16654 contains authority for the over-spending to be held to $535 million—a 

result that would still amount to pressure for higher taxes.

This Administration is second to none in its demonstrated concern and clear accomplishments in health,

education and manpower matters. My budget represented 

a balanced and rational approach to the funding of many 

high priority domestic programs in a time of tight budget 

resources, while continuing this Administration’s shift of 

priorities and funds toward the human resources activities 

of the Government.

H.R. 16654 is as unwarranted as the version I vetoed 

last August.

Public Works and Economic Development Act Amendmerits of 1972 (H.R. 16071 ) —

This bill would unnecessarily add vast new authorizations for Federal programs which have been shown to be 

ineffective in creating jobs or stimulating timely economic 

development. Public works projects have notoriously long 

lead times—so by the time this spending became fully 

effective, the need for such stimulation would be passed 

and the stimulation would be inflationary.

The bill would stimulate increased bureaucracy in the 

regional commissions by using them as a funding rather 

than a planning and coordinating level of Government.

It would also provide assistance to workers and firms 

affected by Federal environmental actions. These provisions would be highly inequitable and almost impossible 

to administer. The unemployment benefits provision 

would fragment and undermine our basic Federal-State 

unemployment insurance system and its costs would be 

essentially uncontrollable. The proposed pollution control facilities loan program has only vague and unspecified 

objectives.

Amendments to the Mining and Mineral Policy Act

(S. 635) —

This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior 

to provide matching categorical grants to establish and 

support a mineral research and training institute in each 

of the 50 States and Puerto Rico, as well as grants for related research and demonstration projects. It would fragment our research effort and destroy its priorities. Such 

an inflexible program would preclude us from taking advantage of the best research talents of the Nation—wherever they may be. The Federal Government’s ongoing 

programs of similar and related kinds of research, currently funded at about $40 million annually, have provided a flexible and efficient means of meeting minerals 

problems of the highest national priority and can readily 

be adapted to continue to do so.

Airport Development Acceleration Act (S. 3755) —

This bill would increase Federal expenditures and raise 

percentage participation in categorical grant programs 

with specific and limited purposes. I believe this would be 

inconsistent with sound fiscal policy. Airport development 

funds have been almost quadrupled since 1970 under this 

Administration.

Flood Control Act of 1972 (S. 4018) —

This measure would authorize federal projects which 

would ultimately cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, OCTOBER 30, 1972 1579

contains projects never approved or recommended by the 

executive branch. In addition, it contains a number of objectionable features such as authorizing ill-defined and potentially costly new programs, and limiting my authority 

to establish criteria and standards to measure the feasibility of water resources projects in determining which 

ones to recommend for Congressional authorization. However, a number of projects in this bill are in my judgment 

justified and I will recommend legislation to authorize 

their construction early in the next Congress.

U p g r a d in g o f D e p u t y U .S . M a r s h a ls ( H . R . 1 3 8 9 5) —

This would raise the pay of some 1,500 deputy marshals by as much as 38 percent, through wholesale acrossthe-board upgrading. There is no justification for this 

highly preferential treatment, which discriminates against 

all other Government employees who perform work of 

comparable difficulty and responsibility and whose pay is 

now the same as that of deputy marshals.

N a tio n a l C e m e te r ie s A c t o f 1 9 7 2 ( H . R . 1 2 6 7 4) —

This bill would block the orderly system of surplus land 

disposal established by general law and Executive order, 

by requiring an unusual Congressional approval procedure before any VA land holdings larger than 100 acres 

could be sold.

These property transfer restrictions would undermine 

the executive branch’s Government-wide system of property management and surplus property disposal which is 

designed to assure the best and fullest use of Federal 

property. It would impede the Legacy of Parks program 

and the procedures for disposing of surplus Federal property under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act and Executive Order 11508.

Also, the bill deals inconsistently with the serious problem of burial benefits for the Nation’s veterans and war 

dead. It commissions a study of this problem at the same 

time it preempts the results of such a study by authorizing 

new burial benefits which would annually add $55 million 

to the Federal budget beginning next year. The Administrator of Veterans Affairs already is at work on such a 

study, which will identify the alternatives for improving 

burial and cemetery benefits. In the interim, it would be 

unwise to commit additional Federal resources as proposed 

by this bill.

V e te r a n s H e a lth C a r e E x p a n s io n A c t o f 1 9 7 2 ( H . R .

1 0 8 8 0 ) —

The liberalizing features of this bill would unnecessarily add hundreds of millions of dollars to the Federal 

budget. It would open the VA hospital system to nonveterans and would expand the type of direct medical 

services available from VA. By providing direct medical 

services to veterans’ dependents, the bill runs counter to 

this Administration’s national health strategy which would 

provide national financing mechanisms for health care 

and sharply reduce the Federal Government’s role in the 

direct provision of services.

The bill also purports to set mandatory minimums on 

the number of patients treated in VA hospitals. In testimony on this bill, the Veterans Administration strongly 

objected to this provision on the grounds that it was totally 

unnecessary and could result in inefficient medical treatment and wasteful administrative practices. The tragic 

result would be a lower quality of medical care to all 

patients.

While I strongly support the VA health care system and 

will continue to encourage its improvement in the future, 

I cannot approve a bad bill.

R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A c t o f 1 9 7 2 ( H . R . 8 3 9 5 ) —

This measure would seriously jeopardize the goals of 

the vocational rehabilitation program and is another example of Congressional fiscal irresponsibility. Its provisions would divert this program from its basic vocational 

objectives into activities that have no vocational element 

whatsoever or are essentially medical in character. In addition, it would proliferate a host of narrow categorical 

programs which duplicate and overlap existing authorities and programs. Such provisions serve only to dilute the 

resources of the vocational rehabilitation program and impair its continued valuable achievements in restoring deserving American citizens to meaningful employment.

H.R. 8395 also would create organizational rigidities 

in the vocational rehabilitation program which would 

undermine the ability of the Secretary of HEW to manage the program effectively. The bill also would establish 

numerous committees and independent commissions 

which are unnecessary, would waste the taxpayers’ dollars, and would complicate and confuse the direction of 

this program. Finally, the bill would authorize funding 

far in excess of the budget request and far beyond what 

can be made available and used effectively.

Richard Nixon

The White House,

October 27, 1972.

The American Farmer

The President’s Address on Nationwide Radio.

October 27, 1972

G o o d a f te r n o o n .

In every American home, there is special respect and 

gratitude for the breadwinner—the one who provides the 

rest of the family with food to eat and clothes to wear.

The breadwinners of our national family are this country’s nearly 3 million farmers.

American agriculture leads our own economy and the 

world in productivity. Because of the remarkable productivity of our farms and ranches, the people of the United 

States have more and better food to eat, at lower cost,