Remarks at the Unveiling of Portraits of Two Former Chairmen of the House Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, Speaker McCormack, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Ford, Congressman Bow, and all of the distinguished guests on this occasion:

In a room like this, at a time like this, we think of the history of this country and of the men who helped to make it and the women who helped to make it. We think of this room, up until the year, about 1850, being the room in which the House of Representatives met.

We think, for example, of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln speaking in this room. Then we move on into this century and we go back 25 years, or 20 years, as the case might be, to think of two of the giants of the Congress. We do not see the giants of our own time. No one knows at the time who really is a giant.

But as the years pass, we look back and we realize who the great men were. Two of ,them we honor today--Clarence Cannon, John Taber. Everything has been said about them, by those who served with them, so eloquently that I will not try to add, except to say that I was privileged to be a Member of the House of Representatives and to have known both of them as a Member of the House, then as a Member of the Senate, and as Vice President of the United States. I can certainly endorse everything that has been said so generously about them and so well by others who have appeared in this program.

I do know, too, that the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives is an enormously important committee, and that whoever is the chairman of that committee is a very important and powerful individual.

Now, I have to be very careful at this point, because I realize that represented in this room are chairmen of other committees, and men who serve on other committees as well, so I will choose my words very carefully.

As I looked over the record of those who have been chairmen of the Appropriations Committee, going back to the year 1865 when it was first set up, I found that some went on to be Speaker of the House--a few, very few. Some went on to be Governors. Only one became President-James Garfield.

Yet I can stand here, looking back over my own public service, and also looking back over the history of this country, and say, as has already been implied by other speakers, that the hardest working committee in the House of Representatives is probably the Appropriations Committee, because of its workload; that the most powerful committee in the House of Representatives, because of its control of the money that is spent, is the Appropriations Committee. And then third, that potentially the most unpopular committee in the House of Representatives is the Appropriations Committee, because the Appropriations Committee members and its chairman and its ranking minority member have responsibilities that go beyond the committee's, the very important ones on the legislative side.

They meet. They determine what is in the public interest as far as their views are concerned. They submit that legislation to the Congress. They get it passed. And then the question is: Should the money be appropriated for the purpose of carrying out those spending programs that the legislative committees have approved? It is here that the unpopularity comes in.

I was studying recently a poll that was taken by a group of business executives with regard to national attitudes in this country on spending. The business executives were terribly disappointed by the results of the poll because they thought it would come out strongly against government spending. But I was not surprised, and anyone who is a sophisticated observer of government would not be surprised to find that a great majority of the American people, when asked about spending for almost any program in the domestic area, are for it--whether it is for billions more for education or health or housing or in the field of agriculture or any other area.

If an individual is asked, "Do you favor more Federal money spent for this program?" the answer is, "Yes." So you can see, therefore, if an individual really is seeking popularity, the thing to do is to get on a committee where he can vote yes for that program and go back and say to his constituents, "I was for what you wanted."

But there was another interesting result at the bottom of this poll, and here is where the Appropriations Committee came in. The great majority of the people who voted for every one of the spending proposals listed on the domestic front, when they were asked, "Do you favor higher taxes?" said, "No"; "Do you favor higher prices?" said, "No."

That is where the Appropriations Committee comes in, because the members of this committee must take these tremendously popular programs, they must examine them, they must cut out all the waste to be sure that that is taken out. And then they must see whether or not all of them put together--no matter how desirable they are individually--whether all of them put together will be so much that they will raise taxes, and then they must say no; or whether, when they are put together, they will have the effect of causing inflation and raised prices, and then they must say no.

That is why men and women who serve on this very important and powerful committee are not necessarily always the most popular men or Congressmen or Congresswomen in the country.

But on the other hand, they are absolutely essential to responsible government, because there must be at some point along the line those people in government who will look at the whole picture and, rather than representing this interest or that interest or the other interest, will represent the interest of all the American people. Every American is interested in how high his taxes are. Every American is interested in how high his prices are. That is why the Appropriations Committee, more than any other committee in the House of Representatives, speaks for all of the American people.

That is where these two men come in. That is where, also, the men who are seated on this platform--the chairman of this committee, George Mahon from Texas, a Democrat; the ranking Republican, Frank Bow from Ohio--where they come in.

I have been trying to think of an appropriate way to describe what they are. We often hear when we hear of politicians, in either the House or the Senate, who have reached high ranks, labeled, certain favorite terms apply. One will be called "Mr. Republican." Another may be called "Mr. Democrat." And somebody will be called "Mr. Conservative." Someone else will be called "Mr. Liberal." The main thing is to be sure you call them the same thing at the right time and the right place.

So, the real question then, and that is what it seems to me that the unveiling of these portraits brings to mind, is: What would one call the chairman of the Appropriations Committee or the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee? I would not call him "Mr. Republican" or "Mr. Democrat." I know that both George Mahon and Frank Bow will speak up to any President, Democrat or Republican; that they speak up to any partisan, Republican or Democrat; that they look upon their role as being bigger than party, as big as all of America itself, because they represent all of the American people.

No, I would not call the chairman of this committee or his colleague, the ranking member, "Mr. Republican," "Mr. Democrat," "Mr. Liberal," or "Mr. Conservative." I would call him "Mr. Responsible." Responsibility may not be popular always, but it is enormously necessary, absolutely indispensable for the future of this country.

So, this gives me an opportunity to express on behalf of all the American people our thanks to the people through the years that have served on this committee; that have kept us on a steady course; that have seen to it that those things that should not be funded are not funded, to see to it that money that should not be wasted is not wasted, and to see to it that our policy, whether it is under a Democratic or a Republican President, to the greatest extent possible will be one that will not raise the taxes of the people unless the people are in a position where they want them raised--and they usually don't--and will see to it that our policy will not have the effect of raising their prices by reducing the value of their money.

I would simply close this by saying that I remember only two things that have not been mentioned up to this point about the descriptions of John Taber and Clarence Cannon. When John Taber in the Both Congress was cutting budgets, they said he was "Taberizing" the budget, and Clarence Cannon "Cannonized" the budget after that.

I would say in tribute to George Mahon and to Frank Bow that they are trying to bring the budget back to earth again.

Thank you.