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.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to Adam Clayton Powell.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526036
label
National War College, Washington, DC, May 31, 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526036
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
National War College, Washington, DC, May 31, 1967
description
This file contains material relating to Adam Clayton Powell.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
U.S. House of Representatives. 3/4/1789-
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Ethics
Foreign aid
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526036
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-05-31
month
5
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-05-01
month
5
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
eb346d4ffc478501
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D22, folder "National War College,
Washington, DC, May 31, 1967" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Speech fate
OF DEFENSE DEFE ENSE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
THE NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20315
OTHER
STATES OF
AMERICA
NWC-1304-10
11 September 1967
Dear Mr. Ford:
Reference is made to your address given to the members
of The National War College on 31 May 1967.
Enclosed for your retention is an edited retyped copy
of this lecture.
With kind regards,
Sincerely yours,
Encl
E. A. TRAHAN
as
Colonel, USA
Executive Officer
Honorable Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Digitized from Box D22 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
"Edited by Author"
ADDRESS
By
Honorable Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
"This is an official document of The
National War College. Quotation from
Abstraction from, or Reproduction of all
or any part of this document is NOT
AUTHORIZED without specific permission
of the Commandant of The National War
College,
Presented at
The National War College
Washington, D. C.
31 May 1967
FORD LIBRARY 071839 RAR
FOR DEFICIAL USE ONLY
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ADDRESS
By
Honorable Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
(31 May 1967)
ADMIRAL LEE: (Introduced the speaker).
MR. FORD: Thank you very much, Admiral Lee.
Those of us in political life are called a great many things.
I have never been given such a title or honor as Vice Admiral by any
political opponent.
I know Admiral Lee made an inadvertent slip in introducing me
when he indicated I was a graduate of the University of Washington.
But that is not quite as bad a misstatement made when I was introduced
a few months ago in the State of Ohio. These of you who come from
the Middle West know of the deep and intense rivalry between Ohio
State University and the University of Michigan. In one of those political
meetings in Ohio one of my colleagues was introducing me and he,
inadvertently I think, indicated I had graduated from Ohio University.
I did not quite know how to remedy this slip, but as I came to the podium
I thought of the man who had the chore of introducing the Governor
of the Virgin Islands. This man got up and spoke glowingly of the
governor's accomplishments and achievements and spoke resoundingly
of the Governor's virtues. Then he finally concluded by saying:
1
GERALO FORD LIBRARY
FOR DEFICIAL USE ONLY.
"Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce the virgin
of the Governor's Island."
As the Admiral indicated, before I got this new job two years
ago by the landslide vote of 73 to 67 I served & good many years on
the Committee on Appropriations and for fourteen of those years
served on the Defense Subcommittee, the Foreign Operations Sub-
committee, and the CIA Subcommittee. I got kicked off all committees
when I got this job, and as a result I am not nearly as well informed on
some of the matters now as I was for a period of time.
Therefore, in my remarks teday I would like to talk about an
area where I think my up-to-date competence would be a little better
than the other. But I would be very happy to discuss in the question-
and-answer period any of the subjects relatedito my past experience,
or the same subject matters but perhaps not with the detailed com-
petence that I formerly had. I suspect that in the audience there are
some I knew and with whom I discussed matters when I was on those
three subcommittees.
If I had been here last year and the year before -- I was the
guest on one of those occasions -- I would have and as I recall did
talk about what I felt was some erosion in one of the cornerstones of our
American political system. I speak here of the change that seemed to be
taking place in the relationship between the three branches of the
2
FORD is LIBRARY 07V330
Federal Government.
The men who drafted the Constitution were very careful,
extremely scrupulous, in making certain that in the Constitution
there was a very definite assignment of responsibilities to each
of the three branches. I hasten to add there was no doubt in their
minds that not one of those three branches was given a superiority
over the other two. We have under the American system a strong
President in the White House, a strong Legislative Branch in the
Congress, and a strong Judicial system under the Supreme Court.
Each of these three, as I indicated a moment ago, were given
rather specific responsibilities. But it was anticipated there should
be no encroachment by one on the other, that no one person or segment
of our society would dominate.
It was my feeling in 1965 and in 1966 that there was a very
definite development, with the Executive Branch of the Government
moving in and assuminanore power and authority than was intended
under the Constitution. I think this was a normal development resulting
from the elections of 1964, where the President, a very able, experienced
individual, had a landslide victory and where the majority party ended
up with overwhelming numerical superiority in the House and Senate.
The net result was that in 1965 and 1966 the Executive Branch
of the Government was infinitely more powerful than it ever had been
3
in my time in Washington. In addition, the Congress, because of
the situation, did not truly fulfill its role in our American political
system.
I could cite chapter and verse to indicate that the Congress,
even in committees in the House and in the Senate, was not truly
performing its function as an independent branch of the Federal
Government. This was the result of the circumstances I indicated.
There were numerous occasions where legislation came from
the Executive Branch of the Government, went to various committees,
and because of the overwhelming better-than-two-to-one superiority
on those committees the committees did not really exercise any
independence. A bill was virtually unchanged either in the committee
or on the floor of the House. I think this was an unfortunate period.
It is my feeling that competition in polities and in the legis-
lative process is healthy. I speak to a number of business groups
and I make this observation to them. I open the observation with a
statement that, even though they are businessmen and they might
not like what they see, they have to admit that competition in business
results in a better price and a better product for the consumer. The
same is true in the legislative process or in politics. If you have good
competition in the political arena and a bona fide give-and-take on the
basis of ideology or philosophy, the net result--from the point of view of
4
QERALO FORD LIBRARY
the consumer (in this case the public)--is much, much better.
We had another election in November 1966 and we have some-
what restored balance to the Legislative Branch.
I might tell a story that I think is apropos. After the election,
the House Republican leadership was feeling very good about the fact
that we had elected 59 new members, a net gain of 47 in the House.
We thought it would be wise and desirable for the leadership, the seven
of us on our side, and our wives to have all our new members and
their wives down at Airlie House for a three-day conference. There
we could get acquainted and discuss some of the problems that were
coming before the group in the early days of the session and have some
orientation on some of the basic legislative difficulties that would face
the new members.
We had an opening luncheon and I was called upon to make a
few observations and comments. I got up and looked at the nice fresh
faces of the freshmen, all eager and ready to go; and I guess to some
extent I was clucking over my new brood. The next morning I got
up for breakfast before one of our early work sessions, picked up
The New York Times, and on the front page, lead story, first sentence,
it said: "Congressman Gerry Ford, House Minority Leader, was cluck-
ing over his new broad."
Well, I thought it was amusing that even a great newspaper like
5
FORD is LIBRARY 07V930
The New York Times could make a simple typographical error
and I dismissed it without any real concern. My wife, who was at
the conference, came down later that morning, had a sweet roll and
some coffee; and then one of my "friends" immediately showed her
the article. I have not yet adequately explained the situation.
But what I am saying is that now that there is a restoration
of some balance in the Congress I think the net result will be com-
petition and the consequence will be that the product that comes from
the House and the Senate will be better for all of us.
I might add that there is also a development that ties into
the separation of powers and system of checks and balances. This
is a very controversial issue but I think it is one that ought to be
discussed. I refer here to the feeling on the part of the House that it,
rather than the Judicial Branch, shall judge the qualifications of one
of its members. I speak of the Adam Clayton Powell case.
Now, the Constitution provides that the House can exclude
a member on three affirmative grounds. To put it another way,
there are three basic affirmative qualifications that are requisite:
(1) age -- 25; (2) citizenship for seven years; and (3) inhabitancy --
of the State from which the member-elect comes. Those are the three
affirmative requirements or qualifications And then there is a fourth,
which is a negative one, which says "no member may be excluded on
FORD
6
the basis of his race, creed, or color."
Now, in between there is a gray area, but the real point
the House is trying to make at present is that we in the House are
an independent branch and that the court as a co-equal branch does
not have the authority to determine the qualifications of a House member.
There are really two issues involved in the case. The
first is the constitutional one, whether the court does have the authority
to issue a declaratory judgment ordering the Speaker of the House
to swear in Mr. Powell. I cannot foretell what the court will do.
A lower court has decided that the Judicial Branch does not have that
authority. The matter is now pending before the Court of Appeals
and it will probably come to a decision within the next month or so;
and, then, of course, whichever side wins, it will go on to the Supreme
Court. But it would be amazing to me to find the court ordering a
Marshal of the U. S. District Court of the District of Columbia to
come into the House Chamber and tell the Speaker of the House that
he must swear in Mr. Powell. I think that would be an attempt by an
equal branch of the Government to encroach upon the responsibilities
and prerogatives of another coequal branch.
As I said a moment ago, I think there are two issues involved.
As to the constitutional issue, I feel very strongly that as long as the
Legislative Branch does not violate the three affirmative grounds of
7
GERALD FORD LEBRARY
qualification and the one negative provision the Legislative Branch is the
final judge. But then there is the question of what was the wise thing
to do, and this is quite different from the constitutional issue. I have
no apologies in saying that I feel the Cellar Committee acted correctly
and wisely in recommending to the House that Mr. Powell be seated,
that he be censored publicly by the Speaker, and that he be fined and
stripped of his seniority. But I hasten to add that these are two
different issues, the constitutional one and the other which is a question
of a wise course of action.
The reason I bring this up is because I am certain the House
of Representatives will stand firm and will not permit another branch
of the Government to encroach upon its prerogatives and privileges
as we see them.
There is one other observation which I think is pertinent to a
group like this. It is not on the same point, but it is something that
I have noticed very definitely as a developing trend in the last nineteen
years. Most people who study the way our Government works in
colleges or high schools are told that in the Congress of the United
States it is only the Senate that really has anything to do with foreign
policy. I suspect this was probably the correct answer during most of
our Nation's history.
The Senate, by the Constitution, is given the right to confirm
FORD
8
or reject ambassadors. The Senate, by the Constitution, has the
prerogative of approving or disapproving treaties. The House of
Representatives has no comparable area of responsibility in the handling
of foreign affairs. But, beginning with the end of World War II, with
the utilization of our various foreign aid programs to implement
foreign policy, the situation changed. Every President that Thave
served under -- Mr. Truman, Mr. Eisenhower, Mr. Kennedy, and
now Mr. Johnson -- all have told the Congress that our foreign
aid program, by whatever name you call it. is an integral part of our
international relations and foreign policy.
Every one of the presentations that I have listened to by
witnesses for the Executive Branch of the Government on the foreign
aid program stated that we could not carry out our international policy
the way we wanted it unless we had X number of dollars; whether it
was $7 million, as it was in the late 1950s, or whether it was $3. 2 billion, as
it was last year and this year. In round figures, it still involves
dollars. And the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives
shall raise revenue and provide the funds in the first instance.
So, if we are going to assume, and everybody that I have
talked to who believes in the program assumes, that foreign aid is
an integral part of our foreign policy execution, than you cannot
exclude the House of Representatives from being a coequal partner
9
BLRNLD FORD TIBRARY
in what our policies ought to be.
Some of my friends on the Senate side do not like this quite
as much -- well, they do not like it at all, to be frank. But the fact
is, the House does initiate appropriation bills and always will. We,
therefore, will have an impact on foreign policy as long as we believe
that a foreign aid program is important and is considered to be a part
of our way of achieving the end results that we want in the area of
foreign policy.
If I was to give advice to any group in the Executive Branch
of the Government, I would say, just assume in the future that the
House will play a role in foreign policy. We will not give up and, as
a matter of fact, we cannot give up the right to handle revenue in the
first instance.
So if the House is going to maintain that position, which
I am sure it will, people in the Executive Branch of the Government
should work with House members in trying to help us chart a course
that will maintain proper relationships between the Executive and
the Legislative Branches and a course of action which will be in the
best interests of the country as a whole in this area of foreign policy
and international relations. The House, being a partner in this situation
today, I think, would want the help of people such as yourselves, who
come from various parts of the Executive Branch. We want your help
10
and assistance and I think the House will respond, as it has in the
past, in this very delicate area.
I would urge as strongly as I can that you forget the textbook
approach. The House is going to be in the ball game. We want your
help, and I am sure you will find the House a constructive and
responsible partner.
Thank you very much.
11
not
Distributed
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
affice
Copy
ADDRESS
By
Honorable Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
"This is an official document of The
National War College. Quotation from
Abstraction from, or Reproduction of gill
or any purt of this document is NOT
AUTHORIZED without specific permission
of the Commandant of The National War
College.
Presented at
The National War College
Washington, D, c.
31 May 1967
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FORD & LIBRARY CERVID
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ADDRESS
By
Honorable Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
(31 May 1967)
ADMIRAL LEE: (Introduced the speaker).
MR. FORD: Thank you very much, Admiral Lee.
Those of us in political life are called a great many
things. I have never been given such a title or honor by any
political opponent as Vice Admiral.
I know Admiral Lee made an inadvertent slip in the intro-
duction when he indicated that I was a graduate of the University
of Washington. But that 1a not quite as bad a misstatement as was
made in an introduction one time a few months ago down in the State
of Ohio. Those of you who come from the Middle West know of the
deep and intense rivalry between Ohio State University and the
University of Michigan. In one of those political meetings in
the State of Ohio one of my colleagues was making an introduction
for my remarks and he inadvertently, I think, anyhow, indicated
that I had graduated from Ohio University. I did not quite know
how to remedy this slip, but as I came to the podium I thought of
the man who had the chore and the responsibility of introducing
the Governor of the Virgin Islands. This man got up and spoke
glowingly of the accomplishments and the achievements and spoke
resoundingly of the Governor's virtues. Then he finally concluded
by sayingt "Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce
the Virgin of the Governor's Island."
- 1 -
GREATS FORD LIBRASK
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
As the Admirel indicated before I got this new job two
years ago by the landelide mergin of 73 to 67, I served # good
many years on the Committee on Appropriations and for fourteen of
those years served on the Defense Subsommittee, the Foreign Oper-
stions Subcommittee, and the CIA Subcommittee. I got kisked off
all committees when I got this job, and as a result I am not
nearly as well informed on some of the matters new as I was for
a period of time.
Therefore, in my remarks today I would like to talk about
an area where I think my up-te-date competence would be a little
better than the other, but I would be very happy and glad to dis-
cusa in the question-snd-answer period any of the subjects related
to my past experience or the same subject matters but perhaps not
with the detailed competence that I formerly had. I suspect that
in the sudience there are acms I have and with whom I discussed
matters when I was on these three subsenmittees.
If I had been here last your and the year before .. I was
the guest on one of those occasions .. I would have and as I recall
did talk about what I felt was serve eresion is see of the corney-
stones of our American political system; and I speak here of the
change that seemed to be taking place between or the relationship
between the three branches of the Federal Government.
The moit who drafted the Constitution were very cereful,
extremely scrupulous, in making certsin that in the Constitution
there was a very definite nesignment of responsibilities to each
. 2 .
BERALD R.FORD VIBRARY
of the three branches. But I heaten to add there was no doubt in
their minds that not one of these three branches vse given # eupo-
riority over the other tvo. We have under the system that we
live under a strong President in the White House, a strong Legis-
Letive Branch in the Congress, and a strong Judicial system under
the Supreme Court.
Each of these three, as I indicated a moment ago, were
given rether specific responsibilities, but it was anticipated
there should be no encroschment by one on the other and as a conce-
quence it would preclude any one person or any segment of our
society from dominating the others.
It was my feeling in 1965 and in 1966 that there was a
very, very definite development with the Executive Branch of the
Government moving in and assuming more power and authority then
vas intended under the Constitution. I think this vas a normal
development resulting from the elections of 1964, where the Presi-
dent, a very able, experienced individual, had a lendslide victory
and where the majority party ended up in the Rouse and is the Senste
with overwhelming superiority numerically.
The net result was in 1965 and 1966 you found that the
Executive Branch of the Government vas infinitely more powerful
than it over had been in try period of time in Washington; and, in
addition, the Congress, because of the situation, did not truly
represent its role in our American political system.
I could cite chapter and verse to indicate that the Congress,
- 3 .
GERALD FORD LIBRARA
even in committees in the House and in the Senate, was not truly
performing its function an an independent brench of the Federal
Government. This was the result of the circumstances that I indi-
cated,
We had memorous occasions where legislation cares from the
Exacutive Brench of the Government, went to various committees,
and because of the overwhelming better-than-two-t-one superierity
on those committees the committees did not really exercise any
independence in many, many instances. A bill was virtually unchanged
either in the committee or on the floor of the House. I think this
was an unfortunate period,
It 18 my feeling that competition in politics in the legis-
lative process is healthy. I speak to a number of business groups
and I make this observation to them. I open the observation with
a statement that, even though they are businessmen and they might
not like what they sav, they have to admit the truth that compe-
tition in business results in a better price and s better product
for the consumer, The same is true in the legislative process or
in polities. If you have equally divided competition in the politi-
cal arens where you have a bena fide give-sod-take on the besis of
ideology or philosophy, the not result from the point of view of
the consumer (in this case the public) is much, such better.
We had another election in November 1966 and we have some
what restored this belance 12 the Legislative Branch.
I might tell a story that I think is a little sprepos.
- 4 .
After the election, the accure Republican leadership was feeling
vary good about the fact chat we had elacted 59 DOW members, a net
gain of 47 in the House. We thought it would be wise and desirable
for the leadership, the seven of us on our side, and our wives to
have all our new members and their wives down at Airlie House for
a three-day conference, where we could get acquainted and where
we could discuss some of the problems that were coming before the
group in the early days of the session and have aome orientation
on some of the basic legislative difficulties that wase coming
before them as Day members.
We had an opening luncheon and I was called upon to make
a few observations and comments, I got up and looked 02 all these
nice fresh feces, all enger and readly to go: end I guess to some
extent I was clucking over a BAX brood, The next morning I got
up for breakfast before one of our arrly Mark securious: I picked
up The Nex. York Ximis M the front 2150, Land overy, first sentence,
it said: "Cougressust Detry Ford, UNIT Masrity Leader, was cluck-
ing over his now broad."
Well, I thought it was mulas that even a great nevepaper
like The Now York Liase sould note 1. sitple typigraphical arror
and I dismissed it without or and DIVOUR, * visa, who was st
the conference, came dewn Letter that had n sweet roll and
soun coffee: and then one of my "themis" Laundiately showed her
the article. I have not yet edoquisely the situation.
But what I - saying is that ave that there is s resteration
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
of some balance in the Congress I think the net result will be com-
petition and the consequence will be that the product that comes
from the House and the Senate will be better for all of us.
I might add that there is also a development that is taking
place that ties into the superation of powers and system of sheeks
and balances. This is a very controversial issue but I think it
is one that cright to be discussed. I refer here to the feeling
on the part of the House that it, rether then, we will say, the
Judicial Branch, shall judge the qualifications of one of its nome
bers. I speak of the Adam Clayton Powell case.
Now, the Constitution provides that the House can exclude
a member on three affirmative grounds. Well, to put it another
way, there are three basic affirmative qualifications that are
requisite: (1) age -- 25; (2) citizenship for BOYOR years; and
(3) inhabitancy -- inhabitancy of the State from which the member>
elect comes. Those are the three affirmative requirements or quali-
fications. And then there is a fourth, which is a negative cas,
which says "no member may be excluded on the basis of his race,
creed, or color".
Nov, in between there is a gray ares, but the real point
that I think the House is trying to make st the present is that
we in the House are an independent branch and that the court does
not have as a coequal branch the authority to determine the quali-
fications of a mamber.
There are really two issues invelved is the case: (1)
- 6 .
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
the constitutional one, whether the court does have the authority
to Locus 8 declaratory judgment ordering the Speaker of the House
to swear in Mr. Powell. I cannot foretell what the court will do.
A Lewer court has decided that the Judicial Branch does not have
that authority. The matter is new pending before the Court of
Appeals and it will probably COMB to n decision within the next
month or so, and, then, of course, whichever side vine, it will
go on to the Supreme Court. But it would be maxing to - to find
the court ordering a Mershal of the District Court of the District
of Columbia to come into the House Chember and tall the Speaker
of the House that he must swear in Mr. Powell. X think that would
be an attempt by on equal branch of the Government to encreach
upon the responsibilities and paragatives of another conqual branch.)
As I said a moment age, I think there are several issues
involved; one 10 the constitutional one. And I feel very strengly
that as Long as the Legislative Brench does not violate the three
affirmative grounds of qualification and the one negative the Legis-
lative Branch is the final judge. But them there is the question
of what was the wise thing to do, and this is quite different from
the constitutionsl issue. I have no spologies for saying that I
happen to feel that the Caller Committee did the correct thing and
the right thing and the wise thing in recommending to the House
that Mr. Powell should have been sested, that he should have been
cansored publicly by the Specher, and that he should have been fined
or punished and stripped of his seniority. But I heston to add that
- 7 -
GERALD FORD VIBRURY
they are two different issues, the constitutional one and the other
which is a question of a wise course of action.
The reason I brought this up was because I am certain
that the House of Representatives will stand firm and will not
permit a third branch or mother branch of the Government to
eacroach upon its peregatives and privileges as we see them.
One other observation which I think is partinent to e
group like this -- it is not on the same point, but it is BODS"
thing that I have noticed very definitely as & developing trend
in the last ninstesn years .. most people who study the way our
Government works la colleges or in high schools are told that in
the Congress of the United States it is the United States Senate
that is the only part of the Legislative Branch that really has
anything to de with foreign policy. I suspect this was probably
the correct approach or the correct enever for most of our nation's
history.
The Senate, by the Constitution, is given the right to
confirm or reject subsessadors. The Senste, by the Constitution,
has the perogative of approving or disapproving treaties. The
House of Representatives has no such comparable designated area of
responsibility in the handling of foreign affairs. But, beginning
st the conclusion of World War II. with the utilization of our
various foreign aid programs to implement foreign policy the situ-
ation has changed. Every President that I have served under --
Mr.Trumes, Mr. Kisenhower, Mr. Kennedy, and now Mr. Johnson -- all
. 8' .
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
have told the Congress that our foreign aid program, by whatever
name you would cell it Le on Integral post of how WI hondle our
international relations
Every one of the presentations that I have over listened
to by witnesses on behalf of the Executive Dranch of the Revenuest
for the foreign and program says that w could net earry not out
international pelley the way we vest is values - have X motor
of dollars; whether le is 87 million, - 18 wes la the late 1990a,
OK whother it is $3.2 billion, - " vas Lest year and this your,
la Found figures, it still involves dellars. And the @ametibution
provides that the House of Impresentatives shell value INVOICE and
posvide the funds in the first Sections,
80, if we are going be - and everybody that I have
telhed to who believes in the program assumes, that Serviça ald 10
00 integral part of our foreign policy supention, than yes connet
exclude the House of Representatives from being @ seognal partner
in what our policies enght to be.
Some of my friends - the Senate side do net like this
quite as much so well, they de net like 18 at all, to be freek,
Det the feet is, the House does instite appropriation bills and
always will. We, therefore, will have an import ⑉ foreign policy
as long 00 we believe that @ livesign old progres La important and
is considered to be a part of our way of achieving the - results
that we vent in the area of foreign policy.
If I was to give advise to any group to - Descutive
FORD
9 a
GERALD
Best Possible Scan from Poor Quality Original
Branch of the Government, I would say, just sssume in the future
that the House will play a role in foreign policy. We will net
give up and, as a matter of feet, we cannot give up the right to
handle revenue in the first instance.
So if the House is going to maintain that position, which
I am sure it will, people in the Executive Branch of the Government
should work with House members in trying to help us chert a course
that will be in the best interests of the proper relationships be-
tween the Executive and the Legislative and a course of setion
which will be in the best interests of the country as a whole in
this area of foreign policy or isternational relations. The House,
being a pertner in this situation today, I think, would went to
help 8 people such se yourselves, who cose from verious parts of
the Executive Branch; we want your help and sesistance and I think
the House will respond, as I think it has in the past, in this
very delicate sres.
I would urge as sureagly " J. on is forget the textbook
approach. The House is going to be 1.a. the bellywee. Ve went your
help and I am sure that the House will be 8 constructive and
responsible partner in this vary delicits exes.
Thank you very such,
. 10 r
BERMLD R.FORD ABRAEY
not Distributed
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ADDRESS
By
Honorable Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
"This is an official document of The
National War College. Quotation from
Abstraction from, or Reproduction of all
or any purt of this document is NOT
AUTHORIZED without specific permission
of the Commandant of The National War
College.
Presented at
The National War College
Washington, D. C.
31 May 1967
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ADDRESS
By
Honorable Gerald R. Ford, Jr.
(31 May 1967)
ADMIRAL LEE: (Introduced the speaker).
MR. FORD: Thank you very much, Admiral Lee.
Those of us in political life are called a great many
things. I have never been given such a title or honor by any
political opponent as Vice Admiral.
I know Admiral Lee made an inadvertent slip in the intro-
duction when he indicated that I was a graduate of the University
of Washington. But that is not quite as bad a misstatement as was
made in an introduction one time a few months ago down in the State
of Ohio. Those of you who come from the Middle West know of the
deep and intense rivalry between Ohio State University and the
University of Michigan. In one of those political meetings in
the State of Ohio one of my colleagues was making an introduction
for my remarks and he inadvertently, I think, anyhow, indicated
that I had graduated from Ohio University. I did not quite know
how to remedy this slip, but as I came to the podium I thought of
the man who had the chore and the responsibility of introducing
the Governor of the Virgin Islands. This man got up and spoke
glowingly of the accomplishments and the achievements and spoke
resoundingly of the Governor's virtues. Then he finally concluded
by saying: "Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce
the Virgin of the Governor's Island."
- 1 -
GERALD FORD ETBRANT
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
As the Admiral indicated before I got this new job two
years ago by the landslide margia of 73 to 67, I served a good
many years on the Committee on Appropriations and for fourteen of
those years served on the Defense Subcommittee, the Foreign Oper-
stions Subcommittee, and the CIA Subsommittee. I get kicked off
all committees when I got this job, and as a result I - not
nearly as well informed on some of the matters now as I was for
a period of time.
Therefore, in my remarks today I would like to talk about
an area where I think my up-to-date competence would be a little
better then the other, but I would be very happy and glad to die-
cusa in the question-and-ansver period say of the subjects related
to my past experience or the same subject matters but perhaps not
with the datailed competence that I formerly had. I suspect that
in the sudience there are some X have end with when I discussed
matters when I vas on those three subsemmittees.
If I had been here last your and the year before .. I was
the guest on one of those occasions -- I would have and as I recall
did talk about what I felt xes - erewien in one of the corner*
stomes of our Amarican political system; and I speak here of the
change that seamed to be taking place between or the relationship
between the three branches of the Federal Government.
The non who drafted the Constitution were very cereful,
extremely scrupulous, is making certain that in the Constitution
there was s very definite assignment of responsibilities to each
. 2 -
of the three branches. But I heaten to add there was no doubt in
their minds that not one of those three branches was given a emper
rierity over the other two. We have under the system that we
live under a strong President in the White House, a streng Legis-
letive Branch in the Congress, and a strong Judicial system under
the Suprome Court.
Each of these three, as I indicated a moment ago, were
given rether specific responsibilities, but it was auticipated
there should be no encreachment by one on the other and as a concern
quanes it would preclude sky one person or any segment of our
seciety from dominating the others.
xr was my feeling in 1965 and is 1966 that there was n
very, very definite development with the Executive Branch of the
Government moving in and assuming more power and authority then
wes intended under the Constitution. I think this use a normal
development resulting from the elections of 1964, where the Presi-
dent, a very able, experienced individual, had a landalide victory
and where the majority party ended up in the lieuse and is the Senste
with overwhelming superierity mumerically.
The net result was in 1963 and 1966 you found that the
Executive Branch of the Government vas infinitely nore poverful
then it ever had been in my period of time in Washington; and, is
addition, the Congress, because of the situation, did not truly
represent its role is our American political system.
I could cite shapter and verse to indicate that the Congress,
. s .
BERALD FORD
even in committess in the Hours and in the Senate, was not truly
performing its function as NO independent breach of the Federal
Government. This was the result of the circumstances that I indi-
cated.
We had numerous occasions where legislation cares from the
Executive Branch of the Government, went to various committees,
and because of the overwhelming better-than-two-torens superierity
on those committees the committees did not really exercise any
independence in many, many instances. A bill was virtually unchanged
either in the committee or on the floor of the House. I think this
was an unfortunate period,
It is my feeling that competition in politics in the legis-
lative process is healthy. I speak to a number of business groups
and I make this observation to thes. I open the observation with
a statement that, evan though they are businessmen and they might
not like what they sav, they have to admit the truth that compe
tition in business results in e better price and a better product
for the consumer. The sans is true in the legislative process or
in polities. If you have equally divided competition in the politi-
cal arans where you have a bone fide give-sad-take on the basis of
ideology or philosophy, the net result from the peint of view of
the consumer (in this case the public) is much, much better.
We had another election in November 1966 and ve have some-
what restored this balance in the Legislative Branch.
I might tall a story that I think is a little spropos.
4
FORD is LIBRARY
After the election, the Rouse Republican leadership was feeling
very good about the fact that we had elacted 59 new members, a net
gain of 47 in the House. We thought it would be vise and desirable
for the leadership, the seven of us on our side, and our wives to
have all our new members and their wives down at Airlia House for
a three-day conference, where we could get acquainted and where
we sould discuss sotas of the problems that were coming before the
group in the early days of the secsion and have DOISS orientation
on some of the basic lagislative difficulties that wase coming
before theu as Drive members.
We had an opening luncheen and I was called upon to make
a few observations and comments. I got up and leeked at all these
nice fresh faces, all esger end ready to go: and I guess to same
extent I was clucking over a new brood. The next morning I got
up for breakfast before ore of our early work sessions: I picked
up The New York Time: on the front pege, lead story, first sentence,
it said: "Congreesman Gerry Ford, House Misority Leader, was cluck-
ing over his new broad."
Well, I thought it vss musing that even a great newepaper
like The Nov York Times sould make a simple typegraphical error
and I dismissed it without any real concern. My wife, who was at
the conference, came down later that morning, had a sweet roll and
some coffee; and then one of my "friends" immediately showed her
the article. I have not yet signately explained the situation.
But what I am saying is that DOV that there is a restoration
. 5 -
of some balance in the Congress I think the net result will be com
petition and the consequence will be that the product that comes
from the House and the Senste will be better ior all of us.
I might add that there is also e development that is tsking
place that ties into the separation of powers and system of checks
and balances. This is a very controversial issue but 1 think it
is one that cught to be discussed. I refer here to the feeling
on the part of the House that 18, rather then, ve will say, the
Judicial Branch, shall judge the qualifications of one of its non-
bers. I speak of the Adam Clayton Powell case.
Now, the Constitution provides that the House can exclude
6 member on three affirmative grownds. Well, to put it another
way, there are three basic effirmative qualifications that ore
requisite: (1) age -- 25; (2) citizenship for DOVOR years; and
(3) inhebitancy -- imhebitancy of the State from which the member-
elect comes. Those are the three affirmative requirements or quali-
fications. And then there is 8 fourth, which is a negative cas,
which says "no unsuber may be excluded on the basis of his race,
creed, or color".
llow, in between there is a gray aree, but the real point
that I think the House is trying to make st the present is that
we in the House are an independent branch and that the court does
not have as a coequal branch the authority to determine the quali-
fications of a unsber.
There are really two issues involved in the case: (1)
- 6 .
FORD LIBRARY
the constitutionsl one, whether the sourt does have the authority
to issue 0 declaratory judgment ordering the Speaker of the House
to swear in Mr. Powell. I cannot feratell what the court will do,
A lewer court has decided that the Judicial Branch doss not have
that authority. The matter is now pending before the Court of
Appeals and it will probably come to a decision within the next
month or so, and, then, of course, whichever side vine, it will
go on to the Supreme Court. But it would be smazing to - to find
the court ordering a Mershal of the District Court of the District
of Columbia to come into the House Chamber and sell the Spesher
of the House that he must sweet in Mr. Powell. X think that would
be an attempt by on equal branch of the Government to encreach
upon the responsibilities and perugetives of smother conqual branch!
Ao I said e moment age, I think there are several issues
involved; one is the constitutional one. And I feel very strengly
that as Long as the Legislative Branch does net violate the three
affirmative grounds of qualification and the one negative the Legis-
lative Branch is the final judge. But then there is the question
of what was the wise thing to do, and this is quite different from
the constitutionsl issue. I have no apologies for saying that I
happen to feel that the Caller Committee did the correct thing and
the right thing and the vise thing in recommending to the House
that Mr. Pewell should have been conted, that be should have been
consored publicly by the Specher, and that he should have been fined
or punished and stripped of his seniority. But I haston to add that
FORD
- 7 -
they are two different issues, the constitutional cue and the other
which is a question of 1 wise course of action.
The reason I brought this up was because I - certain
that the House of Representatives will stand fire and will not
permit a third branch or snother branch of the Government to
encreach upon its peregatives and privileges as ve see them.
One other observation which I think is portinent to e
group like this -- it is net on the name point, but it is sous-
thing that I have neticed very definitely as a developing trend
in the last ninsteen years .. most people who study the way our
Government works in colleges or in high schools are told that in
the Congress of the United States it is the United States Senate
that to the only part of the Legislative Branch that really has
anything to do with foreign policy. I suspect this was probably
the correct approach or the correct answer for most of our nation's
history.
The Senste, by the Constitution, is given the right to
confirm or reject embessadors, The Sansta, by the Constitution,
has the parogative of approving or disapproving treaties. The
House of Representatives has no such comparable designated area of
responsibility in the handling of foreign offairs. but, beginning
st the conclusion of World War II. with the utilisation of our
verious foreign aid programs to implement foreign policy the site-
stion has changed. Every President that I have served under ..
Mr.Trumes, Mr. Risenhower, Mr. Kennedy, and now Mr. Johnson -- all
- B -
have told the Congress that our foreign aid program, by whatever
name you would call it, is an integral part of how ve handle our
international relations.
Every one of the presentations that I have ever listened
to by witnesses on behalf of the Executive Branch of the Government
for the foreign sid program says that ve could not carry out out
international policy the way we went it waless we have X number
of dollars; whether it is $7 million, as it was in the late 1950s,
or whether it is $3.2 billion, se it was last year and this year,
in round figures, it still involves dollars. And the Constitution
provides that the House of Representatives shall raise revenue and
provide the funds in the first instance.
so, if we are going to assume, and everybody that I have
talked to who believes in the program assumes, that foreign aid is
an integral part of our foreign policy execution, then you cannot
exclude the House of Representatives from being a coequal partner
in what our policies ought to be.
Some of my friends on the Senate side do not like this
quite as much -- well, they do not like it at all, to be fronk.
But the fact is, the House does initiate appropriation bills and
always will. We, therefore, will have an impact on foreign policy
as long as we believe that a foreign aid program is important and
is considered to be & part of our way of achieving the end results
that ve want in the area of foreign policy.
If I was to give advice to any group in the Executive
, .
GERALD RK FORD
Branch of the Government, I would say, just in the future
that the House will play a role in foreign policy. We will not
give up and, as a matter of fact, we cannot give up the right to
handle revenue in the first instance.
Bo if the House is going to meintain that position, which
I - sure it will, people in the Executive Branch of the Government
should work with House members in trying to help us chart a sourse
that will be in the best interests of the proper relationships be-
tween the Exacutive and the Legislative and a course of action
which will be in the best interests of the country as 8 whole is
this area of foreign policy or International relations. The House,
being a pertner in this situation today, I think, would went to
help a people such " yourselves, 100 COST tree verious parts of
the Executive Branch; we vent your help and medicance and I think
the House will respond, as I think it 100 LA the post, in this
very delicate area.
I would urge 88 strengly 11 J. on is forget the textbook
approach. The House is going to be 1.1 the bellyees. We went your
help and I an sure that the House will be 8 constructive and
responsible partner in this very delicits are.
Thank you very such.
. 10 .
FORD is LIBRARY GENALD