Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525799
label
County Supervisors Association of California, October 10, 1963
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525799
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
County Supervisors Association of California, October 10, 1963
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Michigan
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Intergovernmental relations
Local government
Welfare
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525799
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1963-10-31
month
10
year
1963
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1963-10-01
month
10
year
1963
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
2c0d098b3fd6322c
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D16, folder "County Supervisors Association of
California, October 10, 1963" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and
Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D16 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
October 10, 1963
Rep. Gerald R. Ford
Introduction: Although never a Supervisor, I have:
A. a brother who is - his job is tougher than mine.
B. worked closely with supervisors in my two counties:
32 in Ottawa - population of 98,719 (1960)
70 in Kent - population of 363,187 (1960)
They, like you, are dedicated public servants who must
provide local services, build better communities, all within
the tight framework of local taxes and the spotlight of
hometown scrutiny.
C. D. C. welfare investigation
I.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT - MICHIGAN'S PROBLEMS AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
A.
In Michigan we have 83 counties. Since 1908 operating under historical
concepts of county government.
1. One supervisor from each township and multiple supervisors from cities.
Net result - large Boards.
2. Restricted authority predicated on largely rural philosophy that pre-
dominated in middle west dur ing our early history.
B.
In 1950s growing realization a new Mich igan Constitution essential because:
1. 1908 Constitution amended so many times. Constitution had become a
patchwork.
2. Michigan had moved from a predominantly rural state to a state where
certain counties are almost totally urban.
3. Michigan's fiscal problems were in a mess.
c.
In April the voters of Michigan adopted a new state Constitution which over
a period of the next several years goes into effect. In three significant
respects t h e new document offers change or innovation in the general
area of local government --
1. County home rule. Provisions similar to those for municipal home rule
are made for counties. These are not self-executing and will require
legislative implementation. This was done for cities and villages in
the current Home Rule Act, stemming from provisions first inserted in
the 1908 constitution.
The growing density of population in many counties and the consequent
extension of governmental needs and problems over county-wide areas have long
-2-
been felt by many observers to justify attempts to strengthen the operations of
county government, particularly in urban areas.
The old constitutional provisions requiredlarge boards of supervisors with
no focus of county executive authority, and set up exactly the same structure of
government for both urban and rural counties.
The new document continues the past form of county goverment, but
offers an alternative form as well. The success of múnicipal home rule in gaining
vitality for city and village operations is made potentially available also at the
county level, under terms of the revised document.
Metropolitan Problems-- A two-pronged solution to problems in metropolitan
areas is made available.
* First, intra-state governmental cooperation is specifically offered to two
or more counties, townships, cities, villages or districts, or any combina-
tion of these units.
Sharing of costs and credit, contractual agreements, transfer of functions
and responsibilities, and mutaal cooperation in general shall be authorized under
the terms of general law.
In short, the first level of attack on common problems that transcend local
boundaries is to be provided by the local units themselves thrugh cooperative
undertakings.
*
Second, additional forms of government may be established by the legisla-
ture, the only restriction being that such governments wherever possible
"shall be designed to perform multi-purpose functions rather than a single
function."
This level of attack looks essentially to future problems that may better
lend themselves to new organizational forms for their solution. Thus, without
detailed prescription or requirement, t he n e W. constitution makes ultimately
available a solution at the local level for currently unforseen needs and problems.
2. Liberal construction of provisions. The Convention's intent to strengthen and
encourage government at the local level is nowhere better illustrated than in the
provision calling for liberal interpretation by the courts of constitutional and
statutory language relating to local units.
The provision further specifically says that local unit powers "shall include
those fairly implied and not prohibited by this constitution." In many cases,
court decisions have been hesitant to grant "fairly implied" powers to counties
and townships, and these local units have found themselves restricted in performing
some fuctions and services by the fact that certain explicit authority for action
was not stated in law.
-3-
The new provision reverses the situation and says, in effect, that all local
units may do whatever needs to be done to carry out their general powers, unless
something is specifically prohibited by the constitution or by statute.
3.
New taxing powers. Each home rule county, and each city and village is granted
the power to levy other taxes than property taxes, subject to constitutional
and statutory limitations and prohibitions.
The added flexibility which this provision affords the financing of local
government is thus specifically subjected to the safeguard of constitutional or
legislative pre-emption and restriction.
4.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
Miscellaneous provisions affecting local government require brief mention.
Among them are --
A four-year term of office is provided for county elective officers.
Total debt of a county may not exceed 10 per cent of its assessed valuation.
Township officers may by law be given terms of office of up to four years, by
contrast with the traditional two-year term.
All local units (including school districts) having authority to prepare
budgets shall adopt them only after a public hearing.
An annual accounting is required for all public moneys, and uniform local
accounting systems shall be prescribed and maintained. Also, all financial
records and other reports of public money shall be public records and open to
inspection. These provisions are more expressly and clearly stated than is
certain corresponding language of the 1908 constitution.
5.
IN BRIEF
Local government provis ions exhibit a blending of two major concerns--
Retention of the historical forms of local rule along with all significant
traditional powers, duties and functions on the one hand.
On the other hand, provision for experimentation, as in the case of county home
rule, and for adaptation to need, as in the case of the recognition of
metropolitan area problems.
Reinforcing the traditional, the experiemtnal, and the provision for changes
that the future may bring is the general trend toward strengthening local level
ability to cope with governmental problems. This is best summed up in the provision
calling for liberal construction by the courts and use of the doctrine of implied
powers, and in the provis ion for broader taxing powers.
-4-
II. POWER GRAB BY WASHINGTON THE ABUSE OF EXECUTIVE INTERPRETATION AND AUTHORITY
My remarks on this subject would appear to fall within the subject matter discussed
in one of your Section Sessions this morning entitled, "California '64: Social Welfare
or Social Warfare."
To any objective student of American govemment since 1932 it should be crystal
clear there has been a distinct trend to increased power in the hands of non-elected
federal officials through executive decisions. In recent years, and the situation is
growing worse rather than better, there have been a multitude of executive orders
flowing out of administrative offices in the Nation's Capital. The output of such
self-serving power by non-elected official ls in the federal government has reached such
proportions it is virtually impossible for members of Congress, state officials or local
authorities to keep abreast of what is being done in this vast bureaucracy that to a
dangerous degree controls the life and destiny of the American people.
Unfortunately few Americans realize the numerical strength of decision makess in
the federal government. Today Uncle Sam employs approximately 2,500,000 civilians and
this army of bureaucrats is supplemented by 2,800,000 men on active duty with the Armed
Forces. It must be conceded, although seldom realized except by those affected, that
the military decision makers in America areas part of the Executive Branch and their
decisions, both locally and nationally, can be arbibrary and far-reaching to individuals,
to business, or to the local community.
The fundamental point, however, is that working for the federal government in the
Executive Branch of the national government there are about 5½ million employees who
are never really "called to account" by the voters. The President representing the
Executive Branch, it is true, puts his record on the line once every four years and the
voters in a broad sense pass judgment on an Administration whether it be Republican or
Democratic. On the other hand a vast, entrenched and potentially arbitrary bureaucracy
backed up by the power of $100 billion a year in federal funds never real ly puts its
récord to the test of the bal lot box.
On this point of federal Executive dictatorship I have read lately of numerous
serious conflicts between local author it ies in California and arbitrary federal officials
in Washington. Let me assure, you, however, that this federal octopus does not limit
itself to browbeating local authorities by self-serving interpretations of legislation
or Congressional intent. In the past few months, the State of Michigan has experienced
first-hand the disastrous effect of the buse of power concentrated in Washington.
Back in 1961, the Congress decided to extend the aid to dependent children act
to include unemployed parents. And so we passed what is now known as ADCU.
And when the bill was passed, it was to run for only one year because the Congress
-5-
felt that it would like to see how this pprogram was administered before it was given a
more permanent future.
In writing this part of the Welfare Act, the Congress said that the basis of
eligibility, the definition of unemployed parents, was to be "as determined by the
states."
Now, there were resistances in Michigan, on the part of the legislature, to getting
into an act that was only on the Federal books for one year. It was extended in 1962
to a five-year program. On the basis of that extension and other considerations, George
Romney indicated during the campaign that inasmuch as Michigan was paying $2 for every
$1 it got back -- and inasmuch as this trend toward Federalization is not going to be
stopped by one individual or one state Michigan might as well qualify under this
Act and get at least $1 back for every $2 it sends down to Washington.
So, with good intentions, Governor Romney early in 1963 asked the state social
welfare department to prepare a suitable bill to qualify Michigan under the federal
legislation. Competent and experienced officials prepared the bill, and they put
together one that was shaped to meet Michigan's problems in this field and in the welfare
field generally. And they decided to limit the families who would be eligible to those
parents who had been eligible for unemployment compensation after January 31, 1958.
This was done because otherwise it would have been necessary to set up a new bureaucracy
in Michigan to administer the program and determine those eligible. These experienced
state officials did not think this was desirable.
Secondly, they wanted to do it this way because they did not want to weaken
Michigan's overall welfare program. These families who were to receive help were not
without help. Theywere all on general assistance welfare. Their children were receiving
help through that program and the welfare officials and the state felt that those
families who would not be eligible under their definition could be better cared for
under the general welfare assistance program because that program involves providing
commodities and assistance and the use of the help received, whereas the other was just
a cash grant.
And then they had another reason. If they had gone the way some people thought
they ought to go, it would have weakened the county welfare department, and the Michigan
program depends upon the effectiveness of those departments.
So for these reasons the state officials devised this dègislation, and after
drafting it, they checked with the regional office of the Department of Heal th, Education
and Welfare in Chicago to make certain that the act qualified under the Department's
regulations. And the regional office checked with Washington, and the answer came back
that the legislation qualified. It was all right. As a matter of fact, it qual ified
more of Michigan's families percentagewise on general welfare thanwas true of all but
-6-
two out of 15 states that had previously qualified under the program.
So the state legislation moved forward. The House passed the bill. The Senate
was within 11 minutes of passing the bill when a wire was received from a Department
head in Health, Education and Welfare, raising a question as to whether the legislation
would qualify under the Federal Department's interpretation of the program. Belatedly
the federal official in Washington raised the question of whether the definition that
was being used was discriminatory. No one has ever seen a definition yet that was not
discriminatory. The inherent character of a definition is to include some and exclude
others.
But the Department heads in Washington did not likekMichigan's definition. They
have a different definition. Under their definition, Michigan could have qualified
fewer families or more families under the program, just as it could have done under its
own state definition as it was developed.
Well, the Governor and the legislators took a look at the law again, and took a
look at the Department's regulations, and the Department made it clear that the state
was to determine eligibility. Governor Romney said to the legislature, "Let us go
ahead. The law is clear." So they went ahead.
The next day, after the bill was passed, Gov. Romney received a wire from the
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, telling him that he considered the program
disciminatory and that he would not grant funds under it. The Governor thought he
could go down and talk to him and find out why. He was sincere in this. The Governor
wanted to know whether there were things in the back of this position that he was not
aware of on the surface, or in the regulations or in the basic law.
So, the Governor of Michigan went to Washington. And what he heard was so
unconvincing that he suggested to the Secretary that he have his General Cougselltake
several days to prepare a legal memorandum indicating on what basis he had any authority
to tell the states what to do in light of the clear language of the statute and also
the clear congressional intent. And he emphasized the intent.
I would like to read toyyou what Chairman Mills said when this legislation was being
considered on the floor of the House.
Congressman Barry asked, "How tough is the criteria? Is this left to the states?"
Mr. Mills replied, "In this instance we are not telling the states they cannot do
this, they cannot do that or they cannot do something else. What we are telling the
states is this: You find out that this family is in need and what its need is, and
you decide if you want to put state money to help the problems of the needy children.
And if so, we will join you under the formula now applicable under the ADCU program.
This is all we are saying. It is entirely up to the states."
And later Mr. Dominick: "This bill contains no definition of what unemployment is."
-7-
Mr. Mills said, "It depends on what the state means by the term 'unemployed'.
The important point on this is that we are leaving this to the states for determinat
Mr. Dominick: "This would then centralize it all at the State and Federal level."
Mr. Mills: "At the State level, not the Federal level.'
Now, if any of us understand the English language, the Chairman of the Ways and
Means C ommittee which initiated this legislation was making it as clear as he could
that this program was to be determined in terms of eligibilityyby the states without
Federal participation.
But, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare has taken the opposite
viewpoint.
This situation raises some tremendous issues. And the issues are threefold
The first is whether Federal officials can remodel the will of Congress to conform
with their own ideas of social necessity. And the issue is in effect whether we are
going to allow laws written by our elected Congressmen to be rewritten by administrative
officials whose actions lie largely beyond the effective control of the people. The
issue involves this significant question: Is this a Government of law or is it a
Government of men?
The second issue is whether a state is to have the advantage jof a program tailored
to meet its own needs.
And the third is whether acceptance by a state of Federal aid is acceptance of
Federal dictation.
You and I know what the answers should be. The clearly-expressed will of the
elected representatives of the people must be followed. While men govern, it is the law
which must rule. And the strength of our federal system lies in the conformity of
purpose and action on national issues with a diversity of policy and methods on state
and local affairs. But when we get to the third issue, I fear that we can seeethe
hand-writing on the wall: the more extensive the federal aid the more likely and the
more serious the federal dictation.
Centralism will be checked only when national leaders refuse to encourage the
"easy way" of federal assistance, and state and local leaders assume the responsibility
and privilege of local action and control. The answer is not a call to easy living but
an opportunity for strength through struggle.
The big issue 100 years ago was whether the excess sovereignty of the states was
going to destroy the Union and the Constitution. The big issue today is whether the
excess concentration of Federal power and sovereignty is going to destroy state, local
and individual freedom and responsibility.
You with all local officials throughout the country have the answer. When in
concert, local and state leaders proclaim loudly and clearly "we will do the job,"
-8-
the first step will be taken.
But one more thing is essential. You and I, all of us who are concerned, must
continue to show our citizens, the voters, the significance of this issue and that
those political candidates who promise the most from Washington are not the most
deserving of our support.
III. THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH : CORNERSTONE OF DEMOCRACY
The third major topic which I want to consider with you for just a nfew minutes
is to me equally as serious as the one we have just been discussing.
I am deeply concerned with the expressed and implied criticism of the Congress,
yes, to all elected officials, which seems to be a popular pastime today. Many
newspaper and magazine articles have been written with such titles as "Congress Must
Reform;" "Old-Fashioned Congress Refuses to Face Reality." A recent long article in
an outstanding magazine was entitled "Is Congress Doing Its Job?" and an article in
a magazine widely read was about "Our Costly Gngress."
First of all let me point out that I do not contend that the Congress is perfeet
or that certain revisions in procedure would not be beneficial. Of course its organiza-
tion and methods can be improved. But I detect in all of this criticism and especially
that levied by those in the Executive branch, whether it be controlled by Democrats or
Republicans, a determined effort to downgrade the Congress and all elected legislative
bodies. There is an overwhelming tendency in this accelerated world to justify the
elimination of that which is old merely because it is old rather thanb ecause it may
no longer serve a useful purpose. I think that any close observer has noted in the
last 3 or 4 decades a concerted effort to weaken or discard our traditional system of
checks and balances. The common argument, as put forward by Professor James M. Byrnes, is
that "our government was set up to be a divided government with internal checks at a
time when we did not need a strong national government." This of course assumes that
we have reached the stage in our national development where we do need a strong national
government. The next assumption is that a strong national government means a strong
executive government and that anything which impedes the will of the executive is
anachronistic and detrimental. From these assumptions have arisen the efforts to reduce
substantially the effective power of Congress or any other legislative body elected
by the people.
These assumptions lead to action in three general categories. First the increase
of power through executive decisions which I have described. Second, public statements
by officials, news commentators, political scientists, and others downgrading the
Congress. And third, the general attitude expressed by certain political leaders that
they know more about what is good for the people than the people know themselves.
-9-
Rather than to appear partisan in discussing this important issue at this meeting,
I will give no specific illustrations to prove the point which we are making. You are
all familiar with the anti-Congress statements emanating from various sources. By
discrediting the Congress in the eyes of the public those who make these statements
hope automatically to win support for programs opposed by a majority of the Congress.
There is some kind of strange theory gaining prominence today which holds that simply
because the Executive branch requests legislation it is good for the country and those
in the Legislative must approve it. What this really means is that the Legislative
should become a rubber stamp for the Executive Branch. You who are legislators must
agree that none of us who are elected by our constituents can justly abdicate our
responsibilities to another. Those who are so critical of the Congress completely
overlook, and certainly not unknowingly, that the House of Representatives probably has
the closest kinship with the e lectorate of any segment of the federal government.
Every one of the 435 members of the House must put his record on the line and obtain
the approval of his constituents every two years. I do not mean to imply that the
Congress should not be criticized or that members of any legislative body always reflect
fully the views of their constituents. On the other hand, it is the House of Representa-
tives and those of us who are el ected periodical 1y who do go directly to the people for
a mandate and the authority to continue in power. We are on the firing line and expect
to receive our share of the sniping. It is not the crticism that troubles me but the
aura of distrust generated by it; the feeling that Congress is a negative body,
obstructing progress, and failing to fulfill its role and, therefore, should relinquish
some of its authority to the Executive.
I contend that in many intances Congress and any legislative body takes the most
effective action when it takes no action at all. It will be an evil day indeed when
it is wrong to say "NO."
From the viewpoint of a person who craves power the Constitution is negative. It
stresses the limitation to be placed upon the government and not upon the governed.
Its foundation is laid on the basic belief that a government not controlled by the
people will control the people.
Affirmatively, this means that there is a basic faith in the electorate and in
elected representatives. We who fill elective offices must assume and hold as a
sacred trust that authority and responsibility which temporarily rests with us. The
broader vision, the unselfish endeavor, the sincere purpose, and the genuine devotion
to duty on our part will preserve and strengthen that way of life which we all cherish.
#####
From the desk of Karl Hess
(-erry: Ereat material!
Made a copy.
project
Really an exciting
See you soon.
150ml
COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
October 10, 1963
Rep. Gerald R. Ford
Thous Longhorn story -
INTRODUCTION: Although never a Supervisor, I have:
A. a brother who is - his job is tougher than mine
B. worked closely with supervisors in my two counties:
32 in Ottawa - population of 98,719 (1960)
70 in Kent - population of 363,187 (1960)
They, like you are dedicated public servants who must provide
local services, build a better community, all within the
tight framework of local taxes and the spotlight of
hometown scrutiny.
C. D. C. welfare investigation
I.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT - MICHIGAN'S PROBLEMS AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
A. In Michigan we have 83 counties. Since 1908 operating under
historical concepts of county government.
1. One supervisor from each township and multiple supervisors
from cities. Net result - large Boards.
2. Restricted authority predecated on largely rural photosoly that
predomenated an the middle west during ner early
B. In the 1950, a growing realization a new Constatution united became:
1. 1908 Constitution amended so many times. Constitution
had become a patchwork.
2. Michigan had moved from a predominantly rural state to a state
where certain counties are almost totally urban.
million 1397
A.A.
3. Michigan's fiscal problems were in a mess.
alpine
Wayne- 2,6 -2,4
C.
In April the voters of Michigan adopted a new state Constitution
which over a period of the next several years goes into effect.
In three significant respects the new document offers change or
innovation in the general area of local government --
1. County home rule. Provisions similar to those for municipal
home rule are made for counties. These are not self-executing
and will require legislative implementation. This was done for
cities and villages in the current Home Rule Act, stemming from
provisions first inserted in the 1908 constitution.
The growing density of population in many counties and the
consequent extension of governmental needs and problems over
county-wide areas have long been felt by many observers to justify
attempts to strengthen the operations of county government,
particularly in urban areas.
FORD i LIBRARY 07V835
3
The old constitutional provisions required large boards of
supervisors with no focus of county executive authority, and set up
exactly the same structure of government for both urban and rural
counties.
The new document continues the past form of county government,
but offers an alternative form as well. The success of municipal
home rule in gaining vitality for city and village operations is
made potentially available also at the county level, under terms of
the revised document.
Metropolitan Problems-- A two-pronged solution to problems in
metropolitan areas is made available.
* First, intra-state governmental cooperation is specifically
offered to two or more counties, townships, cities, villages
or districts, or any combination of these units.
Sharing of costs and credit, contractual agreements, transfer of
functions and responsibilities, and mutual cooperation in general
shall be authorized under the terms of general law.
AVEN GERALD FORD
4
In short, the first level of attack on common problems that
transcend local boundaries is to be provided by the local units
themselves through cooperative undertakings.
* Second, additional forms of government may be established by
the legislature, the only restriction being that such govern-
ments wherever possible "shall be designed to perform multi-
purpose functions rather than a single function."
This level of attack looks essentially to future problems that may
better lend themselves to new organizational forms for the solution.
Thus, without detailed prescription or requirement, the new constitution
makes ultimately available a solution at the local level for currently
unforeseen needs and problems.
Constitutional
2. Liberal construction of provisions. The Convention's intent to strengthen
1
and encourage government at the local level is nowhere better illustrated
than in the provision calling for liberal interpretation by the courts
of constitutional and statutory language relating to local units.
The provision further specifically says that local unit powers
"shall include those fairly implied and not prohibited by this constitution."
GERALD LIQUARY
mthe part
5
mthe
In many cases, court decisions have been hesitant to grant "fairly
implied" powers to counties and townships, and these local units
have found themselves restricted in performing some functions and
services by the fact that certain explicit authority for action was
not stated in law.
The new provision reverses the situation and says, in effect,
that all local units may do whatever needs to be done to carry out
their general powers, unless something is specifically prohibited
by the constitution or by statute.
3. New taxing powers. Each home rule county, and each city and village
is granted the power to levy other taxes than property taxes, subject
to constitutional and statutory limitations and prohibitions.
The added flexibility which this provision affords the financing
of local government is thus specifically subjected to the safeguard of
constitutional or legislative pre-emption and restriction.
4.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Miscellaneous provisions affecting local government require brief
mention. Among them are --
GERALD Invunir FORD
6
*
A four-year term of office is provided for county elective officers.
*
Total debt of a county may not exceed 10 per cent of its assessed
valuation.
*
Township officers may by law be given terms of office of up to
four years, by contrast with the traditional two-year term.
* All local units (including school districts) having authority to
prepare budgets shall adopt them only after a public hearing.
* An annual accounting is required for all public moneys, and uniform
local accounting systems shall be prescribed and maintained,
Also, all financial records and other reports of public money shall
be public records and open to inspection. These provisions are
more expressly and clearly stated than is certain corresponding
language of the 1908 constitution.
5.
IN BRIEF
Local government provisions exhibit a blending of two major concerns --
*
Retention of the historical forms of local rule along with all
significant traditional powers, duties and functions on the one
hand.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
7
*
On the other hand, provision for experimentation, as in the case
of county home rule, and for adaptation to need, as in the case
of the recognition of metropolitan area problems.
Reinforcing the traditional, the experimental, and the provision
for changes that the future may bring is the general trend toward
strengthening local level ability to cope with governmental problems.
This is best summed up in the provision calling for liberal construction
by the courts and use of the doctrine of implied powers, and in the
provision for broader taxing powers.
II. POWER GRAB BY WASHINGTON - THE ABUSE OF EXECUTIVE INTERPRETATION
AND AUTHORITY
My remarks on this subject would appear to fall within the subject
matter discussed in one of your Section Sessions this morning entitled,
"California '64: Social Welfare or Social Warfare."
To any objective student of American government since 1932 it
should be crystal clear there has been a distinct trend to increased
power in the hands of non-elected federal officials through executive
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
8
decisions. In recent years, and the situation is growing worse
rather than better, there have been a multitude of executive orders
flowing out of administrative offices in the Nation's Capital. The
output of such self-serving power by non-elected officials in the
in Washingh
federal government has reached such proportions it is virtually
1
impossible for members of Congress, state officials or local authorities
to keep abreast of what is being done in this vast bureaucracy that
to a dangerous degree controls the life and destiny of the American
people.
Unfortunately few Americans realize the numerical strength of
decision makers in the federal government. Today Uncle Sam employs
approximately 2,500,000 civilians and this army of bureaucrats is
supplemented by 2,800,000 men on active duty with the Armed Forces.
It must be conceded, although seldom realized except by those affected,
that the military decision makers in America are a part of the
Executive Branch and their decisions, both locally and nationally,
can be arbitrary and far-reaching to individuals, to business, or
to the local community.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
9
The fundamental point, however, is that working for the
federal government in the Executive Branch of the national
government there are about 5½ million employees who are never
really "called to account" by the voters. The President
representing the Executive Branch, it is true, puts his record
on the line once every 4 years and the voters in a broad sense
pass judgment on an Administration whether it be Republican or
Democratic. On the other hand a vast, entrenched and potentially
arbitrary bureaucracy backed up by the power of $100 billion a
year in federal funds never really puts its record to the test
of the ballot box.
Think-
On this point of federal Executive dictatorship I have
Atop
read lately of numerous serious conflicts between local
authorities in California and arbitrary federal officials in
Washington. Let me assure you, however, that this federal octopus
on county level
does not limit itself to browbeating local authorities by
self-serving interpretations of legislation or Congressional intent.
i
RD
President James madron - "there are more instances
GERALD
of silent incomments of There in power than by
of abridgement of the freedom of The people by gradual
ABVS
violect of rullen
10
In the past few months, the State of Mich igan has experienced
first-hand the disastrous effect of the duse of power
concentrated in Washington.
Back in 1961, the Congress decided to extend the aid to
dependent children act to include unemployed parents. And so
the House of senate
we passed what is now known as ADCU.
And when the bill was passed, it was to run for only one
year because the Congress felt that it would like to see how
this program was administered before it was given a more
permanent future.
In writing this part of the Welfare Act, the Congress said
that the basis of eligibility, the definition of unemployed
parents, was to be "as determined by the states."
Now, at there the very ontset resistances there in was Michigan, substantial on the part resistance of the
on participating in a program
legislature, to getting into an act that was only on the Federal
However,after one years experience The Legitation
books for one year. It was extended in 1962 to & five-year
program. On the basis of that extension and other considerations,
lythe Compero
George Romney indicated during guberational the campaign that inasmuch as
1962
11
in
Michigan was paying $2 for every $1 it got back -- and inasmuch
as this trend toward Federalization is not going to be stopped
by one individual or one state -- Michigan might as well qualify
under this Act and get at least $1 back for every $2 it sends
down to Washington.
The best of
So, with good intentions, Governor Romney early in 1963
asked the state social welfare department to prepare a suitable
bill to qualify Michigan under this federal legislation.
Competent and experienced officials prepared the bill, and they oppicials
These wpening
put together one that was shaped to meet Mic higan's problems
in this field and in the welfare field generally. administrators
These highly qualified state
proposed decided to limit the families who would be eligible to those
parents who had been eligible for unemployment compensation
after January 31, 1958. This was made because otherwise it
deasm
1
would have been necessary to set up a new bureaucracy in
Michigan to administer the program and determine those eligible.
FORD & LIBRARY DERALD
12
These experienced state officials did not think this was
desirable.
Secondly, they wanted to do it this way because they
did not want to weaken Michigan's overall welfare program.
These families who were to receive help were not without help.
They were all on general assistance welfare. Their children
were receiving help through that program and the welfare
officials and the state felt that those families who would
ADCU
not be eligible under their definition could be better cared
for under the general welfare assistance program because
that program invelves providing commodities and assistance
the ADCU
and the use of the help received, whereas the other was just a
1
cash grant.
And then they had another reason. If they had gone the
way some people thought they ought to go, itwould have weakened
the county welfare department, and the Michigan program depends
upon the effectiveness of those departments.
FORD is LIBRARY 07V335
13
So for these reasons, the state officia ls devised this
legislation, and after drafting it, they checked with the
regional office of the Department of Health, Education and
Welfare in Chicago to make certa in that the act qualified under
own
the Department's regulations. - the regional office checked
proposed
with Washington, and the answer came back that the legislation
n
qualified. It was all right. As a matter of fact, it qualified
who were on
more of Michigan's families percentagewise on general welfare
than was true of all but two out of 15 states that had
previously qualified under the program.
So the state legislation moved forward. The House
State
passed the bill. The Senate was within 11 minutes of passing
A
the bill when a wire was received from a Department head in
Health, Education and Welfare, raising a question as to
whether the legislation would qualify under the Federal
Department's interpretation of the program. Belatedly the
federal official in Washington raised the question of whether
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
MAS
Frankly just This another Writington to hide $ mid or the heavy
the definition that was being used was discriminatory.
No
one
has ever seen a definition yet that was not discriminatory.
mal disgonse the normal for
The inherent character of a definition is to include some
The fathy miling I
and exclude others.
But the Department heads in Washington did not like
Michigan's definition. They have a different definition.
Under their definition, Michigan could have qualified fewer
families or more families under the program, just as it could
have done under its own state definition as it was developed.
Well, the Governor and the legislators took a look at
the federal law again, and took a look at the Department's regulations,
run
was
and the Department male it clear that the state was to
under
as a matter of pot Ohlahoma + north Cardina were operating
that that
determine eligibility Governor Romney said to the legislature,
were more Then
restrictive
"Let us go ahead, The law is clear." So they went ahead.
m
The next day, after the bill was passed, Gov. Romney
Michan
received a wire from the Secretary of Health, Education and
Welfare, telling him that he considered the program discriminatory
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
and that he would not grant federal funds under it. The Governor
in good futh 15
1
thought he could go down and talk to him and find out
why. He was incere in this. THE Governor Romney wanted to know
absolulely Reside
1
certain
the michyan
whether there were things in the back of this position that
he was not aware of on the surface, or in the regulations or
in the basic law.
our Avenue
So, the Governor of Michigan went to Washington. And
what he heard was so unconvincing that he suggested to the
Secretary that he have his General Counsel take several days
to prepare a legal memorandum indicating on what basis he had
any authority to tell the states what to do in light of
the clear language of the statute and also the clear
congressional intent. And he emphasized the intent.
I would like to read to you what Chairman Mills said
when this legislation was being considered on the floor of the
House.
Congressman Barry asked, "How tough is the criteria?
Is this left to the states?"
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
16
Mr. Mills replied, "In this instance we are not telling
the states they cannot do this, they cannot do that or they
cannot do something else. What we are telling the states is
this: You find out that this family is in need and what its
need is, and you decide if you want to put state money to
help the problems of the needy children. And if so, we will
join you under the formula now applicable under the ADCU
program. This is all we are saying. It is entirely up to
the states."
And later Mr. Dominick: "This bill contains no
definition of what unemployment is."
Mr. Mills said, "It depends on what the state means
by the term 'unemployed'. The important point on this is
that we are leaving this to the states for determination."
Mr. Dominick: "This would then centralize it all at
the State and Federal level."
Mr. Mills: "At the State level, not the Federal level."
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
17
Now, if any of us understand the English language, the
Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee which initiated this
legislation was making it as clear as he could that this
program was to be détermined in terms of eligibility by the
states without Federal
distation particip certainly not federal yearter tectation
Regrettably the Secretary of Health, Educat and Welfare has
taken the opposite viewpoint. + ALL Michigan its Fromor of its
is without an ADC a proporm despite its Gona from
Kine issues are threefold. The first is whether Federal
This situation raises some tremendous issues. efforts qualify. to
The question
officials can remodel the will of Congress to conform with
their own ideas of social necessity. And the issue is in
effect whether we are going to allow laws written by our
elected Congressmen to be rewritten by administrative
officials whose actions lie largely beyond the effective
control of the people. The issue involves this significant
question: Is this a Government of law or is it a Government
of men?
FORD :- LIBRARY
atate, yours mine
18
The second issue is whether a state is to
have within the the Groad
advantage of a program tailored to meet its own needs.
And the third is whether acceptance by a state of
Federal aid is acceptance of Federal dictation.
You and I know what the answers should be. The
clearly-expressed will of the elected representatives of the
people must be followed. While men govern, it is the law
which must rule. And the strength of our federal system
lies in the conformity of purpose and action on national
issues with a diversity in policy and methods on state and
another aspect I The question
local affairs. But when we get to the third issue, I fear
that we can see the hand-writing on the wall: the more extensive
agot, work,
the federal aid the more likely and the more serious the federal
dictation.
with all its wil connections
Centralism will be checked only when national leaders
h
hqm
refuse to encourage the "easy way" of federal assistance, and
state and local leaders assume the responsibility and privilege
of local action and control. The answer is not a call to easy
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
19
lewing but an opportunity for strength through struggle.
The big issue 100 years ago was whether the excess
sovereignty of the states was going to destroy the Union and
the Constitution. The big issue today is whether the excess
concentration of Federal power and sovereignty is going to
destroy state, local and individual freedom and responsibility.
You with all local officia valizens ls thro ughout the country
have the answer. When in concert, local and state leaders
proclaim loudly and learly "we will to the job," the first
step will be taken.
But one more thing is essential: You and I, all of
us who are concerned, must continue to show our citizens, the
voters, the significance of this issue and that those
political candidates who promise the most from Washington are
promise III. THE Forthing LEGISLATIVE "fru BRANCH: gift CORNERSTONE "from OF the DEMOCRACY banks of the Potomac
not the most deserving of our support. Benard of the man who
another
The third major topic which I want to consider with you
for just a few minutes is to me equally as serious as the one
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
20
we have just been discussing.
I am deeply concerned with the expressed and implied
criticism of the Congress, yes, of all elected officials,
This herping criticiom of legislators
Iseens to be a popular pastime today. Many newspaper and
magazine articles have been written with such titles as
"Congress Must Reform;" "Old-Fashioned Congress Refuses to
Face Reality." A recent long article in an outstanding
magazine was entitled "Is Congress Doing Its Job?" and an
article in a magazine widely read was about "Our Costly
Congress."
First of all let me point out that I do not contend
J
that the Congress is perfect or that certain revisions in legislative
procedure would not be beneficial. Of course its organization
and methods can be improved. But I detect in all of this
criticism and especially that levied by those in the
Executive branch, whether it be controlled by Democrats or
Republicans, a determined effort to downgrade the Congress
and all elected legislative bodies. There is an overwhelming
GERALD FORD BRAN
21
tendency in this accelerated world to justify the elimination
of that which is old merely because it is old rather than because
it may no longer serve a useful purpose.
James history
I Chink that close observer has noted in the last
3 or 4 decades a concerted effort to weaken or discard our
traditional system of checks and balances. The common
a learned
argument, as put forward by Professor James Byrnes, is
have his g) Winder freedom we this have
that "our government was set up to be a divided government with
internal checks at a time when we did not need a strong
for more my
The
national government." This of course assumes that we have
reached the stage in our national development where we do need
a strong national government. The next assumption is that a
strong national government means a strong executive government
and that anything which impedes the will of the executive is
anacironistic adpartioned and detremental. From these assumptions have
arisen the efforts to reduce substantially the effective power
of Congress. or any other legislative body elected by the people.
FORD : LIBRARY GERALD
22
These assumptions lead to action in three general
categories. First the increase of power through executive
decisions which I have described. Second, public
statements by officials, news commentators, political
scientists, and others downgrading the Congress. And third,
the general attitude expressed by certain political leaders
that they know more about what is good for the people than
the people know thamselves.
Rather than to appear partisan in discussing this
1
important issue at this meeting, I will give no specific
2 might add there are ample enotand in
illustrations to prove the point which we are making. You are thipant 2yrs.
all familiar with the anti-Congress statements emanating from
various sources. By discrediting the Congress in the eyes of
the public those who make these statements hope automatically
to win support for programs opposed by a majority of the
Congress. There is some kind of strange theory gaining
prominence today which holds that simply because the Executive
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
23
branch requests legislation it is good for the country and
automatically
those in the Legislative must approve it. What this really
1
means is that the Legislative should become a rubber stamp
Those
for the Executive branch. You who are legislators must agree
that nome of us who are elected by our constituents can justly
abdicate our responsibilities to another. Those who are so
critical of the Congress completely overlook, and certainly
not unknowingly, that the House of Representatives probably
has the closess kinship with the electorate of any segment
of the federal government. Everyone of the 435 menb ers of
the House, must put his record on the line and obtain the
approval of his constituents every two years. I do not mean
to imply that the Congress should not be criticized or that
members of any legislative body always reflect fully the
views of their constituents. On the other hand, it is the
House of Representatives and those of us who are elected
periodically who do go directly to the people for a mandate
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
24
in government
and the authority to continue in power. We are on the fir ing
line and expect to receive our share of the sniping. It is
not the criticism that troubles me but the aura of distrust
generated by it; the feeling that Congress is a negative body,
obstructing progress, and failing to fulfill its role and,
therefore, should relinquish some of its authority to the
Executive.
certain
I contend that in many instances Congress and any
makes the best Recesion for The people when it regists
legislative body takes the most effective action when it takes
unward of postly considered charges often merchy for The sake Zchange
.
action at all. It will be an evil day indeed when it is
YOUR
wrong to say "NO."
who wants to letermine ,NG at
From the viewpoint of a person who craves power the
his
This historic document 1 nightive
when
Constitution is negative. It stresses the limitation to be
in many instand placed - upon is often the governed. a "stop Its sign.' foundation Frequently is laid it on says the gust basic hold on a month
belief that a government not controlled by the people will
control the people.
Affirmatively, this means that there is a basic faith in
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
25
the electorate and in elected representatives. We who fill
elective offices must assume and hold as a sacred trust that
authority and responsibility which temporarily rests with us.
The broader vision, the unselfish endeavor, the sincere
purpose, and the genuine devotion to duty on our part will
preserve and strengthen that way of life which we all cherish.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
File Cofoy
COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
October 10, 1963
Rep. Gerald R. Ford
Introduction: Although never a Supervisor, I have:
A. a brother who is - his job is tougher than mine.
B. worked closely with supervisors in my two counties:
32 in Ottawa - population of 98,719 (1960)
70 in Kent - population of 363,187 (1960)
They, like you, are dedicated public servants who must
provide local services, build better communities, all within
the tight framework of local taxes and the spotlight of
hometown scrutiny.
C. D. C. welfare investigation
I. LOCAL GOVERNMENT - MICHIGAN'S PROBLEMS AND PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
A. In Michigan we have 83 counties. Since 1908 operating under historical
concepts of county government.
1. One supervisor from each township and multiple supervisors from cities.
Net result - large Boards.
2. Restricted authority predicated on largely rural philosophy that pre-
dominated in middle west dur ing our early history.
B. In 1950s growing realization a new Mich igan Constitu tion essential because:
1. 1908 Constitution amended so many times. Constitution had become a
patchwork.
2. Michigan had moved from a predominantly rural state to a state where
certain counties are almost totally urban.
3. Michigan's fiscal problems were in a mess.
C. In April the voters of Michigan adopted a new state Constitution which over
a period of the next several years goes into effect. In three significant
respects the new document offers change or innovation in the general
area of local government --
1. County home rule. Provisions similar to those for municipal home rule
are made for counties. These are not self-executing and will require
legislative implementation. This was done for cities and villages in
the current Home Rule Act, stemming from provisions first inserted in
the 1908 constitution.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
The growing density of population in many counties and the consequent
extension of governmental needs and problems over county-wide areas have long
-2-
been felt by many observers to justify attempts to strengthen the operations of
county government, particularly in urban areas.
The old constitutional provisions requiredlarge boards of supervisors with
no focus of county executive authority, and set up exactly the same structure of
government for both urban and rural counties.
The n e W document continues the past form of county goverment, but
offers an alternative form as well. The success of múnicipal home rule in gaining
vitality for city and village operations is made potentially available also at the
county level, under terms of the revised document.
Metropolitan Problems-- A two-pronged solution to problems in metropolitan
areas is made aváilable.
* First, intra-state governmental cooperation is specifically offered to two
or more counties, townships, cities, villages or districts, or any combina-
tion of these units.
Sharing of costs and credit, contractual agreements, transfer of functions
and responsibilities, and mutual cooperation in general shall be authorized under
the terms of general law.
In short, the first level of attack on common problems that transcend local
boundaries is to be provided by the local units themselves thrugh cooperative
undertakings.
* Second, additional forms of government may be established by the legisla-
ture, the only restriction being that such goverments wherever possible
"shall be designed to perform multi-purpose functions rather than a single
function."
This level of attack looks essentially to future problems that may better
lend themselves to new organizational forms for their solution. Thus, without
detailed prescription or requirement, t he n e w." constitution makes ultimately
available a solution at the local level for currently unforseen needs and problems.
2. Liberal construction of provisions. The Convention's intent to strengthen and
encourage government at the local level is nowhere better illustrated than in the
provision calling for liberal interpretation by the courts of constitutional and
statutory language relating to local units.
The provision further specifically says that local unit powers "shall include
those fairly implied and not prohibited by this constitution." In many cases,
court decisions have been hesitant to grant "fairly implied" powers to counties
and townships, and these local units have found themselves restricted in performing
FORD
some fuctions and services by the fact that certain explicit authority for action
was not stated in law.
GERAL
LIBRARY
-3-
The new provision reverses the situation and says, in effect, that all local
units may do whatever needs to be done to carry out their general powers, unless
something is specifically prohibited by the constitution or by statute.
3. New taxing powers. Each home rule county, and each city and village is granted
the power to levy other taxes than property taxes, subject to constitutional
and statutory limitations and prohibitions.
The added flexibility which this provision affords the financing of local
government is thus specifically subjected to the safeguard of constitutional or
legislative pre-emption and restriction.
4. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
Miscellaneous provisions affecting local government require brief mention.
Among them are --
* A four-year term of office is provided for county elective officers.
*
Total debt of a county may not exceed 10 per cent of its assessed valuation.
Township officers may by law be given terms of office of up to four years, by
contrast with the traditional two-year term.
* All local units (including school districts) having authority to prepare
budgets shall adopt them only after a public hearing.
* An annual accounting is required for all public moneys, and uniform local
accounting systems shall be prescribed and maintained. Also, all financial
records and other reports of public money shall be public records and open to
inspection. These provisions are more expressly and clearly stated than is
certain corresponding language of the 1908 constitution.
5. IN BRIEF
Local government provis ions exhibit a blending of two major concerns--
* Retention of the historical forms of local rule along with all significant
traditional powers, duties and functions on the one hand.
*
On the other hand, provision for experimentation, as in the case of county home
rule, and for adaptation to need, as in the case of the recognition of
metropolitan area problems.
Reinforcing the traditional, the experiemtnal, and the provision for changes
that the future may bring is the general trend toward strengthening local level
ability to cope with governmental problems. This is best summed up in the provision
calling for liberal construction by the courts and use of the doctrine of implied
powers, and in the provis ion for broader taxing powers.
GERALD FORD LIBRAR,
-4-
II. POWER GRAB BY WASHINGTON - THE ABUSE OF EXECUTIVE INTERPRETATION AND AUTHORITY
My remarks on this subject would appear to fall within the subject matter discussed
in one of your Section Sessions this morning entitled, "California '64: Social Welfare
or Social Warfare."
To any objective student of American govemment since 1932 it should be crystal
clear there has been a distinct trend to increased power in the hands of non-elected
federal officials through executive decisions. In recent years, and the situation is
growing worse rather than better, there have been a multitude of executive orders
flowing out of administrative offices in the Nation's Capital. The output of such
self-serving power by non-elected officials in the federal government has reached such
proportions it is virtually impossible for members of Congress, state officials or local
authorities to keep abreast of what is being done in this vast bureaucracy that to a
dangerous degree controls the life and destiny of the American people.
Unfortunately few Americans realize the numerical strength of decision makers in
the federal government. Today Uncle Sam employs approximately 2,500,000 civilians and
this army of bureaucrats is supplemented by 2,800,000 men on active duty with the Armed
Forces. It must be conceded, although seldom realized except by those affected, that
the military decision makers in America areaa part of the Executive Branch and their
decisions, both locally and nationally, can be arbitrary and far-reaching to individuals,
to business, or to the local community.
The fundamental point, however, is that working for the federal government in the
Executive Branch of the national government there are about 51/2 million employees who
are never really "called to account" by the voters. The President representing the
Executive Branch, it is true, puts his record on the line once every four years and the
voters in a broad sense pass judgment on an Administration whether it be Republican or
Democratic. On the other hand a vast, entrenched and potentially arbitrary bureaucracy
backed up by the power of $100 billion a year in federal funds never real ly puts its
récord to the test of the bal lot box.
On this point of federal Executive dictatorship I have read lately of numerous
serious conflicts between local authorities in California and arbitrary federal officials
in Washington. Let me assure, you, however, that this federal octopus does not limit
itself to browbeating local authorities by self-serving interpretations of legislation
or Congressional intent. In the past few months, the State of Michigan has experienced
first-hand the disastrous effect of the a buse of power concentrated in Washington.
Back in 1961, the Congress decided to extend the aid to dependent children act
to include unemployed parents. And so we passed what is now known as ADCU.
FORD
And when the bill was passed, it was to run for only one year because the Congress
LIBRARY
-5-
felt that it would like to see how this program was administered before it was given a
more permanent future.
In writing this part of the Welfare Act, the Congress said that the basis of
eligibility, the definition of unemployed parents, was to be "as determined by the
states."
Now, there were resistances in Michigan, on the part of the legislature, to getting
into an act that was only on the Federal books for one year. It was extended in 1962
to a five-year program. On the basis of that extension and other considerations, George
Romney indicated during the campaign that inasmuch as Michigan was paying $2 for every
$1 it got back -- and inasmuch as this trend toward Federalization is not going to be
stopped by one individual or one state Michigan might as well quàlify under this
Act and get at least $1 back for every $2 it sends down to Washington.
So, with good intentions, Governor Romney early in 1963 asked the state social
welfare department to prepare a suitable bill to qualify Michigan under the federal
legislation. Competent and experienced officials prepared the bill, and they put
together one that was shaped to meet Michigan's problems in this field and in the welfare
field generally. And they decided to limit the families who would be eligible to those
parents who had been eligible for unemployment compensation after January 31, 1958.
This was done because otherwise it would have been necessary to set up a new bureaucracy
in Michigan to administer the program and determine those eligible. These experienced
state officials did not think this was desirable.
Secondly, they wanted to do it this way because they did not want to weaken
Michigan's overall welfare program. These families who were to receive help were not
without help. Theywere all on general assistance welfare. Their children were receiving
help through that program and the welfare officials and the state felt that those
families who would not be eligible under their definition could be better cared for
under the general welfare assistance program because that program involves providing
commodities and assistance and the use of the help received, whereas the other was just
a cash grant.
And then they had another reason. If they had gone the way some people thought
they ought to go, it would have weakened the county welfare department, and the Michigan
program depends upon the effectiveness of those departments.
So for these reasons the state officials devised this dègislation, and after
drafting it, they checked with the regional office of the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare in Chicago to make certain that the act qualified under the Department's
regulations. And the regional office checked with Washington, and the answer came back
that the legislation qualified. It was all right. As a matter of fact, it qual ified
FORD
more of Michigan's families percentagewise on general welfare thanwas true of all but
LIBRARY
-6-
two out of 15 states that had previously qualified under the program.
So the state legislation moved forward. The House passed the bill. The Senate
was within 11 minutes of passing the bill when a wire was received from a Department
head in Health, Education and Welfare, raising a question as to whether the legislation
would qualify under the Federal Department's interpretation of the program. Belatedly
the federal official in Washington raised the question of whether the definition that
was being used was discriminatory. No one has ever seen a definition yet that was not
discriminatory. The inherent character of a definition is to include some and exclude
others.
But the Department heads in Washington did not ike Michigan's definition. They
have a different definition. Under their definition, Michigan could have quàlified
fewer families or more families under the program, just as it could have done under its
own state definition as it was developed.
Well, the Governor and the legislators took a look at the law again, and took a
look at the Department's regulations, and the Department made it clear that the state
was to determine eligibility. Governor Romney said to the legislature, "Let us go
ahead. The law is clear." So they went ahead.
The next day, after the bill was passed, Gov. Romney received a wire from the
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, telling him that he considered the program
disciminatory and that he would not grant funds under it. The Governor thought he
could go down and talk to him and find out why. He was sincere in this. The Governor
wanted to know whether there were things in the back of this position that he was not
aware of on the surface, or in the regulations or in the basic law.
So, the Governor of Michigan went to Washington. And what he heard was so
unconvincing that he suggested to the Secretary that he have his General Cougselitake
several days to prepare a legal memorandum indicating on what basis he had any authority
to tell the states what to do in light of the clear language of the statute and also
the clear congressional intent. And he emphasized the intent.
I would like to read toyyou what Chairman Mills said when this legislation was being
considered on the floor of the House.
Congressman Barry asked, "How tough is the criteria? Is this left to the states?"
Mr. Mills replied, "In this instance we are not telling the states they cannot do
this, they cannot do that or they cannot do something else. What we are telling the
states is this: You find out that this family is in need and what its need is, and
you decide if you want to put state money to help the problems of the needy children.
And if so, we will join you under the formula now applicable under the ADCU program.
FORD
This is all we are saying. It is entirely up to the states."
RALD
LIBRARY
And later Mr. Dominick: "This bill contains no definition of what unemployment is."
-7-
Mr. Mills said, "It depends on what the state means by the term 'unemployed'.
The important point on this is that we are leaving this to the states for determination."
Mr. Dominick: "This would then centralize it all at the State and Federal level."
Mr. Mills: "At the State level, not the Federal level."
Now, if any of us understand the English language, the Chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee which initiated this legislation was making it as clear as he could
that this program was to be determined in terms of eligibility by the states without
Federal participation.
But, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare has taken the opposite
viewpoint.
This situation raises some tremendous issues. And the issues are threefold
The first is whether Federal officials can remodel the will of Congress to conform
with their own ideas of social necessity. And the issue is in effect whether we are
going to allow laws written by our elected Congressmen to be rewritten by administrative
officials whose actions lie largely beyond the effective control of the people. The
issue involves this significant question: Is this a Government of law or is it a
Government of men?
The second issue is whether a state is to have the advantage jof a program tailored
to meet its own needs.
And the third is whether acceptance by a state of Federal aid is acceptance of
Federal dictation.
You and I know what the answers should be. The clearly-expressed will of the
elected representatives of the people must be followed. While men govern, it is the law
which must rule. And the strength of our federal system lies in the conformity of
purpose and action on national issues with a diversity of policy and methods on state
and local affairs. But when we get to the third issue, I fear that we can seeethe
hand-writing on the wall: the more extensive the federal aid the more likely and the
more serious the federal dictation.
Centralism will be checked only when national leaders refuse to encourage the
"easy way" of federal assistance, and state and local leaders assume the responsibility
and privilege of local action and control. The answer is not a call to easy living but
an opportunity for strength through struggle.
The big issue 100 years ago was whether the excess sovereignty of the states was
going to destroy the Union and the Constitution. The big issue today is whether the
excess concentration of Federal power and sovereignty is going to destroy state, local
and individual freedom and responsibility.
You with all local officials throughout the country have the answer. When in
concert, local and state leaders proclaim loudly and clearly "we will do the job,'
-8-
the first step will be taken.
But one more thing is essential. You and I, all of us who are concerned, must
continue to show our citizens, the voters, the significance of this issue and that
those political candidates who promise the most from Washington are not the most
deserving of our support.
III. THE LEGISLATIVE BRAN CH CORNERSTONE OF DEMOCRACY
The third major topic which I want to consider with you for just a nfew minutes
is to me equally as serious as the one we have just been discussing.
I am deeply concerned with the expressed and implied criticism of the Congress,
yes, to all elected officials, which seems to be a popular pastime today. Many
newspaper and magazine articles have been written with such titles as "Congress Must
Reform;" "Old-Fashioned Congress Refuses to Face Reality." A recent long article in
an outstanding magazine was entitled "Is Congress Doing Its Job?" and an article in
a magazine widely read was about "Our Costly Ongress."
First of all let me point out that I do not contend that the Congress is perfect
or that certain revisions in procedure would not be beneficial. Of course its organiza-
tion and methods can be improved. But I detect in all of this criticism and especially
that levied by those in the Executive!branch, whether it be controlled by Democrats or
Republicans, a determined effort to downgrade the Congress and all elected legislative
bodies. There is an overwhelming tendency in this accelerated world to justify the
elimination of that which is old merely because it is old rather thanb ecause it may
no longer serve a useful purpose. I think that any close observer has noted in the
last 3 or 4 decades a concerted effort to weaken or discard our traditional system of
checks and balances. The common argument, as put forward by Professor James M. Byrnes, is
that "our government was set up to be a divided government with internal checks at a
time when we did not need a strong national government." This of course assumes that
we have reached the stage in our national development where we do need a strong national
government. The next assumption is that a strong national government means a strong
executive government and that anything which impedes the will of the executive is
anachronistic and detrimental. From these assumptions have arisen the efforts to reduce
substantially the effective power of Congress or any other legislative body elected
by the people.
These assumptions lead to action in three general categories. First the increase
of power through executive decisions which I have described. Second, public statements
by officials, news commentators, political scientists, and others downgrading the
FORD
Congress. And third, the general attitude expressed by certain political leaders that
they know more about what is good for the people than the people know themselves.
LIBRARY
-9-
Rather than to appear partisan in discussing this important issue at this meeting,
I will give no specific illustrations to prove the point which we are making. You are
all familiar with the anti-Congress statements emanating from various sources. By
discrediting the Congress in the eyes of the public those who make these statements
hope automatically to win support for programs opposed by a majority of the Congress.
There is some kind of strange theory gaining prominence today which holds that simply
because the Executive branch requests legislation it is good for the country and those
in the Legislative must approve it. What this really means is that the Legislative
should become a rubber stamp for the Executive Branch. You who are legislators must
agree that none of us who are elected by our constituents can justly abdicate our
responsibilities to another. Those who are so critical of the Congress completely
overlook, and certainly not unknowingly, that the House of Representatives probably has
the closest kinship with the e lectorate of any segment of the federal government.
Every one of the 435 members of the House must put his record on the line and obtain
the approval of his constituents every two years. I do not mean to imply that the
Congress should not be criticized or that members of any legislative body always reflect
fully the views of their constituents. On the other hand, it is the House of Representa-
tives and those of us who are el ected periodical ly who do go directly to the people for
a mandate and the authority to continue in power. We are on the firing line and expect
to receive our share of the sniping. It is not the crticism that troubles me but the
aura of distrust generated by it; the feeling that Congress is a negative body,
obstructing progress, and failing to fulfill its role and, therefore, should relinquish
some of its authority to the Executive.
I contend that in many intances Congress and any legislative body takes the most
effective action when it takes no action at all. It will be an evil day indeed when
it is wrong to say "NO."
From the viewpoint of a person who craves power the Constitution is negative. It
stresses the limitation to be placed upon the government and not upon the governed.
Its foundation is laid on the basic belief that a government not controlled by the
people will control the people.
Affirmatively, this means that there is a basic faith in the electorate and in
elected representatives. We who fill elective offices must assume and hold as a
sacred trust that authority and responsibility which temporarily rests with us. The
broader vision, the unselfish endeavor, the sincere purpose, and the genuine devotion
to duty on our part will preserve and strengthen that way of life which we all cherish.
#####
GERALD FORD VIBRARY