This is Congressman Bob Dole with my weekly radio message from Washington. First, I wish to thank this station again for carrying my weekly program as a public service broadcast.

We're now, and will be for some time, in both the House and the Senate — perhaps not even ‘til next year in the Senate — be talking about the administration's tax bill. Of course, there’s been much said, both pro and con, but this week and perhaps part of next week, the House will have this under very serious consideration.

Now, we've heard a lot of talk about what the Byrnes Amendment might do and I thought I might discuss that very briefly. I might point out that Mr. [John] Byrnes is a ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, and I believe is widely respected — in fact I know he is respected by both Republicans and Democrats. And while there may be some disagreement on the other side concerning his amendment, certainly those people recognize — and everyone recognizes — the ability of Mr. Byrnes in the tax field. He will appear before the Rules Committee and ask for a special rule which would permit the following amendment to be offered. The amendment merely provides that Title Ill — and this is the title that has to do with providing rate reduction in personal and corporate income taxes — shall not become effective unless the President, when he makes the statement required of him by the Budget and Accounting Act within 15 days of a date Congress convenes at the beginning of next year, certifies to the following two facts:

1. That his budget for Fiscal Year 1965 will not exceed $98 billion.

2. That spending for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, will not exceed $97 billion.

Now, under the Budget and Accounting Act, the President is required by law each January, within 15 days of the convening of Congress, to provide Congress with both of these items. That is, a projection of what total government spending will be during the current fiscal year and also what he will propose in spending for the fiscal year which will begin the following July 1st. In other words, Fiscal [Year] 1965 would be from July 1, 1964, to July 1, 1965. Therefore, it does not require the President — Mr. Byrnes’ amendment does not require the President to do anything that he is not already legally bound to do; it merely says that the tax cut will be not effective in 1964. In other words, it will not be effective unless the President satisfies both of the conditions that I discussed above. In other words, the fiscal year budget will not exceed $98 billion, [and] in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, spending will not exceed $97 billion. I think perhaps this will be the key, and it would require in Fiscal [Year] 64 that you're operating now a reduction of $1.8 billion in spending, and I think, certainly this is something desirable and something people have written to us about many, many times throughout Kansas and throughout our district. It also would hold a budget down to $98 billion in Fiscal [Year] 65, and I, too, think that this is sound, but this is perhaps the key issue — and will be the key issue as the House debates the tax bill.

So when you hear discussion of the so-called ‘Byrnes Amendment,’ you'll know that is the amendment offered by Congressman John Byrnes [of] Wisconsin, and that it simply requires two things again: that before the second stage of the tax cut should become effective, that the president's budget for Fiscal Year 65 will not exceed 60 — [correcting himself] $98 billion, and the spending for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, will not exceed $97 billion. So they could be considered in the proper perspective, we can see that I think it has merit regardless of my party affiliation or your party affiliation. It's rather difficult to explain to people when they write letters, “how can we cut taxes without cutting spending?” Frankly, I don't feel we can, and my voting has reflected this.

I want to point out too that on the last Wednesday, September 18, I was in Salina, Kansas, and was a visitor at the meeting held by Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman. It was billed as a ‘report and review meeting,’ in other words, he said he wanted to have grassroots opinions from the farmers. Well the meeting lasted about two hours and twenty minutes, and of this total time Mr. Freeman had control of about 90% of it, so I don't really believe that the farmers had a chance to speak and to point out what they may or may not want. I frankly feel it's certainly proper for the Secretary to visit any place he wishes — and we certainly will always welcome him to Kansas — but I don't agree this is the way you find out what farmers want on any program, or how you find out what anybody else may want. You can't go to a big meeting, a big rally, and have any real meaning and I'm certain, perhaps, the Secretary picked up a few ideas, but not the type that will be meaningful when we talk about a long-range farm program and we get down to serious talk about farm legislation.

Thanks again, this Congressman Bob Dole, Washington, D.C.