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 great Lakes.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
12130896
label
Ford Press Releases - Fifth District, 1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
12130896
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Fifth District, 1970
description
This file contains great Lakes.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Grand Rapids (Mich.)
Michigan
Kent County (Mich.)
Ionia County (Mich.)
City planning
Federal aid
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
12130896
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1970-12-31
month
12
year
1970
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1970-02-01
month
2
year
1970
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
4223b8014a17b92b
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D7, folder "Ford Press Releases - Fifth District,
1970" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Fifth District Media Only
0
Office Copy
Statement for all Fifth District News Media
[2/1970?]
For Release on Receipt
Chicago Verdict
Clear Warning:
Obey the Law
BY JERRY FORD
The jury verdict in the Chicago conspiracy trial is a clear warning to all
who are abusing the right of free speech that they must obey the law or go to jail.
This is the real meaning of the Chicago conspiracy trial that the
defendants found guilty there had sought to use the right of free speech to tear
this country down, to incite others to violence.
Our whole system of justice was on trial in Chicago.
Abraham Lincoln preached "reverence for the laws."
The defendants in the Chicago conspiracy trial made a vulgar, vicious and
disgraceful assault upon the American judicial process.
For five months they insulted and vilified the presiding judge. They
ridiculed the court and sneered at the American system of justice. They called the
judge a fascist, a racist, a runt and compared him with Adolf Hitler.
In all of these disgraceful actions the defendants were aided by their
attorneys.
I believe the jury acted fairly and honestly in adjudging five of the
defendants guilty of crossing state lines with the intent to incite a riot.
I approve of the judge's actions in sentencing not only all of the defendants
but their attorneys as well for contempt of court.
The right of free speech does not give any American the right to incite others
to commit violence any more than it gives anyone the right to yell "fire" in a
crowded theater.
Neither does the right of free speech give anyone the right to shout insults
at a trial judge.
Justice cannot survive in the kind of atmosphere generated by the Chicago
trial defendants, and neither can it survive under the chaotic conditions the Black
Panthers on trial in New York are trying to create.
The American judicial system is eminently fair. It is ridiculous for anyone
to charge otherwise.
Freedom in the United Staes is under attack. But it is not under attack by
"the Establishment." It is under attack by those who would plunge this Nation into
anarchy, and those who mistake license for liberty.
# # #
LIBRARY
Digitized from Box D7 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
2/27/70
FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT NEWS MEDIA
For Jalileh Farah Salameh El Ahwal, the long nightmare of sitting alone and
afraid in war-torn Jordan is over. She is safe in the arms of her family in Grand
Rapids at last.
The story of Miss Ahwal's attempts to be reunited with a sister, her brothers,
and other relatives in Grand Rapids tells of an ordeal which produced a file several
inches thick in the office of Congressman Gerald R. Ford and ended after a successful
three-year fight to get a special bill through Congress.
Ford first became interested in Miss Ahwal's case in 1966, when her brother,
Aziz Howell (Ahwal) of 1524 Tenth Street, N.W., Grand Rapids, wrote and begged Ford
to help his sister emigrate from Jordan to the United States.
Howell, a naturalized citizen who had legally changed his name, told Ford
that his sister, Jalileh, then 55, was living completely alone in west Jordan and
could not get a visa to come to the United States because she could not read or
write.
Howell wanted Jalileh to join him, his brother, Louis, and his sister,
Miledeh, in Grand Rapids, where there were seven households of Howells (Ahwals),
counting all of the relatives. Miledeh, the last of the Ahwals to leave Jordan,
had obtained a visa and had made the trip to America in August 1966. Now Jalileh
was left all alone.
Aziz Howell wrote Ford: "There are no close relatives in all of Jordan to
care for her or help her. There are 7th and 8th cousins in the city, but they all
have families and struggle for a living. Wages there are low, living costs are high
and work is scarce. If she becomes ill or needs care, there is no one to care for
her, and it is not safe for her to be alone. All of her family is here in Grand
Rapids, where she would receive care, affection, full support and the company of
her loved ones."
The immigration laws made no exception for a poor, lonely Jordanian woman
who could not read or write. If she could not pass the literacy tests in order to
obtain a visa, she could not come to the United States.
Congressman Ford introduced what is known as a private bill, H.R. 14752,
for "the relief of Jalileh Farah Salameh El Ahwal." The bill would make it legal
for Miss Ahwal to enter the United States despite the fact she could not read or
write.
(more)
-2-
Ford's bill languished in the Subcommittee on Immigration of the House
Judiciary Committee. The Subcommittee refused to report it out, which was the
usual procedure in such cases.
Ford and Aziz Howell continued to correspond. In 1967 Ford re-introduced
his private bill, but again the Subcommittee on Immigration refused to approve it.
In June 1967 fierce fighting broke out between the Arabs and the Israelis.
A blitz war, it lasted for just six days. At the end of that time, Jalileh found
she was living in territory occupied by the Israelis.
More than a year passed. Then on Jan. 3, 1969, Congressman Ford introduced
a new private bill on behalf of Jalileh, this one numbered H.R. 1707.
Ford made a fresh appeal to the Immigration Subcommittee, urging that Miss
Ahwal be permitted to enter this country on "humanitarian" grounds. He stressed
that she was living completely without family in Israeli-occupied Jordan and that
her brother, Aziz, would be entirely responsible for her if she were allowed to
enter the United States.
On April 1 Ford received the good news from Rep. Michael Feighan, chairman of
the Immigration Subcommittee, informing him the subcommittee had approved his bill.
The toughest legislative hurdle had been surmounted.
After House approval of the bill, Ford wrote to Sens. Robert P. Griffin and
Philip A. Hart alerting them to the fact his private bill was coming over to the
Senate and asking them to see it through that body. They did.
On August 25, 1969, President Nixon signed Ford's private bill into law and
sent him the pen with which he had signed it. Ford happily informed Aziz Howell
that the way now was open for his sister, Jalileh, to come to the United States.
But there followed more delays--the red tape of actually obtaining a visa
for Jalileh and a mixup over where the financial responsibility bond posted by Aziz
Howell was to be sent. Ford wrote letter after letter, working to get all of the
snarls straightened out.
At long last Jalileh obtained her visa, and a few days ago Aziz Howell wrote
Ford that she was safe in the arms of her family in Grand Rapids. The nightmare
that began four years ago was behind her.
"My sister is very happy," Aziz Howell told Ford. "We are all very happy for
her. And we will never forget all you have done for us."
In a quaint translation from the Arabic, Mrs. Howell said: "Jalileh was
scared too much."
###
5th District 2/27/70 media Only
Office Copy
FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT NEWS MEDIA
For Jalileh Farah Salameh El Ahwal, the long nightmare of sitting alone and
afraid in war-torn Jordan is over. She is safe in the arms of her family in Grand
Rapids at last.
The story of Miss Ahwal's attempts to be reunited with a sister, her brothers,
and other relatives in Grand Rapids tells of an ordeal which produced a file several
inches thick in the office of Congressman Gerald R. Ford and ended after a successful
three-year fight to get a special bill through Congress.
Ford first became interested in Miss Ahwal's case in 1966, when her brother,
Aziz Howell (Ahwal) of 1524 Tenth Street, N.W., Grand Rapids, wrote and begged Ford
to help his sister emigrate from Jordan to the United States.
Howell, a naturalized citizen who had legally changed his name, told Ford
that his sister, Jalileh, then 55, was living completely alone in west Jordan and
could not get a visa to come to the United States because she could not read or
write.
Howell wanted Jalileh to join him, his brother, Louis, and his sister,
Miledeh, in Grand Rapids, where there were seven households of Howells (Ahwals),
counting all of the relatives. Miledeh, the last of the Ahwals to leave Jordan,
had obtained a visa and had made the trip to America in August 1966. Now Jalileh
was left all alone.
Aziz Howell wrote Ford: "There are no close relatives in all of Jordan to
care for her or help her. There are 7th and 8th cousins in the city, but they all
have families and struggle for a living. Wages there are low, living costs are high,
and work is scarce. If she becomes ill or needs care, there is no one to care for
her, and it is not safe for her to be alone. All of her family is here in Grand
Rapids, where she would receive care, affection, full support and the company of
her loved ones."
The immigration laws made no exception for a poor, lonely Jordanian woman
who could not read or write. If she could not pass the literacy tests in order to
obtain a visa, she could not come to the United States.
Congressman Ford introduced what is known as a private bill, H.R. 14752,
for "the relief of Jalileh Farah Salameh El Ahwal." The bill would make it legal
for Miss Ahwal to enter the United States despite the fact she could not read or
write.
(more)
-2-
Ford's bill languished in the Subcommittee on Immigration of the House
Judiciary Committee. The Subcommittee refused to report it out, which was the
usual procedure in such cases.
Ford and Aziz Howell continued to correspond. In 1967 Ford re-introduced
his private bill, but again the Subcommittee on Immigration refused to approve it.
In June 1967 fierce fighting broke out between the Arabs and the Israelis.
A blitz war, it lasted for just six days. At the end of that time, Jalileh found
she was living in territory occupied by the Israelis.
More than a year passed. Then on Jan. 3, 1969, Congressman Ford introduced
a new private bill on behalf of Jalileh, this one numbered H.R. 1707.
Ford made a fresh appeal to the Immigration Subcommittee, urging that Miss
Ahwal be permitted to enter this country on "humanitarian" grounds. He stressed
that she was living completely without family in Israeli-occupied Jordan and that
her brother, Aziz, would be entirely responsible for her if she were allowed to
enter the United States.
On April 1 Ford received the good news from Rep. Michael Feighan, chairman of
the Immigration Subcommittee, informing him the subcommittee had approved his bill.
The toughest legislative hurdle had been surmounted.
After House approval of the bill, Ford wrote to Sens. Robert P. Griffin and
Philip A. Hart alerting them to the fact his private bill was coming over to the
Senate and asking them to see it through that body. They did.
On August 25, 1969, President Nixon signed Ford's private bill into law and
sent him the pen with which he had signed it. Ford happily informed Aziz Howell
that the way now was open for his sister, Jalileh, to come to the United States.
But there followed more delays--the red tape of actually obtaining a visa
for Jalileh and a mixup over where the financial responsibility bond posted by Aziz
Howell was to be sent. Ford wrote letter after letter, working to get all of the
snarls straightened out.
At long last Jalileh obtained her visa, and a few days ago Aziz Howell wrote
Ford that she was safe in the arms of her family in Grand Rapids. The nightmare
that began four years ago was behind her.
"My sister is very happy," Aziz Howell told Ford. "We are all very happy for
her. And we will never forget all you have done for us."
In a quaint translation from the Arabic, Mrs. Howell said: "Jalileh was
scared too much."
# # #
Distribution: 5th District media
Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
SPECIAL TO FIFTH DISTRICT NEWS MEDIA
MARCH 5, 1970
--FOR USE ON RECEIPT--
Congressman Gerald R. Ford of Grand Rapids has urged the Nixon
Administration to promote a large-scale educational campaign on radio and
television against the use of narcotics and dangerous drugs.
Ford said the campaign he is pressing for should be of the same magnitude
as the current highly successful radio and TV campaign against cigaret smoking.
Ford called for the educational drive against drug abuse in a letter to
John E. Ingersoll, director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, U.S.
Department of Justice.
In his letter to Ingersoll, Ford asked for a progress report on
efforts by the bureau to turn young people away from possible drug use. He noted
that Ingersoll last year told a special House Committee on Crime that the bureau
is working with the National Coordinating Council on Drug Abuse Education and
Information, the National Advertising Council, and the J. Walter Thompson Co.
to develop radio and TV spots aimed at preventing drug abuse.
"I personally feel that every effort should be made to mount the same
kind of radio and TV educational campaign against the use of narcotics and
dangerous drugs as is currently being so successfully waged against cigaret
smoking," Ford said.
Ford called attention to the tremendous number of hours American young
people spend in front of the TV set. He quoted President Nixon as reporting that,
before he graduates, the average high school student spends 15,000 hours watching
television as compared with 11,000 hours in school.
###
FOR USE THE WEEK OF MARCH 22-28, 1970
A proud new U.S. Navy gunboat named for the City of Grand Rapids, Mich.,
will slide down the ways April 4 at Takoma, Wash.
Susan Elizabeth Ford, 12-year-old daughter of Congressman and Mrs. Gerald R.
Ford of Grand Rapids, will swing the traditional bottle of champagne against the
bow of the new vessel.
The christening and launching ceremony is scheduled for 3 p.m., Pacific
Standard Time. The Navy has selected Congressman Ford as the principal speaker.
Construction of the Grand Rapids started Nov. 15, 1968, at the Takoma
Shipbuilding Company yards. She cost $2,943,000 to build.
Then-Secretary of the Navy Paul R. Ignatius designated Patrol Gunboat 98
as the "Grand Rapids" on June 26, 1968.
The Grand Rapids is a modern, new-type motor gunboat intended for coastal or
interior water patrol, blockade and surveillance duty. She will have the speed and
ability to interdict and destroy costal shipping in shallow or restricted waters
and to defend small craft during an amphibious operation.
The new gunboat has an aluminum hull and fiberglass deck. She has an overall
length of 165 feet; an extreme beam of 24 feet; a full load displacement of
250 tons; a maximum draft of 5 feet, 10 inches; and a designed speed in excess
of 35 knots. She is powered by two 752-horsepower diesel engines for cruising and
one 1400-horsepower gas turbine engine for high speed.
The Grand Rapids will have a complement of four officers and 24 men. She
will be armed with one 3-inch 50-caliber gun, one 40-mm. gun, and two 50-caliber
twin mount machine guns.
After the launching April 4 the Grand Rapids will be fitted out and will
undergo sea trials. Estimated date of delivery and commissioning for sea duty is
June.
The U.S.S. Grand Rapids is the second vessel of the fleet to be named in
honor of the City of Grand Rapids, Mich.
The first U.S.S. Grand Rapids was a patrol frigate which was laid down at the
Walter Butler Shipbuilding Company, Inc., Superior, Wis., on July 30, 1943. That
ship was launched Sept. 10, 1943, under the sponsorship of Mrs. Ted Booth. After
river trials, repairs and shakedown, the first Grand Rapids sailed for Argentia,
Newfoundland Jan. 6, 1945, and was assigned to Commander Task Force 24 as a weather
picket ship.
The first Grand Rapids was decommissioned at Boston April 10, 1946. She was
struck from the Navy list May 21, 1946, and was sold to Sun Shipbuilding and Dry
Dock Company, Chester, Pa., on April 14, 1947. She was scrapped Sept. 21, 1947.
# # #
4/29/70
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR USE ON RECEIPT--
Special to all Fifth District news media
The Calvin Theological Seminary Choir of Grand Rapids will conduct the
Sunday worship service at the White House May 10, Congressman Gerald R. Ford
announced today.
Ford said he personally brought the choir's excellence to the attention
of President Nixon, and the worship service invitation from the White House
followed.
Ford suggested to the President that the choir be invited to the White
House after the choir had completed a spring concert tour of California, Oregon
and Washington state.
Vicar Neal R. Rylaarsdam told Ford that during the concert tour he had
heard it said the Calvin Theological Seminary Choir repertoire was "fit for the
President of the United States."
The choir will be conducting the White House service. The first part of
the choir's traditional program is a liturgical worship service in song.
###
FORD & LIBRARY CERALD
5th District news Media Only
O Office 4/29/70 Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR USE ON RECEIPT--
Special to all Fifth District news media
The Calvin Theological Seminary Choir of Grand Rapids will conduct the
Sunday worship service at the White House May 10, Congressman Gerald R. Ford
announced today.
Ford said he personally brought the choir's excellence to the attention
of President Nixon, and the worship service invitation from the White House
followed.
Ford suggested to the President that the choir be invited to the White
House after the choir had completed a spring concert tour of California, Oregon
and Washington state.
Vicar Neal R. Rylaarsdam told Ford that during the concert tour he had
heard it said the Calvin Theological Seminary Choir repertoire was "fit for the
President of the United States."
The choir will be conducting the White House service. The first part of
the choir's traditional program is a liturgical worship service in song.
###
GERALD
4/30/70
FOR RELEASE UPON RECEIPT
Congressman Gerald R. Ford of Grand Rapids urges all West Michigan residents
to become acquainted with the safety rules that should be followed in the event of
a tornado.
The Environmental Science Services Administration under the Department of
Commerce, reports that the months of May and June are peak tornado months.
ESSA said that hundreds of tornadoes are reported during these months each
year.
Ford listed the following safety rules to be followed when a tornado hits.
1. When you receive a tornado warning, seek inside shelter,
preferably in a tornado cellar, underground excavation, or
a steel framed or reinforced concrete building.
2. Stay away from windows.
3. If you are in an office building, stand in an interior hallway
on a lower floor or basement.
4. Factory workers should move to the section of the plant offer-
ing the greatest protection.
5. In homes without tornado shelters, take refuge in the basement.
6. Seek shelter under heavy furniture in the center of the house
if you have no basement.
7. Keep some windows open, but stay away from them.
8. Do not stay in mobile homes when a tornado warning is
received.
9. In schools, go to an interior hallway or basement shelter;
avoid auditoriums, gymnasiums, and other structures with wide
freespan roofs.
10. During tornado emergencies, stay tuned to your radio or
television for latest messages.
###
4/30/70
FOR RELEASE UPON RECEIPT
Congressman Gerald R. Ford of Grand Rapids urges all West Michigan residents
to become acquainted with the safety rules that should be followed in the event of
a tornado.
The Environmental Science Services Administration under the Department of
Commerce, reports that the months of May and June are peak tornado months.
ESSA said that hundreds of tornadoes are reported during these months each
year.
Ford listed the following safety rules to be followed when a tornado hits.
1. When you receive a tornado warning, seek inside shelter,
preferably in a tornado cellar, underground excavation, or
a steel framed or reinforced concrete building.
2. Stay away from windows.
3. If you are in an office building, stand in an interior hallway
on a lower floor or basement.
4. Factory workers should move to the section of the plant offer-
ing the greatest protection.
5. In homes without tornado shelters, take refuge in the basement.
6. Seek shelter under heavy furniture in the center of the house
if you have no basement.
7. Keep some windows open, but stay away from them.
8. Do not stay in mobile homes when a tornado warning is
received.
9. In schools, go to an interior hallway or basement shelter;
avoid auditoriums, gymnasiums, and other structures with wide
freespan roofs.
10. During tornado emergencies, stay tuned to your radio or
television for latest messages.
###
GERALD R. FORD
MICHIGAN OFFICE:
FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
425 CHERRY STREET SE.
GRAND RAPIDS
ZIP 49502
Congress of the United States
Office of the Minority Leader
house of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
May 1, 1970
Dear News Editor:
I am mailing a congressional questionnaire to the nearly 142,000
residences in the Fifth District.
Naturally I am hoping that as many people as possible will fill out the
questionnaire and return it to me. Any help you can provide in calling
attention to this project would be a service to the people of the district.
The 10 questions in the survey have been most carefully formulated. Every
effort was made to guard against phrasing any question in such a way as to
suggest a particular answer. I want to get as good a sampling of con-
stituent opinion as possible.
I am sending you a copy of the questionnaire so that you might have
information as to the questions included in the survey. If you care to
publish the questionnaire, I would be most pleased.
I hope you will agree with me that this is a worthwhile project and that
the questions have been formulated fairly.
I should emphasize that the results of the survey will be for guidance
purposes only. This means that the results of the survey will enter into
the decisions I make on votes I cast in Congress but will not necessarily
be governing.
Thank you for any help you may provide in publicizing the questionnaire.
Sincerely,
Gerald Juny Fred R. Ford, Faid M.C.
GRF:pc
Enclosures (2)
FOR USE ON RECEIPT
Congressman Gerald R. Ford today announced he is mailing out 1970
questionnaires to the nearly 142,000 residences in the Fifth Congressional District
to obtain a sampling of district views on current issues.
A new feature of the questionnaire, Ford said, is that both husband and
wife will be able to express their opinions on the same questionnaire form.
"I discovered last year that some questionnaires came back with an indication
that the husband and wife strongly disagreed on some issues," Ford said. "So my
questionnaire this year offers 'his' and 'hers' columns."
Ford said he has limited the number of questions to 10 so as not to
discourage replies. He also noted that issues omitted were covered in his 1969
questionnaire, which means he already has an indication of district thinking on
those questions.
Ford emphasized that answers to the questionnaire will be helpful to him
in deciding how to vote on various matters yet to be tackled by the Congress this
year.
"I have the responsibility for my votes, but the 1970 questionnaire will
provide me with valuable guidance," Ford said. "I would like the advice of the
people in Kent and Ionia Counties on important questions facing the Congress."
Eight of the 10 questions in the 1970 Ford poll require yes or no answers.
The other two are multiple choice questions.
The multiple choice questions deal with general farm legislation to be
voted on by the Congress this year and a choice of the most important issue of
the day.
Ford said every word that went into makeup of the questions was carefully
analyzed to make sure the queries are as objectively phrased as possible.
Ford said he has purposely made his questionnaire card simple in order to
encourage as many replies as may possibly be obtained.
"All anyone needs to do is to check the boxes next to the questions, detach
the lower half of the card and mail it back to me," Ford said.
Ford emphasized that the questionnaire is not printed at Government expense.
###
5th District news media only
GERALD R. FORD
FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
Q Office 425 MICHIGAN CHERRY Copy STREET SE.
GRAND RAPIDS
ZIP 49502
Congress of the United States
Office of the Minority Leader
house of Representatives
Clashington, D.C. 20515
May 1, 1970
Dear News Editor:
I am mailing a congressional questionnaire to the nearly 142,000
residences in the Fifth District.
Naturally I am hoping that as many people as possible will fill out the
questionnaire and return it to me. Any help you can provide in calling
attention to this project would be a service to the people of the district.
The 10 questions in the survey have been most carefully formulated. Every
effort was made to guard against phrasing any question in such a way as to
suggest a particular answer. I want to get as good a sampling of con-
stituent opinion as possible.
I am sending you a copy of the questionnaire so that you might have
information as to the questions included in the survey. If you care to
publish the questionnaire, I would be most pleased.
I hope you will agree with me that this is a worthwhile project and that
the questions have been formulated fairly.
I should emphasize that the results of the survey will be for guidance
purposes only. This means that the results of the survey will enter into
the decisions I make on votes I cast in Congress but will not necessarily
be governing.
Thank you for any help you may provide in publicizing the questionnaire.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford, M.C.
GRF:po
Enclosures (2)
FOR USE ON RECEIPT
Congressman Gerald R. Ford today announced he is mailing out 1970
questionnaires to the nearly 142,000 residences in the Fifth Congressional District
to obtain a sampling of district views on current issues.
A new feature of the questionnaire, Ford said, is that both husband and
wife will be able to express their opinions on the same questionnaire form.
"I discovered last year that some questionnaires came back with an indication
that the husband and wife strongly disagreed on some issues," Ford said. "So my
questionnaire this year offers 'his' and 'hers' columns."
Ford said he has limited the number of questions to 10 so as not to
discourage replies. He also noted that issues omitted were covered in his 1969
questionnaire, which means he already has an indication of district thinking on
those questions.
Ford emphasized that answers to the questionnaire will be helpful to him
in deciding how to vote on various matters yet to be tackled by the Congress this
year.
"I have the responsibility for my votes, but the 1970 questionnaire will
provide me with valuable guidance," Ford said. "I would like the advice of the
people in Kent and Ionia Counties on important questions facing the Congress."
Eight of the 10 questions in the 1970 Ford poll require yes or no answers.
The other two are multiple choice questions.
The multiple choice questions deal with general farm legislation to be
voted on by the Congress this year and a choice of the most important issue of
the day.
Ford said every word that went into makeup of the questions was carefully
analyzed to make sure the queries are as objectively phrased as possible.
Ford said he has purposely made his questionnaire card simple in order to
encourage as many replies as may possibly be obtained.
"All anyone needs to do is to check the boxes next to the questions, detach
the lower half of the card and mail it back to me," Ford said.
Ford emphasized that the questionnaire is not printed at Government expense.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
May 14, 1970
Congressman Gerald R. Ford today expressed confidence construction can
begin this year on a new Courthouse and Federal Building in Grand Rapids.
Pointing to House passage Tuesday of a bill containing $9,411,000 for the
project, Ford said he believes the Grand Rapids project will easily clear the
Senate.
"However, I am leaving nothing to chance," Ford said. "And so I have
written to Sen. Robert P. Griffin and Sen. Philip A. Hart alerting them to the
fact that the Grand Rapids project is in the Independent Offices Appropriations
Bill and asking them to steer it through the Senate. The sooner the Senate acts,
the sooner we can get actual construction under way."
Ford said it should be possible to begin construction of the new building
soon after the funding.
The project as designed provides a seven-story reinforced concrete or
steel frame building with four courtrooms, and interior parking on two underground
levels for about 190 vehicles.
The gross area of the building will be 263,500 square feet, and it will
provide net space of 207,600 square feet.
It will be constructed on a 225-foot deep site just north of City Hall,
between Monroe and Ottawa Avenues, N.W.
The new building will house the federal courts and all of the Federal
offices in the area except the Weather Bureau and the Post Office. This will
bring the Federal Housing Administration, the Social Security Administration, and
the Federal tax agencies together under one roof with other Federal offices in
Grand Rapids. The building will house about 530 officials and employes.
Total project cost is $10.6 million. This includes $9,411,000 for
construction, $834,000 for site, design and review, and $355,000 for management
and inspection. The site, design and review costs were funded in fiscal 1965.
"I am delighted that this fine new Federal Building will be constructed in
Grand Rapids after years of effort by myself and others," Ford said. "The present
(more)
-2-
facilities are clearly inadequate. This new structure will meet our needs and
is essential to the development of the Vandenberg Civic Center. Together with
the new state office building, it will complete the splendid new complex of
downtown urban renewal structures."
The Federal Building project dates back to April 1964, when it first was
authorized by the Congress.
Ford persuaded the Nixon Administration to include construction funds for
the project in the Federal Government's fiscal 1971 budget.
# # #
all Fifth District News media
0 Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
May 14, 1970
Congressman Gerald R. Ford today expressed confidence construction can
begin this year on a new Courthouse and Federal Building in Grand Rapids.
Pointing to House passage Tuesday of a bill containing $9,411,000 for the
project, Ford said he believes the Grand Rapids project will easily clear the
Senate.
"However, I am leaving nothing to chance," Ford said. "And so I have
written to Sen. Robert P. Griffin and Sen. Philip A. Hart alerting them to the
fact that the Grand Rapids project is in the Independent Offices Appropriations
Bill and asking them to steer it through the Senate. The sooner the Senate acts,
the sooner we can get actual construction under way."
Ford said it should be possible to begin construction of the new building
soon after the funding.
The project as designed provides a seven-story reinforced concrete or
steel frame building with four courtrooms, and interior parking on two underground
levels for about 190 vehicles.
The gross area of the building will be 263,500 square feet, and it will
provide net space of 207,600 square feet.
It will be constructed on a 225-foot deep site just north of City Hall,
between Monroe and Ottawa Avenues, N.W.
The new building will house the federal courts and all of the Federal
offices in the area except the Weather Bureau and the Post Office. This will
bring the Federal Housing Administration, the Social Security Administration, and
the Federal tax agencies together under one roof with other Federal offices in
Grand Rapids. The building will house about 530 officials and employes.
Total project cost is $10.6 million. This includes $9,411,000 for
construction, $834,000 for site, design and review, and $355,000 for management
and inspection. The site, design and review costs were funded in fiscal 1965.
"I am delighted that this fine new Federal Building will be constructed in
Grand Rapids after years of effort by myself and others," Ford said. "The present
(more)
-2-
facilities are clearly inadequate. This new structure will meet our needs and
is essential to the development of the Vandenberg Civic Center. Together with
the new state office building, it will complete the splendid new complex of
downtown urban renewal structures."
The Federal Building project dates back to April 1964, when it first was
authorized by the Congress.
Ford persuaded the Nixon Administration to include construction funds for
the project in the Federal Government's fiscal 1971 budget.
# # #
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON THURSDAY--
May 14, 1970
Grand Rapids will record "a first" on May 22 --- the first Business Expansion
Conference of its kind in the state of Michigan, Congressman Gerald R. Ford
announced today.
The conference will bring state and Federal officials to Grand Rapids to
discuss with local businessmen how more business can be brought to the Grand
Rapids area.
Co-sponsored by Ford and the Greater Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, the
conference is scheduled for 1:30 to 4 p.m. May 22 at the Vandenberg Room of the
Pantlind Hotel.
Ford will appear on the program along with officials from the U.S.
Department of Commerce, the Small Business Administration, the Federal Housing
Administration, and the Michigan Department of Economic Expansion.
"This is somewhat of a pilot project," Ford said. "It is the first of its
kind to be held in Michigan." "I believe," he added, "that such a meeting will
be valuable in providing considerable information about government services to
strengthen business expansion activities."
Theme of the conference will be "Let's get down to business to get more
business."
Officials taking part will include Frank A. Alter, director of the Detroit
field office, U.S. Department of Commerce; Robert F. Phillips, regional director,
Small Business Administration, Detroit; Eddie McGloin, director, Federal Housing
Administration, Detroit; and Bernard M. Conboy, executive director, Michigan
Department of Economic Expansion, Lansing.
###
all Fifth news media only
O Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON THURSDAY--
May 14, 1970
Grand Rapids will record "a first" on May 22 -- the first Business Expansion
Conference of its kind in the state of Michigan, Congressman Gerald R. Ford
announced today.
The conference will bring state and Federal officials to Grand Rapids to
discuss with local businessmen how more business can be brought to the Grand
Rapids area.
Co-sponsored by Ford and the Greater Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce, the
conference is scheduled for 1:30 to 4 p.m. May 22 at the Vandenberg Room of the
Pantlind Hotel.
Ford will appear on the program along with officials from the U.S.
Department of Commerce, the Small Business Administration, the Federal Housing
Administration, and the Michigan Department of Economic Expansion.
"This is somewhat of a pilot project," Ford said. "It is the first of its
kind to be held in Michigan." "I believe," he added, "that such a meeting will
be valuable in providing considerable information about government services to
strengthen business expansion activities."
Theme of the conference will be "Let's get down to business to get more
business."
Officials taking part will include Frank A. Alter, director of the Detroit
field office, U.S. Department of Commerce; Robert F. Phillips, regional director,
Small Business Administration, Detroit; Eddie McGloin, director, Federal Housing
Administration, Detroit; and Bernard M. Conboy, executive director, Michigan
Department of Economic Expansion, Lansing.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
###
Fifth District news Media only
Office Capy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
Tabulation of his 1970 questionnaire results has begun but there is still
time for Kent and Ionia County residents to turn in their cards, Congressman
Gerald R. Ford announced today.
Ford said: "We have begun the processing of our questionnaire returns,
which have flooded in by the thousands. We have to establish a cutoff point
somewhere, so I am expecting at this time to finish turning the returns over to
the tabulators on Saturday, June 6. This will mean I have allowed roughly a
month for all of the questionnaires to be returned."
Ford already has one set of results from the questionnaire--the outcome
of balloting by the 54 seniors in instructor Jack E. Butterworth's government
class at Saranac High School. He is wondering whether voting by the general
public will parallel the opinions registered by the Saranac seniors.
Singling out the one most important problem in the country today,
60 per cent of the Saranac seniors picked the Vietnam War; 20 per cent, air
and water pollution; 13 per cent, inflation; and 7 per cent, crime and violence.
On the question of busing school children out of their neighborhoods to
achieve better racial balance, 78 per cent opposed such busing while 22 per cent
approved it.
On the draft, 78 per cent of the seniors favored temporary deferments
for college undergraduates, with 22 per cent opposed.
Although 76 per cent favored "preventive detention" for criminal defendants
who might commit serious crimes if freed on bond, only 57 per cent favored allowing
Federal officers with a search warrant to enter private premises without knocking
on the basis that illegal drugs might otherwise be disposed of.
In other results of the questionnaire balloting, the Saranac seniors
opposed placing the Post Office Department on pay-as-you-go (57 per cent to 43);
said the U.S. can rely on agreements reached with the Soviet Union (65 to 35);
opposed gradual expansion of U.S. trade and diplomatic relations with Red China
(65 to 35); favored President Nixon's $10 billion program to fight water pollution
(96 to 4); favored giving greater priority to budget-balancing during the fight
against inflation (69 to 31); favored continuing the Federal farm program as it
presently exists (77 per cent).
On the farm program question, 17 per cent favored a reduction in subsidies
and only 6 per cent were for phasing the program out.
# # #
5/28/70
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
Tabulation of his 1970 questionnaire results has begun but there is still
time for Kent and Ionia County residents to turn in their cards, Congressman
Gerald R. Ford announced today.
Ford said: "We have begun the processing of our questionnaire returns,
which have flooded in by the thousands. We have to establish a cutoff point
somewhere, so I am expecting at this time to finish turning the returns over to
the tabulators on Saturday, June 6. This will mean I have allowed roughly a
month for all of the questionnaires to be returned."
Ford already has one set of results from the questionnaire--the outcome
of balloting by the 54 seniors in instructor Jack E. Butterworth's government
class at Saranac High School. He is wondering whether voting by the general
public will parallel the opinions registered by the Saranac seniors.
Singling out the one most important problem in the country today,
60 per cent of the Saranac seniors picked the Vietnam War; 20 per cent, air
and water pollution; 13 per cent, inflation; and 7 per cent, crime and violence.
On the question of busing school children out of their neighborhoods to
achieve better racial balance, 78 per cent opposed such busing while 22 per cent
approved it.
On the draft, 78 per cent of the seniors favored temporary deferments
for college undergraduates, with 22 per cent opposed.
Although 76 per cent favored "preventive detention" for criminal defendants
who might commit serious crimes if freed on bond, only 57 per cent favored allowing
Federal officers with a search warrant to enter private premises without knocking
on the basis that illegal drugs might otherwise be disposed of.
In other results of the questionnaire balloting, the Saranac seniors
opposed placing the Post Office Department on pay-as-you-go (57 per cent to 43);
said the U.S. can rely on agreements reached with the Soviet Union (65 to 35);
opposed gradual expansion of U.S. trade and diplomatic relations with Red China
(65 to 35); favored President Nixon's $10 billion program to fight water pollution
(96 to 4); favored giving greater priority to budget-balancing during the fight
against inflation (69 to 31); favored continuing the Federal farm program as it
presently exists (77 per cent).
On the farm program question, 17 per cent favored a reduction in subsidies
and only 6 per cent were for phasing the program out.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
Sex doesn't make much difference at Ottawa Hills High School--when it comes
to views on leading issues of the day.
That sums up the results of a recent "His" and "Hers" poll at the school,
with about 1,200 students casting votes on questions posed in Congressman Gerald R.
Ford's 1970 congressional questionnaire. Whether it was a boy or a girl who was
balloting, there was surprisingly little difference in the answers.
The girls split 50-50 on putting the Post Office Department on a pay-as-you-
go basis; the boys favored it 51 to 49.
Both boys and girls felt the United States could not rely on agreements
reached with the Soviet Union but should gradually expand its diplomatic and trade
relations with Red China.
Students of both sexes overwhelmingly endorsed President Nixon's $10 billion
program of Federal, state and local expenditures to fight water pollution.
With the girls more heavily on the side of law enforcement authorities, the
students favored allowing federal officers with a warrant to enter private premises
without knocking in search of illegal drugs and permitting a judge to hold a
criminal defendant in jail if his record indicated he might commit serious crimes
while released on bond.
By identical scores of 86 to 14 the boys and girls opposed busing school
children out of their neighborhood school areas to achieve better racial balance
in classrooms.
Very heavily and by nearly identical showings, the boys and girls favored
continued draft deferments for college students and giving special priority to
balancing the budget while inflation remains a problem.
On the question of what is the single most important problem in the country
today, the boys rated air and water pollution first (50 per cent), as did the girls
(33 per cent); the Vietnam War second (boys and girls, both 31); the boys crime and
violence third (10 per cent) while the firls picked inflation (23); the boys
inflation fourth (9), and the girls, crime and violence (13).
The boys and girls also parted company on farm legislation, with 70 per cent
of the girls for continuing the farm program as is, and only 40 per cent of the
boys favoring this course. In other results, 34 per cent of the boys favored
FORD
reducing farm subsidies, with 10 per cent of the girls for this; 26 per cent of the
boys wanted to phase out the farm program, and 20 per cent of the girls wanted this.
LIBRARY
# # #
all Fifth District news media
Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
Sex doesn't make much difference at Ottawa Hills High School--when it comes
to views on leading issues of the day.
That sums up the results of a recent "His" and "Hers" poll at the school,
with about 1,200 students casting votes on questions posed in Congressman Gerald R.
Ford's 1970 congressional questionnaire. Whether it was a boy or a girl who was
balloting, there was surprisingly little difference in the answers.
The girls split 50-50 on putting the Post Office Department on a pay-as-you-
go basis; the boys favored it 51 to 49.
Both boys and girls felt the United States could not rely on agreements
reached with the Soviet Union but should gradually expand its diplomatic and trade
relations with Red China.
Students of both sexes overwhelmingly endorsed President Nixon's $10 billion
program of Federal, state and local expenditures to fight water pollution.
With the girls more heavily on the side of law enforcement authorities, the
students favored allowing federal officers with a warrant to enter private premises
without knocking in search of illegal drugs and permitting a judge to hold a
criminal defendant in jail if his record indicated he might commit serious crimes
while released on bond.
By identical scores of 86 to 14 the boys and girls opposed busing school
children out of their neighborhood school areas to achieve better racial balance
in classrooms.
Very heavily and by nearly identical showings, the boys and girls favored
continued draft deferments for college students and giving special priority to
balancing the budget while inflation remains a problem.
On the question of what is the single most important problem in the country
today, the boys rated air and water pollution first (50 per cent), as did the girls
(33 per cent); the Vietnam War second (boys and girls, both 31); the boys crime and
violence third (10 per cent) while the firls picked inflation (23); the boys
inflation fourth (9), and the girls, crime and violence (13).
The boys and girls also parted company on farm legislation, with 70 per cent
of the girls for continuing the farm program as is, and only 40 per cent of the
boys favoring this course. In other results, 34 per cent of the boys favored
reducing farm subsidies, with 10 per cent of the girls for this; 26 per cent of the
boys wanted to phase out the farm program, and 20 per cent of the girls wanted this.
###
For Release at 12 noon Wednesday, June 24, 1970
Kent and Ionia County residents view crime and violence as our nation's
greatest problem, the response to Congressman Gerald R. Ford's 1970 questionnaire
indicates.
Asked to single out what they considered to be the most important among four
major problems facing the country today, 45.5 per cent of Fifth Congressional
District residents responding picked crime and violence.
Of the rest, 24.7 per cent chose the Vietnam War; 12.8 per cent picked
inflation; and 9.4 per cent singled out air and water pollution.
Ford sent out 156,040 copies of his questionnaire, blanketing the entire
district. He received 34,577 responses--an impressive 22 per cent.
"I am terribly pleased by the number of responses to my questionnaire,"
Ford said. "This tells me that the people of my congressional district are very
much interested in public affairs and very much concerned about the issues."
Ford learned that 52.4 per cent of those responding are opposed to draft
deferments for undergraduate college students, while 43 per cent favor continued
deferments and 4.6 per cent are undecided.
President Nixon has asked Congress to end college deferments. Ford has
reserved judgment on the question until all the facts have been presented to the
Congress.
Strong feelings in the Fifth District about crime and violence apparently
were reflected in balloting on two other questions. Nearly 80 per cent of those
voting (79.2) favored allowing Federal officers armed with a Federal warrant to
enter private premises without knocking if drugs and other evidence of illegal
narcotics traffic might otherwise be destroyed. Slightly more than 90 per cent
favored allowing a judge to keep a criminal defendant in "preventive detention" if
his record indicated he might commit a serious crime if freed on bond while awaiting
trial.
At a time when the Congress is acting on postal reform, 73 per cent of
district residents responding said they favor putting the Post Office Department
on a pay-as-you-go basis. Legislation now before the Congress calls for this to
be done in stages by 1978. The House of Representatives, with Congressman Ford's
strong support, approved a postal reform bill last Thursday.
(more)
-2-
Congress currently is also working on general farm legislation. On this
subject, 70.2 per cent of district residents responding want the farm program
phased out within five years; 8.9 per cent want it continued as is; and 8.9 per
cent favor making it permanent but with subsidies reduced.
Evidencing their concern about inflation, 81.7 per cent of those answering
the poll would emphasize balancing the Federal budget rather than spend more on
government programs in a time of inflationary pressures.
There is no question where Fifth District residents stand on busing school
children out of their neighborhood school areas to achieve better racial balance
in classrooms. Of those balloting, 91.2 per cent opposed busing while 7 per cent
favored it and 1.8 per cent ventured no opinion.
District residents made clear their deep concern about water pollution.
Of those voting, 80 per cent said they favor President Nixon's $10 billion
Federal-state-local program aimed at water pollution control. Only 15.1 per cent
opposed it, and 4.9 per cent registered no opinion.
District residents do not trust the Soviet Union but two out of five would
gradually expand our relations with Red China.
Asked if we could rely on agreements reached with the Soviet Union, 75 per
cent said "no;" 20.2 per cent said "yes;" and 4.8 per cent said "don't know."
On the question of expanding our diplomatic and trade relations with Red
China, 50.6 per cent were opposed. Of the rest, 40.7 per cent were in favor and
8.7 per cent had no opinion.
Ford said he will place the results of his poll in the Congressional Record
and also will send them to President Nixon.
The poll results were processed by a computer firm, at no expense to the
taxpayer, Ford noted.
###
Distribution to all news Fifth Media District a Office Copy
For Release at 12 noon Wednesday, June 24, 1970
Kent and Ionia County residents view crime and violence as our nation's
greatest problem, the response to Congressman Gerald R. Ford's 1970 questionnaire
indicates.
Asked to single out what they considered to be the most important among four
major problems facing the country today, 45.5 per cent of Fifth Congressional
District residents responding picked crime and violence.
Of the rest, 24.7 per cent chose the Vietnam War; 12.8 per cent picked
inflation; and 9.4 per cent singled out air and water pollution.
Ford sent out 156,040 copies of his questionnaire, blanketing the entire
district. He received 34,577 responses--an impressive 22 per cent.
"I am terribly pleased by the number of responses to my questionnaire,"
Ford said. "This tells me that the people of my congressional district are very
much interested in public affairs and very much concerned about the issues."
Ford learned that 52.4 per cent of those responding are opposed to draft
deferments for undergraduate college students, while 43 per cent favor continued
deferments and 4.6 per cent are undecided.
President Nixon has asked Congress to end college deferments. Ford has
reserved judgment on the question until all the facts have been presented to the
Congress.
Strong feelings in the Fifth District about crime and violence apparently
were reflected in balloting on two other questions. Nearly 80 per cent of those
voting (79.2) favored allowing Federal officers armed with a Federal warrant to
enter private premises without knocking if drugs and other evidence of illegal
narcotics traffic might otherwise be destroyed. Slightly more than 90 per cent
favored allowing a judge to keep a criminal defendant in "preventive detention" if
his record indicated he might commit a serious crime if freed on bond while awaiting
trial.
At a time when the Congress is acting on postal reform, 73 per cent of
district residents responding said they favor putting the Post Office Department
on a pay-as-you-go basis. Legislation now before the Congress calls for this to
be done in stages by 1978. The House of Representatives, with Congressman Ford's
strong support, approved a postal reform bill last Thursday.
(more)
-2-
Congress currently is also working on general farm legislation. On this
subject, 70.2 per cent of district residents responding want the farm program
phased out within five years; 8.9 per cent want it continued as is; and 8.9 per
cent favor making it permanent but with subsidies reduced.
Evidencing their concern about inflation, 81.7 per cent of those answering
the poll would emphasize balancing the Federal budget rather than spend more on
government programs in a time of inflationary pressures.
There is no question where Fifth District residents stand on busing school
children out of their neighborhood school areas to achieve better racial balance
in classrooms. Of those balloting, 91.2 per cent opposed busing while 7 per cent
favored it and 1.8 per cent ventured no opinion.
District residents made clear their deep concern about water pollution.
Of those voting, 80 per cent said they favor President Nixon's $10 billion
Federal-state-local program aimed at water pollution control. Only 15.1 per cent
opposed it, and 4.9 per cent registered no opinion.
District residents do not trust the Soviet Union but two out of five would
gradually expand our relations with Red China.
Asked if we could rely on agreements reached with the Soviet Union, 75 per
cent said "no;" 20.2 per cent said "yes;" and 4.8 per cent said "don't know."
On the question of expanding our diplomatic and trade relations with Red
China, 50.6 per cent were opposed. Of the rest, 40.7 per cent were in favor and
8.7 per cent had no opinion.
Ford said he will place the results of his poll in the Congressional Record
and also will send them to President Nixon.
The poll results were processed by a computer firm, at no expense to the
taxpayer, Ford noted.
###
office copy
O Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
For Use August 12-13 and Thereafter--
A bill sponsored by Congre ssman Gerald R. Ford of Grand Rapids to prohibit
the mailing or interstate tr ansport of advertisements which appeal to prurient
interests has been overwhelmingly (322 to 4) approved by the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Ford said his anti-smut advertising bill is an important and necessary
followup to another of his anti-smut bills which passed the House of Representatives
in April.
"That bill, which passed the House April 28, is designed to protect young
people from the flood of obscene, perverse and depraved literature which pours
unsolicited into thousands of family homes each day via the mailbox," Ford explained.
"My latest bill to be approved is aimed at prohibiting the mailing or
interstate transport of prurient advertisements, which are often as obscene as the
product they pander," Ford stated.
The Ford bill carries a penalty of $50,000 fine or five years in prison or
both for a first offense.
"I am pleased by the progress to date of this comprehensive legislative
program to keep unsolicited obscene materials out of American homes, but I will not
be satisfied until all the necessary legislation to accomplish this objective is
enacted," Ford declared.
#####
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M.--
Tuesday, September 29, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of
Representatives, at a dinner sponsored by the Sparta, Mich., Republican Women's
Club Tuesday evening, Sept. 29, 1970, at Sparta United Methodist Church.
I come before you as a staunch supporter of economy in government. I
make no apologies for it. I am pledged to hold down government spending--to back
up every effort by President Nixon to hold Federal spending in check.
Why is it particularly important to fight the big spenders in Congress
at this time?
It is important because years of increasing government costs with an
uncontrolled $25 billion in Federal red-ink spending in 1968 produced a nearly
runaway inflation in this country--inflation that hurt us all and hit farmers and
old folks on fixed incomes the hardest.
We have got to stop spending more than we take in at the Federal level. If
we fail to keep government spending within revenues, the price for the American
people will be catastrophic in the end.
The big spenders in Congress cause inflation. Their over-spending pushes
up the price of everything. And yet they pretend to be the friends of the people.
Their generosity with the taxpayers' dollars puts an ever-increasing burden on
generations yet to come and requires an ever-increasing appropriation just to pay
the interest on the national debt. In fact, the interest we now pay on the national
debt is a major government expense--second only to spending for national defense.
Today President Nixon and Republicans in Congress are locked in battle with
the big spenders. It's a fight to control inflation. You know whose side I'm on.
Help me and the President fight the big spenders, the radical liberals who vote
for every spending bill they can trot out.
Now let me tell you that we have turned the corner on inflation in spite of
the big spenders. We are making progress against inflation, and at the same time
the economy is in the early stages of an upswing.
If there is any segment of the economy which deserves greater rewards in
terms of performance it is agriculture.
Everyone will agree that one of the basic defects in the economy today is a
failure to achieve substantial gains in industrial productivity in recent years.
(more)
-2-
By contrast, the American farmer's record of productivity is nothing short of
fabulous, and it continues on the increase.
Productivity has risen faster in agriculture than in any other sector of
the economy. In the past two decades alone, farm output per manhour has almost
quadrupled, while nonfarm productivity has just about doubled.
Last year, despite a sharp rise in production costs, farm operators posted
an 8 per cent increase in realized net income. Total net farm income was
$16 billion, based on substantial gains in both marketing receipts and government
payments. I hope the new farm bill will be a plus.
How can the farmer do better? One way is to make himself more friends in
Congress. Another way is to work for the election of a Responsible Congress.
We are making progress under the Nixon Administration on the problems of
the farmer and the problems of all the people.
We are moving toward peace in Vietnam despite the tactics of the congres-
sional sellout crowd. Vietnamization is ahead of schedule, and we will end our
front-line ground combat role in South Vietnam by next May.
The situation in the Middle East is tenuous, but at least the Nixon
Administration has produced a cease-fire there. Administration initiative in
the Middle East has averted a possible confrontation there with the Soviet Union.
We are making progress in fighting crime, too--no thanks to the weak-kneed
radical-liberals in the Congress.
The Administration has struck strong blows against organized crime, staging
massive raids on narcotics traffickers and producing shock waves felt throughout
the underworld.
The Administration has also sent 13 major anti-crime bills to the Congress.
I predict that most of these bills will be written into law by the end of this
session despite heel-dragging by those overly concerned with the rights of the
criminal.
President Nixon badly needs more support if he is going to turn America
around. He needs the help of sound-thinking people like the women here assembled.
Give him your help. Give me your help. Add to the strength of responsible
government in America.
# # #
all Fifth Destrict News media Only
0 Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M.--
Tuesday, September 29, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of
Representatives, at a dinner sponsored by the Sparta, Mich., Republican Women's
Club Tuesday evening, Sept. 29, 1970, at Sparta United Methodist Church.
I come before you as a staunch supporter of economy in government. I
make no apologies for it. I am pledged to hold down government spending--to back
up every effort by President Nixon to hold Federal spending in check.
Why is it particularly important to fight the big spenders in Congress
at this time?
It is important because years of increasing government costs with an
uncontrolled $25 billion in Federal red-ink spending in 1968 produced a nearly
runaway inflation in this country--inflation that hurt us all and hit farmers and
old folks on fixed incomes the hardest.
We have got to stop spending more than we take in at the Federal level. If
we fail to keep government spending within revenues, the price for the American
people will be catastrophic in the end.
The big spenders in Congress cause inflation. Their over-spending pushes
up the price of everything. And yet they pretend to be the friends of the people.
Their generosity with the taxpayers' dollars puts an ever-increasing burden on
generations yet to come and requires an ever-increasing appropriation just to pay
the interest on the national debt. In fact, the interest we now pay on the national
debt is a major government expense--second only to spending for national defense.
Today President Nixon and Republicans in Congress are locked in battle with
the big spenders. It's a fight to control inflation. You know whose side I'm on.
Help me and the President fight the big spenders, the radical liberals who vote
for every spending bill they can trot out.
Now let me tell you that we have turned the corner on inflation in spite of
the big spenders. We are making progress against inflation, and at the same time
the economy is in the early stages of an upswing.
If there is any segment of the economy which deserves greater rewards in
terms of performance it is agriculture.
Everyone will agree that one of the basic defects in the economy today is a
failure to achieve substantial gains in industrial productivity in recent years.
(more)
-2-
By contrast, the American farmer's record of productivity is nothing short of
fabulous, and it continues on the increase.
Productivity has risen faster in agriculture than in any other sector of
the economy. In the past two decades alone, farm output per manhour has almost
quadrupled, while nonfarm productivity has just about doubled.
Last year, despite a sharp rise in production costs, farm operators posted
an 8 per cent increase in realized net income. Total net farm income was
$16 billion, based on substantial gains in both marketing receipts and government
payments. I hope the new farm bill will be a plus.
How can the farmer do better? One way is to make himself more friends in
Congress. Another way is to work for the election of a Responsible Congress.
We are making progress under the Nixon Administration on the problems of
the farmer and the problems of all the people.
We are moving toward peace in Vietnam despite the tactics of the congres-
sional sellout crowd. Vietnamization is ahead of schedule, and we will end our
front-line ground combat role in South Vietnam by next May.
The situation in the Middle East is tenuous, but at least the Nixon
Administration has produced a cease-fire there. Administration initiative in
the Middle East has averted a possible confrontation there with the Soviet Union.
We are making progress in fighting crime, too--no thanks to the weak-kneed
radical-liberals in the Congress.
The Administration has struck strong blows against organized crime, staging
massive raids on narcotics traffickers and producing shock waves felt throughout
the underworld.
The Administration has also sent 13 major anti-crime bills to the Congress.
I predict that most of these bills will be written into law by the end of this
session despite heel-dragging by those overly concerned with the rights of the
criminal.
President Nixon badly needs more support if he is going to turn America
around. He needs the help of sound-thinking people like the women here assembled.
Give him your help. Give me your help. Add to the strength of responsible
government in America.
# # #
all Fipch District 8/25/20 news media Only
Q Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON--
September 30, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Grand Rapids Optimist Club
The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to push the Congress into the
20th century--and there is good reason to believe the U.S. Senate will do likewise.
That is the significance of the vote Sept. 17 by which the House decided,
326 to 19, to modernize the procedures of the Congress and to overhaul its
legislative processes.
The House approved what is known as the "Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970. If the Senate follows suit, the Congress will have undertaken a comprehensive
reorganization of its functions. This has happened only once before--in August
1946. And so the current move to modernize Congress is the first such step in
24 years.
Is this development meaningful? It is a major accomplishment, an historic
action. I am pleased and excited about it. I am especially pleased because it
comes about as the culmination of many years of Republican effort.
Let me tell you why congressional reorganization is so badly needed and just
a few of the things that the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 does.
In April 1969 a Reader's Digest article posed the question: "Is Congress
Destroying Itself?"
The author noted that the Congress had been described as "obsolete,"
"inefficient," and worse. He pointed out that the Congress was in serious trouble
for a number of reasons--inadequate staffs to carry out the incredible array of
duties which fall upon a congressman; a fantastic flood of information and
pitifully little time to allot to it; an insufficient overseeing of programs
previously enacted; too much secrecy; antiquated and time-consuming procedures.
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 is designed to plug up the holes
in the leaky legislative vessel that is the Congress, to bridge the gaps that
prevent the Congress from functioning effectively. It is aimed at helping the
Congress do an effective job of shaping laws needed to cope with today's complex
problems and to untangle the bureaucratic mess created by overlapping programs.
(more)
-2-
What does the Act do?
It authorizes the use of electronic equipment on rollcall votes. This,
once the details are worked out, will save tremendous time.
It will make information swiftly available to members of Congress by
creating a Congressional Research Service in the Library of Congress, a unit which
will greatly assist the Senate and House in analyzing, appraising and evaluating
legislation. In fact, as I see the Congressional Research Service it will help
Congress assert its own initiative in advancing legislative proposals instead of
simply waiting for the White House to send up a sheaf of Administration measures.
It will improve the availability of information on fiscal affairs, insist
that price tags be attached to all new programs and require a four-year projection
of Federal spending beyond the fiscal year for which the Presidential budget is
prepared.
It will expand and strengthen the General Accounting Office and thus
greatly assist Congress in reviewing and overseeing Federal programs already in
existence.
It will eliminate much of the secrecy in Congress by requiring that most
committee sessions be open to the public and by placing on the record all teller
votes, those votes in which members of the House now simply pass up the aisle to
be counted on one side or the other of a motion or amendment.
It will open House committee meetings to radio and television news coverage
under rules laid down by members of the committees.
I count the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 a great achievement. It
did not come easily. And I say with pardonable pride that Republicans--I and
others--were in the forefront of the movement that brought it about.
The current move for comprehensive legislative reform began with creation of
a Joint Committee on Organization of the Congress in March 1965. That was a
response to long-felt awareness that Congress needed modernization.
On March 30, 1965, the House Republican Conference created a GOP Task Force
on Congressional Reform and Minority Staffing. In July 1966 the Task Force went
to press with a book called "We Propose: A Modern Congress." On Oct. 10, 1966
the House Republican Policy Committee issued a statement urging immediate
consideration of a congressional reform bill introduced in the House by
then-Rep. Thomas Curtis, R-Mo.
Meantime the Joint Committee had produced a bill which the Senate sub-
sequently passed, 75-9, on March 7, 1967.
(more)
-3-
But what happened to the Senate-passed bill? The House Democratic
Leadership put a lock on it and kept it in the House Rules Committee.
On August 22, 1967, the House GOP Task Force on Congressional Reform was
reactivated to put pressure on House Democrats to report out the bill bottled up
in the Rules Committee. On Oct. 11, 1967, the House GOP Conference unanimously
adopted a resolution calling upon the House Democratic Leadership to schedule
the reform bill for floor action.
On Jan. 17, 1968, I personally urged action on congressional reform in a
GOP State of the Union Message. On March 29, 1968, the House GOP Task Force sent
a comparison of the Senate-approved bill with all prominent "compromise" versions
of the bill to every member of the House and to news editors throughout the country.
On August 6, 1968, I called for action on the congressional reorganization
bill in a nationally televised speech during the Republican National Convention
in Miami Beach, Fla.
On August 7, 1968, the Republican National Convention adopted a platform
which included the following call for congressional reform: "Congress itself
must be reorganized and modernized in order to function efficiently as a co-equal
branch of government. Democrats in control of Congress have opposed Republican
efforts for Congressional reform and killed legislation embodying the
recommendations of a special bipartisan committee. We will again press for
enactment of this measure."
We did indeed press for congressional reform legislation and the bill
recently passed by the House and now pending in the Senate is the fruit of our
efforts, produced with the help of Democrats right-minded enough to be
reform-minded.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON--
September 30, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Grand Rapids Optimist Club
The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to push the Congress into the
20th century--and there is good reason to believe the U.S. Senate will do likewise.
That is the significance of the vote Sept. 17 by which the House decided,
326 to 19, to modernize the procedures of the Congress and to overhaul its
legislative processes.
The House approved what is known as the "Legislative Reorganization Act of
1970. If the Senate follows suit, the Congress will have undertaken a comprehensive
reorganization of its functions. This has happened only once before--in August
1946. And so the current move to modernize Congress is the first such step in
24 years.
Is this development meaningful? It is a major accomplishment, an historic
action. I am pleased and excited about it. I am especially pleased because it
comes about as the culmination of many years of Republican effort.
Let me tell you why congressional reorganization is so badly needed and just
a few of the things that the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 does.
In April 1969 a Reader's Digest article posed the question: "Is Congress
Destroying Itself?"
The author noted that the Congress had been described as "obsolete,"
"inefficient," and worse. He pointed out that the Congress was in serious trouble
for a number of reasons--inadequate staffs to carry out the incredible array of
duties which fall upon a congressman; a fantastic flood of information and
pitifully little time to allot to it; an insufficient overseeing of programs
previously enacted; too much secrecy; antiquated and time-consuming procedures.
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 is designed to plug up the holes
in the leaky legislative vessel that is the Congress, to bridge the gaps that
prevent the Congress from functioning effectively. It is aimed at helping the
Congress do an effective job of shaping laws needed to cope with today's complex
problems and to untangle the bureaucratic mess created by overlapping programs.
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARI
-2-
What does the Act do?
It authorizes the use of electronic equipment on rollcall votes. This,
once the details are worked out, will save tremendous time.
It will make information swiftly available to members of Congress by
creating a Congressional Research Service in the Library of Congress, a unit which
will greatly assist the Senate and House in analyzing, appraising and evaluating
legislation. In fact, as I see the Congressional Research Service it will help
Congress assert its own initiative in advancing legislative proposals instead of
simply waiting for the White House to send up a sheaf of Administration measures.
It will improve the availability of information on fiscal affairs, insist
that price tags be attached to all new programs and require a four-year projection
of Federal spending beyond the fiscal year for which the Presidential budget is
prepared.
It will expand and strengthen the General Accounting Office and thus
greatly assist Congress in reviewing and overseeing Federal programs already in
existence.
It will eliminate much of the secrecy in Congress by requiring that most
committee sessions be open to the public and by placing on the record all teller
votes, those votes in which members of the House now simply pass up the aisle to
be counted on one side or the other of a motion or amendment.
It will open House committee meetings to radio and television news coverage
under rules laid down by members of the committees.
I count the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 a great achievement. It
did not come easily. And I say with pardonable pride that Republicans--I and
others--were in the forefront of the movement that brought it about.
The current move for comprehensive legislative reform began with creation of
a Joint Committee on Organization of the Congress in March 1965. That was a
response to long-felt awareness that Congress needed modernization.
On March 30, 1965, the House Republican Conference created a GOP Task Force
on Congressional Reform and Minority Staffing. In July 1966 the Task Force went
to press with a book called "We Propose: A Modern Congress.' On Oct. 10, 1966
the House Republican Policy Committee issued a statement urging immediate
consideration of a congressional reform bill introduced in the House by
then-Rep. Thomas Curtis, R-Mo.
Meantime the Joint Committee had produced a bill which the Senate sub-
sequently passed, 75-9, on March 7, 1967.
(more)
-3-
But what happened to the Senate-passed bill? The House Democratic
Leadership put a lock on it and kept it in the House Rules Committee.
On August 22, 1967, the House GOP Task Force on Congressional Reform was
reactivated to put pressure on House Democrats to report out the bill bottled up
in the Rules Committee. On Oct. 11, 1967, the House GOP Conference unanimously
adopted a resolution calling upon the House Democratic Leadership to schedule
the reform bill for floor action.
On Jan. 17, 1968, I personally urged action on congressional reform in a
GOP State of the Union Message. On March 29, 1968, the House GOP Task Force sent
a comparison of the Senate-approved bill with all prominent "compromise" versions
of the bill to every member of the House and to news editors throughout the country.
On August 6, 1968, I called for action on the congressional reorganization
bill in a nationally televised speech during the Republican National Convention
in Miami Beach, Fla.
On August 7, 1968, the Republican National Convention adopted a platform
which included the following call for congressional reform: "Congress itself
must be reorganized and modernized in order to function efficiently as a co-equal
branch of government. Democrats in control of Congress have opposed Republican
efforts for Congressional reform and killed legislation embodying the
recommendations of a special bipartisan committee. We will again press for
enactment of this measure."
We did indeed press for congressional reform legislation and the bill
recently passed by the House and now pending in the Senate is the fruit of our
efforts, produced with the help of Democrats right-minded enough to be
reform-minded.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M.--
Thursday, October 1, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican leader, U.S. House of Reps.,
at a fund-raising dinner for Arthur W. Busch, GOP candidate for Congress from the 22nd
District of Texas, Thursday evening, Oct. 1, at the Marriott Motor Hotel, Houston, Tex.
It's getting close to Halloween and the election--the time when make-believe
conservatives in the Congress don false faces for the benefit of the voters back home.
It's also time to strip off the masks of the pretend-conservatives--the false
conservatives who pretend concern about the taxpayer's dollars but vote for big
budget-busting spending bills.
Where does the incumbent 22nd District congressman fit in when we talk about
false conservatives? Consider the gentleman's voting record if you will. That is
the best test--and it tells a sad story.
The sad story is that this district's incumbent congressman advertises himself
as a conservative but he votes for inflation. He votes to cheapen the dollar. He
votes to bust President Nixon's budget. Hand in hand with the radical liberals in
the Congress, he is promoting a big Federal deficit while Republicans struggle to
hold down Federal spending.
The President needs help in fighting inflation--the kind of help he would get
from Art Busch. What kind of help has President Nixon received from the radical
liberals and phony conservatives? They have irresponsibly inflated the President's
budget requests--so much so that the President has been forced to veto four
appropriations bills passed by the Democratic-controlled 91st Congress. And what did
the incumbent 22nd District congressman do about the President's appeals for fiscal
sanity? He responded by voting to override every one of the President's inflation-
fighting vetoes.
What we need in America is a Congress which will help President Nixon turn
the tables on inflation and guide this country from a wartime to a peacetime economy.
And that means we need men like Art Busch.
What we don't need are the radical liberals and phony conservatives who drive
this country into dangerous budget deficits which force up prices, interest rates
and taxes.
What we don't need in Congress are radical liberals and phony conservatives
FORD
who overappropriate--overspend Federal dollars and thus add fuel to inflation.
LIBRARY
Make-believe conservatives like the incumbent 22nd District congressman remind,
me of the arsonist who not only interfered with firemen fighting the blaze he had
set but even threw more kerosene on the fire from time to time to keep it going.
We all know what started and fed the inflation we're fighting right now. It
was the reckless spending of the Democratic administrations of the Sixties--
administrations which produced Federal deficits of $57 billion, aided and abetted
by the Democratic Congresses of the last decade.
Now the Democratic-controlled 91st Congress seems determined to touch off
another inflationary spiral in this country with a repeat of the wild inflationary
spending of the Sixties.
The Joint Committee on Reduction of Federal Expenditures, headed by my good
friend George Mahon, recently reported that congressional actions on spending bills
and the Congress's failure to act on Presidential revenue recommendations could
produce a $12.8 billion deficit this fiscal year.
If indeed we have such a deficit in fiscal 1971 the fault will lie with the
radical liberals and make-believe conservatives in the Congress--and with nobody else.
What we have is an opposition-led Congress which has sought to frustrate the
President at nearly every turn in the hope of reaping political advantage.
They have refused to join the President in the fight against inflation. They
have refused to join the President with any degree of urgency in fighting crime.
They have refused to join the President in fighting water pollution.
That is why America needs men like Art Busch in the Congress, men who will
work with President Nixon to move the country toward a solution of its most critical
problems, men who will support the President as he lifts this country out of the
mess of Democratic inflation and a Democratic war.
What a help Art Busch would be to the President, with his expertise in the
field of water pollution control! Congress needs the talents of engineers and
educators like Art Busch.
This country has been the victim of extreme partisan activity on the part of
the majority party in the Congress.
The President needs a Congress that will work with him. The 22nd District of
Texas needs a congressman who will work with the President.
Those who say there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two
parties are 100 per cent wrong--and the record of the radical liberals and
make-believe conservatives in the 91st Congress is the best proof of that.
To quote someone who is really an expert on the Democratic Party, AFL-CIO
President George Meany, the Democratic Party is being taken over by the radical
liberals, by the New Left. And I don't think the good people of the 22nd District
of Texas want any part of that. I think what they do want are men like Art Busch,
men who will do what's right for America.
###
30 copies u/m. Ford only
a Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 6:30 P.M.--
Thursday, October 1, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican leader, U.S. House of Reps.,
at a fund-raising dinner for Arthur W. Busch, GOP candidate for Congress from the 22nd
District of Texas, Thursday evening, Oct. 1, at the Marriott Motor Hotel, Houston, Tex
It's getting close to Halloween and the election--the time when make-believe
conservatives in the Congress don false faces for the benefit of the voters back home.
It's also time to strip off the masks of the pretend-conservatives--the false
conservatives who pretend concern about the taxpayer's dollars but vote for big
budget-busting spending bills.
Where does the incumbent 22nd District congressman fit in when we talk about
false conservatives? Consider the gentleman's voting record if you will. That is
the best test--and it tells a sad story.
The sad story is that this district's incumbent congressman advertises himself
as a conservative but he votes for inflation. He votes to cheapen the dollar. He
votes to bust President Nixon's budget. Hand in hand with the radical liberals in
the Congress, he is promoting a big Federal deficit while Republicans struggle to
hold down Federal spending.
The President needs help in fighting inflation--the kind of help he would get
from Art Busch. What kind of help has President Nixon received from the radical
liberals and phony conservatives? They have irresponsibly inflated the President's
budget requests--so much so that the President has been forced to veto four
appropriations bills passed by the Democratic-controlled 91st Congress. And what did
the incumbent 22nd District congressman do about the President's appeals for fiscal
sanity? He responded by voting to override every one of the President's inflation-
fighting vetoes.
What we need in America is a Congress which will help President Nixon turn
the tables on inflation and guide this country from a wartime to a peacetime economy.
And that means we need men like Art Busch.
What we don't need are the radical liberals and phony conservatives who drive
this country into dangerous budget deficits which force up prices, interest rates
and taxes.
What we don't need in Congress are radical liberals and phony conservatives
who overappropriate--overspend Federal dollars and thus add fuel to inflation.
Make-believe conservatives like the incumbent 22nd District congressman remind
me of the arsonist who not only interfered with firemen fighting the blaze he had
set but even threw more kerosene on the fire from time to time to keep it going.
We all know what started and fed the inflation we're fighting right now. It
was the reckless spending of the Democratic administrations of the Sixties--
administrations which produced Federal deficits of $57 billion, aided and abetted
by the Democratic Congresses of the last decade.
Now the Democratic-controlled 91st Congress seems determined to touch off
another inflationary spiral in this country with a repeat of the wild inflationary
spending of the Sixties.
The Joint Committee on Reduction of Federal Expenditures, headed by my good
friend George Mahon, recently reported that congressional actions on spending bills
and the Congress's failure to act on Presidential revenue recommendations could
produce a $12.8 billion deficit this fiscal year.
If indeed we have such a deficit in fiscal 1971 the fault will lie with the
radical liberals and make-believe conservatives in the Congress--and with nobody else.
What we have is an opposition-led Congress which has sought to frustrate the
President at nearly every turn in the hope of reaping political advantage.
They have refused to join the President in the fight against inflation. They
have refused to join the President with any degree of urgency in fighting crime.
They have refused to join the President in fighting water pollution.
That is why America needs men like Art Busch in the Congress, men who will
work with President Nixon to move the country toward a solution of its most critical
problems, men who will support the President as he lifts this country out of the
mess of Democratic inflation and a Democratic war.
What a help Art Busch would be to the President, with his expertise in the
field of water pollution control! Congress needs the talents of engineers and
educators like Art Busch.
This country has been the victim of extreme partisan activity on the part of
the majority party in the Congress.
The President needs a Congress that will work with him. The 22nd District of
Texas needs a congressman who will work with the President.
Those who say there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two
parties are 100 per cent wrong--and the record of the radical liberals and
make-believe conservatives in the 91st Congress is the best proof of that.
To quote someone who is really an expert on the Democratic Party, AFL-CIO
President George Meany, the Democratic Party is being taken over by the radical
liberals, by the New Left. And I don't think the good people of the 22nd District
of Texas want any part of that. I think what they do want are men like Art Busch,
men who will do what's right for America.
###
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE GRAND RAPIDS JUNIOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AT THE PANTLIND HOTEL, GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
6:15 P.M. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1970
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY
One sure way for a businessman to cut his sales and profits, turn away
customers and encourage his competitors is for him to go around all day, every day,
preaching gloom and talking against his company and telling everyone how bad
business is.
The same goes for a community. Let one group start telling everyone else
how bad business is and what a sorry, deplorable economic climate they have and,
sure enough, it is bound to get that way.
And the same goes for a country. Get some of the "leaders" moaning about
how terrible things are economically
get them to singing the blues and telling
about the "recession" we're in and pretty soon you'll have most people believing
it. And then the country will really be in trouble.
There is a term for that kind of talk this viewing with alarm. It is
called crisis-mongering--an there is a lot of it, far too much of it, going on
right now.
Certain politicians and others in America are engaging in a vicious
indictment of American society despite mountains of evidence that this indictment
is a false one.
We have problems. Of course we have problems. But the way to solve them is
not through crisis-mongering or running down America. America must approach its
national problems in a spirit of affirmation.
The crisis-mongers remind me of the student who walked into the classroom
determined that he was going to fail the examination. Sure enough. He flunked.
With that kind of mental set, how could it be otherwise?
Don't get me wrong. I am not preaching the philosophy of Pollyanna. I am
not urging that we shut our eyes to our problems and behave like a flock of
ostriches.
We have problems. We have tremendous problems. But we won't solve them by
running our country down.
America's balance sheet is good. Whatever our problems, this is still the
(more)
-2-
best place in the world in which to live. We don't build barriers and fences to
keep people from leaving the United States. Instead, millions of people from less
fortunate countries are clamoring to get in. America must be doing something right,
despite what the critics say.
Now, as we approach the end of 1970 and pass through the gateway of the new
decade, is a good time to take stock--to take note not only of our shortcomings but
also our strengths and accomplishments. Let's talk a little bit about what's right
with America.
First and foremost, we continue to enjoy the basic freedoms of speech, press,
religion, assembly and petition. If we don't like the way things are going, we are
free to say SO. The importance of this precious right is underscored by the fact
that two-thirds of the people on this earth do not enjoy that privilege.
Year after year, more Americans are at work, earning more, producing more and
building more than ever before. Our continuing economic growth provides a standard
of living that is the envy of the world. We are better fed, better clothed and better
housed than any other people in all history.
Let's look at just a few examples of the progress that our great country has
made in the past half century--since 1920.
In 1920, life expectancy in the United States was 54 years; now it is more
than 70.
Fifty years ago the Gross National Product was $89 billion; today it is more
than $900 billion and within this decade it will climb to a trillion dollars.
Fifty years ago there was no regularly scheduled radio broadcasting anywhere.
In 1920 there were 311,266 young people graduated from high schools in the
United States. This year the number-in a population that has merely doubled--was
10 times greater.
Institutions of higher education in this country conferred 53,516 degrees in
1920; this year they conferred more than one million.
In 1920 six per cent of our population was illiterate; today illiteracy has
almost disappeared in America.
In addition to almost eliminating illiteracy, we have a larger proportion of
college graduates among our people than any other country in the world. The
percentage of college graduates in our population is twice as great as any other
nation.
Our flight to the moon is, of course, a glittering achievement. But it is
truly more significant that we have conquered polio and are continuing to make
(more)
-3-
great medical advances.
The moon landing aside, America should continue to lead the world in
education and science in the Seventies.
Today, about 40 per cent of our high school graduates go on to institutions
of higher learning. Our young people comprise the brightest, best informed and
most concerned generation in American history.
Despite the tiny vocal radical minority who wave Vietcong flags or hold
college deans hostage in their offices, the fact remains that our young people are
America's greatest asset.
I have cited examples of progress in education and other fields. These
examples serve to remind us how much has changed--how much improvement there has been
in health, wealth, education, communication, social consciousness and every other
aspect of life in America. And we must never let ourselves forget the basic truth--
that this progress has made our country the greatest nation on earth.
Yet we continue today to hear cries of doom. Is this a modern-day phenomenon?
No, there have always been doomsdayers in this land as well as in others. And, as
in the past, the vast majority of Americans will keep on working and building and
helping the United States to go on to new greatness.
Today we hear a constant clamor about the economy, about unemployment.
What the viewers with alarm do not tell you is that our unemployment rate
today is less than it was in the four years preceding escalation of the Vietnam
War, beginning in February 1965.
They do not tell you that there are 79 million Americans working--1.5 million
more than a year ago.
They do not tell you that the prime interest rate is coming down, that the
present rate of 7.5 per cent is only half a per cent above the level when the
present Administration came into office, that the recent reduction in the prime
rate signals reduced inflationary pressure on our economy and is a firm step toward
stability in the money market and the economy.
They do not tell you that, nationally, housing starts are almost back to
normal, up in August to a figure higher than in the previous six months of this
year.
They do not tell you that the average income of the individual American is
nearly twice that of any other country in the world, that the personal income of all
Americans in August was up again and higher than the average monthly level for
this year.
(more)
-4-
They do not tell you that unemployment is a full 25 per cent less than it
was in 1961.
They do not tell you that the typical American family can buy nearly twice
as much with its annual income now as it could in 1950.
They do not tell you that after making full allowance for higher taxes and
inflation, the average real income of Americans is higher this year than ever before.
They do not tell you that the rise in consumer prices in August was the
smallest in 20 months.
They do not tell you that the rise in consumer prices in June, July and
August was at an annual rate of 3.5 per cent, the lowest three-month rate since the
fall of 1967.
I personally have no doubt about the strength and potential of the U.S.
economy.
The economy has been going through a trial by fire--the fire of inflation.
We are fighting an inflation that has been pushing prices upward for more than four
years. And we are trying to bring about the rare combination of stable growth and
high unemployment.
I say we are winning the fight against inflation. We are winning it because
our present fiscal and monetary policies are the proper policies for this point in
time. We are winning it because the U.S. economy is the strongest and soundest
that the world has ever known.
What else are the doomsdayers wailing about? About how the Vietnam War is
tearing this country apart. These are the same people who are saying that we should
tell the slackers who have run off to Canada that all is forgiven.
The United States has had draft-dodgers before and we have survived. More
than 300,000 draftees refused to report for service in World War I. That was more
than 10 per cent of the total who were actually inducted. We lived through that
ugly chapter in our history and went on to become a greater nation.
What else are the doomsdayers pointing to? Racism? There is no question we
must root out racial discrimination wherever we find it. But we can also be proud
of the progress this country has made in remedying the wrongs of the past. We can
be proud of the fact that in recent years gains in real income, education and
standard of living have been proportionately greater for blacks than for whites.
The proportion of Negroes earning middle incomes has more than doubled since 1950,
and the proportion of black students in colleges has increased more than 50 per cent.
(more)
-5-
There is a relatively new issue that is the center of intense interest among
our people today: the steady destruction of our environment. Here, more than in
any other problem area, there is a need for a spirit of affirmation. We can
eliminate pollution and restore our environment and we must. The same American
ingenuity that helped to create our environmental problems can lead the way to
overcoming them.
No issue is of greater moment in 1970 than the Vietnam War and the prospects
for peace in Southeast Asia and elsewhere in the world. The problems involved in
foreign policy are most complex, most difficult. But in recognizing the
difficulties let us not disregard achievement.
We have completely reversed the direction of the U.S. role in the Vietnam War.
We will end our front-line combat role in Vietnam by next May. By that time we
will have cut our troop strength in Vietnam by roughly a half--from 549,500 in
January 1969 to 284,000 by the end of April. American combat deaths are down this
year to less than one-third the number two years ago. And the full cost of the
war by next June will be roughly one-half its annual rate when the present
Administration took office.
We are making the transition from confrontation to negotiation. We are,
hopefully, paving the way for an era of uninterrupted peace.
We are pressing negotiations with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong at
Paris; we are negotiating with the Soviet Union on arms limitation in Helsinki and
Vienna; we are talking with the Red Chinese at Warsaw; and we are working unceasingly
for peace in the Middle East.
Draft calls in 1970 have been reduced to the lowest level of any calendar
year since 1964. In February 1969 draft calls totalled about 34,000. In November
and December of this year they will be under 10,000 a month, a reduction of more than
two-thirds. We now expect the 1970 draft to total 163,500 men as compared with
290,000 in 1968.
We are making progress on many fronts. Of course it is not enough. But
impatience will not produce results. Only affirmation--that extra measure of spirit
and positivism--will.
Last January Richard Nixon delivered a State of the Union Message in which he
spoke of an America that has abolished hunger, where every family is provided the
means to obtain a minimum income, where enormous progress has been made in providing
better housing, faster transportation, improved health and superior education, where
inflation has been checked and the war against crime has been won, an America that
(more)
-6-
has made great strides in cleaning up its air and water and opening up its parks,
and most important of all an America at peace with all the nations of the world.
We have a long way to travel to realize that dream but we have already gone
a considerable distance.
And despite the doomsdayers and the viewers with alarm, I think Americans
feel that dream is not impossible, that it is within reach.
They feel that way because this is still the America of the proud past, with
the unique capacity to make itself into the America of the proud future which the
President envisions.
As the President said, our forefathers had the vision but not the means to
achieve their dreams. It must never be said that we were the first generation that
had the means but not the vision.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON MONDAY--
October 12, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Grand Rapids Kiwanis Club
Our foreign policy goals are clear.
We are moving to end the Vietnam War and to promote a permanent settlement
in the Middle East. We are determined to achieve a lasting peace in both areas of
the world.
We are seeking arms limitation and the resolution of the great East-West
political issues.
We will keep our treaty commitments but we will do so within the framework
of the new Nixon doctrine--the doctrine of "the U.S. helps those who help themselves."
We will provide a shield for our allies against nuclear powers and we will
furnish such other assistance as is appropriate.
We are determined to secure the freedom of Americans held captive by the
North Vietnamese and Viet Cong.
We will negotiate rather than confront wherever and whenever possible.
We have established our major goals. Our ultimate objective is peace. How
is peace to be achieved in this mad world we live in today?
There are three principal pillars for the building of peace. Those pillars
are a willingness to negotiate, the maintenance of our strength, and the
development of effective partnerships with other Free World nations.
We cannot build the structure of world peace solely on a willingness to
negotiate. We must undergird the structure with the other two pillars as well. We
must negotiate from strength, just as we did during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
And we must strengthen our friends so that they too can survive.
There are some Americans today who are willing, even eager, to heedlessly
weaken our defenses. They sincerely believe that peace lies in that direction.
But they are terribly mistaken. They look upon a strong national defense as an
underlying cause of war when it is actually a promoter of peace. If they have their
way, they will decimate our defenses--and lay the groundwork for another military
catastrophe.
I do not need to name names. You know who they are-these people who gamble
(more)
DERALOR LIBRARY
-2-
with our national security. They are well-intentioned. I do not impugn their
integrity or their patriotism. But I pray that the Nation is saved from their good
intentions. I pray that the American people are not once more misled as they were
when we disarmed ourselves after World War I, which led to Nazi aggression, and
after World War II, which encouraged Communist aggression in Korea.
I would like to ask just one question of the gamblers with our national
security: When was the longrange welfare of any American--rich or poor--ever well
served by national weakness in the face of aggression?
Let us be sensible about our national defense. If we cut we should know
what we are doing. It is meaningless to toss out figures about new weapons systems
and imply that all of them should be abandoned.
We have already made tremendous reductions in defense spending. Measured
in constant 1971 dollars, our defense budget reached an all-time high of
$89.1 billion in 1968 under the last Administration. Today it has been reduced
by $17.3 billion to a low of $71.8 billion.
I applaud rational, reasonable, sound efforts to reduce military spending.
For 12 years as a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee I
personally had a hand in cutting defense budgets by a total of $14.5 billion. But
there is a limit to defense cuts. We must not so weaken our defenses that we
encourage aggressive actions by potential enemies.
The gamblers with our national security call for additional deep cuts in
defense spending under the guise of reordering our priorities. They also disregard
the fact that the Safeguard anti-ballistic-missile system has proved to be a trump
card in our strategic arms negotiations with the Russians.
The facts are that we have already reordered our priorities and are
continuing to do so within the limitations of a Federal budget weakened by four
years of excessive Federal spending and nearly runaway inflation, beginning in
1965.
In 1962 the Federal Government spent 48 per cent of its budget on defense
and only 32 per cent on human resources. In 1968 we were still spending 44 per cent
of our budget on defense and only 34 per cent on human resources.
Now, finally, under a new Administration, we are turning this country around
and realigning our priorities.
The shift is quite dramatic. For the first time since 1950-for the first
time in two decades--a President has called for greater spending on human resources
than on defense. The Nixon budget for fiscal 1971 allocates 41 per cent of all
Federal funds to human resource outlays and 37 per cent to defense.
Ironically, the gamblers with our security are not only demanding huge
additional budget cuts in the name of realigning our priorities; they are also
criticizing the unemployment the defense cuts helped to create.
In accomplishing massive changes in Federal priorities, we have produced a
certain amount of temporary unemployment as people shift to non-defense jobs.
The American people are aware that we are passing through a period of
transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy. They understand what the Nation
is going through to get back on the right track.
# # #
Fift District Media
+ m Ford
a Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON MONDAY--
October 12, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Grand Rapids Kiwanis Club
Our foreign policy goals are clear.
We are moving to end the Vietnam War and to promote a permanent settlement
in the Middle East. We are determined to achieve a lasting peace in both areas of
the world.
We are seeking arms limitation and the resolution of the great East-West
political issues.
We will keep our treaty commitments but we will do so within the framework
of the new Nixon doctrine--the doctrine of "the U.S. helps those who help themselves."
We will provide a shield for our allies against nuclear powers and we will
furnish such other assistance as is appropriate.
We are determined to secure the freedom of Americans held captive by the
North Vietnamese and Viet Cong.
We will negotiate rather than confront wherever and whenever possible.
We have established our major goals. Our ultimate objective is peace. How
is peace to be achieved in this mad world we live in today?
There are three principal pillars for the building of peace. Those pillars
are a willingness to negotiate, the maintenance of our strength, and the
development of effective partnerships with other Free World nations.
We cannot build the structure of world peace solely on a willingness to
negotiate. We must undergird the structure with the other two pillars as well. We
must negotiate from strength, just as we did during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
And we must strengthen our friends so that they too can survive.
There are some Americans today who are willing, even eager, to heedlessly
weaken our defenses. They sincerely believe that peace lies in that direction.
But they are terribly mistaken. They look upon a strong national defense as an
underlying cause of war when it is actually a promoter of peace. If they have their
way, they will decimate our defenses--and lay the groundwork for another military
catastrophe.
I do not need to name names. You know who they are-these people who gamble
(more)
--2-.
with our national security. They are well-intentioned. I do not impugn their
integrity or their patriotism. But I pray that the Nation is saved from their good
intentions. I pray that the American people are not once more misled as they were
when we disarmed ourselves after World War I, which led to Nazi aggression, and
after World War II, which encouraged Communist aggression in Korea.
I would like to ask just one question of the gamblers with our national
security: When was the longrange welfare of any American--rich or poor--ever well
served by national weakness in the face of aggression?
Let us be sensible about our national defense. If we cut we should know
what we are doing. It is meaningless to toss out figures about new weapons systems
and imply that all of them should be abandoned.
We have already made tremendous reductions in defense spending. Measured
in constant 1971 dollars, our defense budget reached an all-time high of
$89.1 billion in 1968 under the last Administration. Today it has been reduced
by $17.3 billion to a low of $71.8 billion.
I applaud rational, reasonable, sound efforts to reduce military spending.
For 12 years as a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee I
personally had a hand in cutting defense budgets by a total of $14.5 billion. But
there is a limit to defense cuts. We must not so weaken our defenses that we
encourage aggressive actions by potential enemies.
The gamblers with our national security call for additional deep cuts in
defense spending under the guise of reordering our priorities. They also disregard
the fact that the Safeguard anti-ballistic-missile system has proved to be a trump
card in our strategic arms negotiations with the Russians.
The facts are that we have already reordered our priorities and are
continuing to do so within the limitations of a Federal budget weakened by four
years of excessive Federal spending and nearly runaway inflation, beginning in
1965.
In 1962 the Federal Government spent 48 per cent of its budget on defense
and only 32 per cent on human resources. In 1968 we were still spending 44 per cent
of our budget on defense and only 34 per cent on human resources.
Now, finally, under a new Administration, we are turning this country around
and realigning our priorities.
The shift is quite dramatic. For the first time since 1950--for the first
time in two decades--a President has called for greater spending on human resources
than on defense. The Nixon budget for fiscal 1971 allocates 41 per cent of all
Federal funds to human resource outlays and 37 per cent to defense.
Ironically, the gamblers with our security are not only demanding huge
additional budget cuts in the name of realigning our priorities; they are also
criticizing the unemployment the defense cuts helped to create.
In accomplishing massive changes in Federal priorities, we have produced a
certain amount of temporary unemployment as people shift to non-defense jobs.
The American people are aware that we are passing through a period of
transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy. They understand what the Nation
is going through to get back on the right track.
# # #
OPENING STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD OF GRAND RAPIDS
IN DEBATE WITH MRS. JEAN McKEE
BEFORE THE GRAND RAPIDS BAR ASSOCIATION
AT 12 NOON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1970
FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON WEDNESDAY, OCT. 14
My opponent is a Democrat--an active, participating Democrat. She is proud
of it.
I am a Republican. I am proud of it. But on the other hand I am just as
proud that in 11 elections I have received the support of many Democrats in the
Fifth Congressional District. I am also proud that I have supported, on many
occasions, three Democratic Presidents. I have supported Democratic Presidents
more often and on tougher issues than many Democrats in the House and the Senate.
I have letters of appreciation from those Democratic Presidents.
This campaign is an adversary proceeding in the best tradition of American
politics. Therefore, as Al Smith was fond of saying, let's look at the record.
What was the legacy left behind by the previous Democratic Administration?
A war in which the United States had been massively involved for four years.
Federal deficits which totalled $60.6 billion from 1961 through 1968.
Nearly runaway inflation which has reduced the value of the 1960 dollar to
76 cents.
Air and water pollution that grew steadily worse during the eight years that
Democrats controlled both the Congress and the White House.
A crime rate that rose 10 times faster than the population during the eight
Democratic years of the Sixties.
It's tough to deal with that kind of legacy but Republicans are making
progress. We could have made far greater progress if the Congress for the past two
years had been controlled by the Republican Party.
As lawyers, you gentlemen are accustomed to dealing with evidence. What,
then, is the hard evidence of progress under the present Administration on the
war, control of Federal spending, air and water pollution control, and crime
control? First, Vietnam.
We have reduced the authorized strength of our armed forces in Southeast
Asia from 549,500 as of Dec. 31, 1968, to 384,000 as of Oct. 15, 1970, and we will
be reducing our authorized strength to 284,000 by May 1, 1971. This means that
reductions in authorized strength by next May 1 will total 265,500.
(more)
-2-
President Nixon did not put half a million men into Vietnam, but he is
clearly getting them out. And he is doing so with reduced losses, with an increase
in the ability of the South Vietnamese to resist Communist aggression, and with a
decrease in the ability of the North Vietnamese to achieve military success in
Southeast Asia.
The Presidential candidate my opponent supported in 1964 escalated the
Vietnam War. The Presidential candidate I supported in 1968 has deescalated the
Vietnam War and is ending the U.S. role in it.
What additional progress can we point to in Vietnam?
During the past several months, the weekly toll of Americans killed in
Vietnam has dropped steadily to a point that in the week ended Oct. 3 was the
lowest in 4 1/2 years. While any Americans dead in Asia are too many, that toll
of 38 is vastly better than the 562 killed in the most deadly week of the war-the
week which ended May 11, 1968. In 1968, the average weekly loss of American lives
was 300. In 1969, it was 200. Since July 1, after Cambodia, the number of weekly
war deaths has averaged 61.
At the same time, draft calls have been reduced from 299,000 in 1968 to
163,500 this year, a drop of 42 per cent. Military manpower, meantime, is being
reduced from 3.5 million in mid-1968 to 2.9 million in mid-1971-- reduction of
639,000.
The same political candidates who demand a precipitate U.S. pullout from
Vietnam are demanding a reordering of our priorities. The truth is that we have
already accomplished a massive reordering of our priorities, and we are continuing
to shift priorities.
My opponent is correct in pointing out that our priorities were all askew
during the Sixties while the Democrats controlled both the White House and the
Congress. Why didn't she speak out then?
In 1962 the Federal Government spent 48 per cent of its budget on national
defense and only 32 per cent on human resources. In 1968 we were still spending
44 per cent of our budget on defense and only 34 per cent on human resources. Now,
in fiscal 1971, under a Republican President, we have reversed our priorities. We
are spending 41 per cent of our Federal budget on human resources and 37 per cent
on defense. I might mention that defense spending has declined to 7 per cent of
our Gross National Product, the lowest percentage since 1951.
At the same time that we have reordered our priorities, Republicans have
sought to hold down Federal spending to help fight the inflation we inherited from
(more)
-3-
the previous Democratic Administration. The present Administration cut the
expansion rate of Federal spending in half in 1970 and will reduce it by half again
in 1971. This has enabled us to keep the Federal budget close to balance while
at the same time recognizing important national priorities in the fields of
environment, welfare and transportation. We have exercised firm control over
defense spending. We have cut back less urgent non-defense programs. And we have
employed greater efficiency throughout the Federal Government.
We have made substantial progress against inflation through policies of
restraint, both fiscal and monetary. There is dramatic proof of this in the fact
that the cost of living rose just .2 of 1 per cent in August 1970--an annual rate
of 2.4 per cent--as compared with a rise of .4 of 1 per cent in August 1968--an
annual rate of 4.8 per cent. The rise in the cost of living in August of this
year was the lowest in 20 months and just one-half what it was in the comparable
month in 1968. And the three-month period of June, July and August 1970 showed the
lowest cost of living rise for any three-month period since the fall of 1967.
While Republicans in Congress have sought to hold down Federal spending to
aid in the fight against inflation, the Democrats have pressed for budget-busting
appropriations.
During the same period that they have sought to escalate Federal spending,
the Democrats have refused to act on President Nixon's plans for financing a
$10 billion Federal-State-local water pollution control program for the construction
of municipal waste treatment facilities over the next four years. The program calls
for the establishment of an Environmental Financing Authority to make sure that all
municipalities needing treatment plants would be able to finance local costs. The
Democrats have even refused to hold hearings on this legislation--and yet some of
their candidates accuse the Administration of lack of action on environmental
problems. President Nixon has promised to put modern waste-treatment plants in
every place needed to make our waters clean again. But he needs the help of a
cooperative Congress to keep that promise.
What of my own record on the environment? In 1965 I voted for the Water Pollutio
Control Act and the Air Pollution Control Act; in 1966, for the Water Pollution Cont-
Act and the Clean Air Act; in 1967, for the Clean Air act; in 1968, for establish-
ment of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Water Pollution Control Act;
in 1969, for the Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Air Act, establishment of
the Council on Environmental Quality, the Water Resources Development Act, the
Public Works Appropriation Bill; in 1970, Clean Air Act Amendments, the Clean Air
(more)
-4-
and Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, and the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1970.
Here are copies of environmental bills I introduced or co-sponsored in the
91st Congress, including a bill to prohibit the dumping of dredgings and other
refuse into the Great Lakes or any navigable water and a bill to establish the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
Here is a list of National Park bills I voted for, with photos of these
national park areas.
Here is a list of Federal grants I was instrumental in obtaining for Kent
and Ionia Counties, including $3,106,837 for additional parklands and $1,480,610
for sewer and water improvements. And this is just for the period 1968 through
1970.
I and other Republicans in Congress have also made the war on crime a top
priority. Here there has been heel-dragging on the part of some Democrats in the
Congress. But despite the heel-dragging, it now appears that the bulk of the
Administration's 13 major anti-crime bills will be enacted into law. To that I say
better late than never.
I sponsored the major anti-crime legislation which has been enacted or is
nearly through both Houses of the Congress--the District of Columbia Omnibus Crime
Bill, which is a model for the Nation; the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1970,
which more than doubles law enforcement aid to States and local communities; and
the Organized Crime Control Act, comprehensive legislation which puts new crime
control tools in the hands of authorities.
Speaking of the war on crime, I might also mention that in 1969 the rise in
the nationwide crime rate was 11 per cent as compared with a 17 per cent rise in
1968. Here is a graph which clearly shows how the rate of increase fell in 1969
in all categories but one.
This year there has been a marked upturn in Federal indictments and
prosecutions of key organized crime figures as a result of the Administration's
stepped up attacks on the syndicate.
This, then, is how Republicans have dealt with the legacy left by the
previous Democratic Administration.
I think we have made substantial progress in the face of tremendous
difficulties. We are on our way to solving problems that have defied the most
generous spenders ever to handle the taxpayers' money. And that is an accomplishment
# # #
60 capies up m Ford
0 office Copy
OPENING STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD OF GRAND RAPIDS
IN DEBATE WITH MRS. JEAN McKEE
BEFORE THE GRAND RAPIDS BAR ASSOCIATION
AT 12 NOON, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1970
FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON WEDNESDAY, OCT. 14
My opponent is a Democrat--an active, participating Democrat. She is proud
of it.
I am a Republican. I am proud of it. But on the other hand I am just as
proud that in 11 elections I have received the support of many Democrats in the
Fifth Congressional District. I am also proud that I have supported, on many
occasions, three Democratic Presidents. I have supported Democratic Presidents
more often and on tougher issues than many Democrats in the House and the Senate.
I have letters of appreciation from those Democratic Presidents.
This campaign is an adversary proceeding in the best tradition of American
politics. Therefore, as Al Smith was fond of saying, let's look at the record.
What was the legacy left behind by the previous Democratic Administration?
A war in which the United States had been massively involved for four years.
Federal deficits which totalled $60.6 billion from 1961 through 1968.
Nearly runaway inflation which has reduced the value of the 1960 dollar to
76 cents.
Air and water pollution that grew steadily worse during the eight years that
Democrats controlled both the Congress and the White House.
A crime rate that rose 10 times faster than the population during the eight
Democratic years of the Sixties.
It's tough to deal with that kind of legacy but Republicans are making
progress. We could have made far greater progress if the Congress for the past two
years had been controlled by the Republican Party.
As lawyers, you gentlemen are accustomed to dealing with evidence. What,
then, is the hard evidence of progress under the present Administration on the
war, control of Federal spending, air and water pollution control, and crime
control? First, Vietnam.
We have reduced the authorized strength of our armed forces in Southeast
Asia from 549,500 as of Dec. 31, 1968, to 384,000 as of Oct. 15, 1970, and we will
be reducing our authorized strength to 284,000 by May 1, 1971. This means that
reductions in authorized strength by next May 1 will total 265,500.
(more)
-2-
President Nixon did not put half a million men into Vietnam, but he is
clearly getting them out. And he is doing so with reduced losses, with an increase
in the ability of the South Vietnamese to resist Communist aggression, and with a
decrease in the ability of the North Vietnamese to achieve military success in
Southeast Asia.
The Presidential candidate my opponent supported in 1964 escalated the
Vietnam War. The Presidential candidate I supported in 1968 has deescalated the
Vietnam War and is ending the U.S. role in it.
What additional progress can we point to in Vietnam?
During the past several months, the weekly toll of Americans killed in
Vietnam has dropped steadily to a point that in the week ended Oct. 3 was the
lowest in 4 1/2 years. While any Americans dead in Asia are too many, that toll
of 38 is vastly better than the 562 killed in the most deadly week of the war--the
week which ended May 11, 1968. In 1968, the average weekly loss of American lives
was 300. In 1969, it was 200. Since July 1, after Cambodia, the number of weekly
war deaths has averaged 61.
At the same time, draft calls have been reduced from 299,000 in 1968 to
163,500 this year, a drop of 42 per cent. Military manpower, meantime, is being
reduced from 3.5 million in mid-1968 to 2.9 million in mid-1971--a reduction of
639,000.
The same political candidates who demand a precipitate U.S. pullout from
Vietnam are demanding a reordering of our priorities. The truth is that we have
already accomplished a massive reordering of our priorities, and we are continuing
to shift priorities.
My opponent is correct in pointing out that our priorities were all askew
during the Sixties while the Democrats controlled both the White House and the
Congress. Why didn't she speak out then?
In 1962 the Federal Government spent 48 per cent of its budget on national
defense and only 32 per cent on human resources. In 1968 we were still spending
44 per cent of our budget on defense and only 34 per cent on human resources. Now,
in fiscal 1971, under a Republican President, we have reversed our priorities. We
are spending 41 per cent of our Federal budget on human resources and 37 per cent
on defense. I might mention that defense spending has declined to 7 per cent of
our Gross National Product, the lowest percentage since 1951.
At the same time that we have reordered our priorities, Republicans have
sought to hold down Federal spending to help fight the inflation we inherited from
(more)
-3-
the previous Democratic Administration. The present Administration cut the
expansion rate of Federal spending in half in 1970 and will reduce it by half again
in 1971. This has enabled us to keep the Federal budget close to balance while
at the same time recognizing important national priorities in the fields of
environment, welfare and transportation. We have exercised firm control over
defense spending. We have cut back less urgent non-defense programs. And we have
employed greater efficiency throughout the Federal Government.
We have made substantial progress against inflation through policies of
restraint, both fiscal and monetary. There is dramatic proof of this in the fact
that the cost of living rose just .2 of 1 per cent in August 1970--an annual rate
of 2.4 per cent--as compared with a rise of .4 of 1 per cent in August 1968--an
annual rate of 4.8 per cent. The rise in the cost of living in August of this
year was the lowest in 20 months and just one-half what it was in the comparable
month in 1968. And the three-month period of June, July and August 1970 showed the
lowest cost of living rise for any three-month period since the fall of 1967.
While Republicans in Congress have sought to hold down Federal spending to
aid in the fight against inflation, the Democrats have pressed for budget-busting
appropriations.
During the same period that they have sought to escalate Federal spending,
the Democrats have refused to act on President Nixon's plans for financing a
$10 billion Federal-State-local water pollution control program for the construction
of municipal waste treatment facilities over the next four years. The program calls
for the establishment of an Environmental Financing Authority to make sure that all
municipalities needing treatment plants would be able to finance local costs. The
Democrats have even refused to hold hearings on this legislation--and yet some of
their candidates accuse the Administration of lack of action on environmental
problems. President Nixon has promised to put modern waste-treatment plants in
every place needed to make our waters clean again. But he needs the help of a
cooperative Congress to keep that promise.
What of my own record on the environment? In 1965 I voted for the Water Pollution
Control Act and the Air Pollution Control Act; in 1966, for the Water Pollution Cont~
Act and the Clean Air Act; in 1967, for the Clean Air act; in 1968, for establish-
ment of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Water Pollution Control Act;
in 1969, for the Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Air Act, establishment of
the Council on Environmental Quality, the Water Resources Development Act, the
Public Works Appropriation Bill; in 1970, Clean Air Act Amendments, the Clean Air
(more)
-4-
and Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Resource Recovery Act of 1970, and the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1970.
Here are copies of environmental bills I introduced or co-sponsored in the
91st Congress, including a bill to prohibit the dumping of dredgings and other
refuse into the Great Lakes or any navigable water and a bill to establish the
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore.
Here is a list of National Park bills I voted for, with photos of these
national park areas.
Here is a list of Federal grants I was instrumental in obtaining for Kent
and Ionia Counties, including $3,106,837 for additional parklands and $1,480,610
for sewer and water improvements. And this is just for the period 1968 through
1970.
I and other Republicans in Congress have also made the war on crime a top
priority. Here there has been heel-dragging on the part of some Democrats in the
Congress. But despite the heel-dragging, it now appears that the bulk of the
Administration's 13 major anti-crime bills will be enacted into law. To that I say
better late than never.
I sponsored the major anti-crime legislation which has been enacted or is
nearly through both Houses of the Congress--the District of Columbia Omnibus Crime
Bill, which is a model for the Nation; the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1970,
which more than doubles law enforcement aid to States and local communities; and
the Organized Crime Control Act, comprehensive legislation which puts new crime
control tools in the hands of authorities.
Speaking of the war on crime, I might also mention that in 1969 the rise in
the nationwide crime rate was 11 per cent as compared with a 17 per cent rise in
1968. Here is a graph which clearly shows how the rate of increase fell in 1969
in all categories but one.
This year there has been a marked upturn in Federal indictments and
prosecutions of key organized crime figures as a result of the Administration's
stepped up attacks on the syndicate.
This, then, is how Republicans have dealt with the legacy left by the
previous Democratic Administration.
I think we have made substantial progress in the face of tremendous
difficulties. We are on our way to solving problems that have defied the most
generous spenders ever to handle the taxpayers' money. And that is an accomplishment
# # #
all Fifth District Media
+15 copies to mr. Ford
affice Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY--
7:15 p.m., Thursday, October 15, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the West Michigan Association
of Certified Public Accountants.
Better days lie ahead. The indicators generally point to an upturn for the
economy in this quarter, assuming the General Motors strike is not too prolonged.
The revival won't be a sharp upward surge. We are, after all, undergoing
continuing cutbacks in defense work. But the fact remains that the policies of the
national government now are distinctly expansionary. The economy is getting a shove
from both fiscal and monetary policy and is certain to respond.
To understand what is going on in our economy, it is important to realize
that our economic system is making two major adjustments simultaneously. We are
adjusting to a massive decline in defense spending--a 400,000 reduction in military
manpower with p solution in Vietnam--and at the same time the economy is cooling off
from a long period of inflationary overheating.
The adjustment in defense spending is far greater than many people recognize.
From 1969 to mid-1970, defense spending in terms of this year's prices has been
reduced more than $12 billion. By mid-1971 the reductions will approach $20 billion.
This is a massive reordering of national priorities. While some people have
been busy talking about a reordering of our national priorities, President Nixon has
been doing something about it. The proof of this is that for the first time in
20 years, the Federal Government is spending more for human resource programs (41%)
than for national defense (37%). Those are the priorities as spelled out in President
Nixon's fiscal 1971 budget. This stands in sharp contrast to 1962 when the Federal
Government spent 48 per cent of its budget for defense and only 29 per cent for human
resources. Even as recently as 1968, the Federal budget allocated 45 per cent to
national defense and only 32 per cent to human resources.
Unfortunately, some members of Congress are intent upon sharp increases in
Federal spending at a time when the Administration is struggling to break the
inflationary cycle. Excessive federal spending fuels inflation. For my part, I have
consistently opposed federal programs we cannot afford--programs that are not vital
to the national interest.
Now that we have turned the corner on inflation, it is all the more important
that we refrain from giving it another forward shove.
(more)
I think members of Congress should ask themselves a most pertinent question
every time they consider exceeding the President's budgetary requests: Will this
expenditure, when tied to all others, require increased taxes or cause a deficit
which would help bring about an increase in prices? The Congress must examine with
special care any additional spending which would benefit some of the people but would
raise taxes and prices for all of the people.
The health of the economy is definitely improving. One sign of this improve-
ment is the recent drop in the prime interest rate to 7.5 per cent. This brings the
rate to only a half a per cent above the level when President Nixon assumed office.
A review of recent interest rate history shows that the prime interest rate
was only 4.5 per cent in 1964. But deficit spending and escalation of the Vietnam
War touched off an inflation that helped boost the prime interest rate to
7 per cent by 1968--a 55 per cent increase in just four years. The momentum generated
by the whopping $25 billion Federal deficit in 1968 then drove the prime rate up to
8 per cent in 1969.
Now we are seeing present economic policies working. The prime rate is coming
down. This signals decreasing inflationary pressures on our economy. In short, the
prime rate reduction is a step toward stability in the money market and in the
economy generally.
The economy is clearly headed toward recovery. The question no longer is
whether the economy has resumed its growth, but whether the expansion will be rapid
enough to absorb the Nation's growing labor force.
Nationally, employment now stands at 79 million Americans gainfully employed
in the United States, an all-time high for the country.
Unemployment is too high at 5.5 per cent, but this is considerably below the
6.7 per cent unemployment rate of 1961. In 1962, the unemployment rate was
5.5 per cent for the year, the same rate as for the month of September 1970. In 1963
it was 5.7 per cent, higher than at present. In 1964 it was 5.2 per cent, higher
than in August 1970. And only in 1965 did it drop below 5 per cent; it declined to
4.5. But we must remember that it was in February 1965 that then President Lyndon
Johnson began sharply escalating the Vietnam War. So we cannot be proud of the
fact that unemployment dropped at the same time.
The Nixon Administration is determined to fashion genuine prosperity in place
of a false prosperity generated by war and accompanied by nearly runaway inflation.
We have made some painful adjustments, and not all the pain has passed, but
we are now on the road to recovery and a sound prosperity--prosperity without war.
We will travel more quickly along that road to the extent that Americans demonstrate
themselves willing to work toward greater industrial development and new employment
opportunities.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY--
7:15 p.m., Thursday, October 15, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the West Michigan Association
of Certified Public Accountants.
Better days lie ahead. The indicators generally point to an upturn for the
economy in this quarter, assuming the General Motors strike is not too prolonged.
The revival won't be a sharp upward surge. We are, after all, undergoing
continuing cutbacks in defense work. But the fact remains that the policies of the
national government now are distinctly expansionary. The economy is getting a shove
from both fiscal and monetary policy and is certain to respond.
To understand what is going on in our economy, it is important to realize
that our economic system is making two major adjustments simultaneously. We are
adjusting to a massive decline in defense spending--a 400,000 reduction in military
manpower with a solution in Vietnam--and at the same time the economy is cooling off
from a long period of inflationary overheating.
The adjustment in defense spending is far greater than many people recognize.
From 1969 to mid-1970, defense spending in terms of this year's prices has been
reduced more than $12 billion. By mid-1971 the reductions will approach $20 billion.
This is a massive reordering of national priorities. While some people have
been busy talking about a reordering of our national priorities, President Nixon has
been doing something about it. The proof of this is that for the first time in
20 years, the Federal Government is spending more for human resource programs (41%)
than for national defense (37%). Those are the priorities as spelled out in President
Nixon's fiscal 1971 budget. This stands in sharp contrast to 1962 when the Federal
Government spent 48 per cent of its budget for defense and only 29 per cent for human
resources. Even as recently as 1968, the Federal budget allocated 45 per cent to
national defense and only 32 per cent to human resources.
Unfortunately, some members of Congress are intent upon sharp increases in
Federal spending at a time when the Administration is struggling to break the
inflationary cycle. Excessive federal spending fuels inflation. For my part, I have
consistently opposed federal programs we cannot afford--programs that are not vital
to the national interest.
Now that we have turned the corner on inflation, it is all the more important
that we refrain from giving it another forward shove.
(more)
GERALD LIDRARY
I think members of Congress should ask themselves a most pertinent question
every time they consider exceeding the President's budgetary requests: Will this
expenditure, when tied to all others, require increased taxes or cause a deficit
which would help bring about an increase in prices? The Congress must examine with
special care any additional spending which would benefit some of the people but would
raise taxes and prices for all of the people.
The health of the economy is definitely improving. One sign of this improve-
ment is the recent drop in the prime interest rate to 7.5 per cent. This brings the
rate to only a half a per cent above the level when President Nixon assumed office.
A review of recent interest rate history shows that the prime interest rate
was only 4.5 per cent in 1964. But deficit spending and escalation of the Vietnam
War touched off an inflation that helped boost the prime interest rate to
7 per cent by 1968--a 55 per cent increase in just four years. The momentum generated
by the whopping $25 billion Federal deficit in 1968 then drove the prime rate up to
8 per cent in 1969.
Now we are seeing present economic policies working. The prime rate is coming
down. This signals decreasing inflationary pressures on our economy. In short, the
prime rate reduction is a step toward stability in the money market and in the
economy generally.
The economy is clearly headed toward recovery. The question no longer is
whether the economy has resumed its growth, but whether the expansion will be rapid
enough to absorb the Nation's growing labor force.
Nationally, employment now stands at 79 million Americans gainfully employed
in the United States, an all-time high for the country.
Unemployment is too high at 5.5 per cent, but this is considerably below the
6.7 per cent unemployment rate of 1961. In 1962, the unemployment rate was
5.5 per cent for the year, the same rate as for the month of September 1970. In 1963
it was 5.7 per cent, higher than at present. In 1964 it was 5.2 per cent, higher
than in August 1970. And only in 1965 did it drop below 5 per cent; it declined to
4.5. But we must remember that it was in February 1965 that then President Lyndon
Johnson began sharply escalating the Vietnam War. So we cannot be proud of the
fact that unemployment dropped at the same time.
The Nixon Administration is determined to fashion genuine prosperity in place
of a false prosperity generated by war and accompanied by nearly runaway inflation.
We have made some painful adjustments, and not all the pain has passed, but
we are now on the road to recovery and a sound prosperity--prosperity without war.
We will travel more quickly along that road to the extent that Americans demonstrate
themselves willing to work toward greater industrial development and new employment
opportunities.
# # #
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON--
Tuesday, October 20, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Grand Rapids Lions Club
After every major war in which the United States is involved, the American
people express a deep revulsion against things military.
This is most natural but it also has some dire consequences. It resulted in
unilateral disarmament after World War I, which was a factor in bringing on World
War II. We disarmed ourselves again after World War II, which encouraged the
Communists to start the Korean War.
Now we find a similar atmosphere as we wind down the U.S. role in the
Vietnam War.
Assuredly, the Vietnam War has been a most disheartening and disillusioning
experience. But we will be inviting catastrophe if we make it the springboard for
a new round of unilateral disarmament by the United States.
There have been repeated demands for cutbacks in military spending. And we
have sharply reduced our defense budgets while at the same time putting more of our
federal dollars into human resource programs.
We have seen the present Administration reverse our priorities, allocating
41 per cent of our Federal budget to human resource programs as against 37 per cent
for defense. This is a major shift of Federal funds when you consider that as
recently as 1968 we were still spending 44 per cent on defense and only 34 per cent
on human resources. Going back to 1962 we find 48 per cent of the budget targeted
on national defense and only 32 per cent directed to human resource programs.
In recent days we have heard continuing calls for far deeper cuts in national
defense, with these funds to be redirected into a "domestic Marshall Plan."
This is the cry of my opponent in this election, a candidate who appears to
have declared war on the military.
Nowhere does she put a price tag on her "domestic Marshall Plan." Obviously
the sky is the limit, for she says she proposes "a domestic Marshall Plan costing
whatever it costs to rebuild this nation."
At the same time she adopts the position that this rebuilding can be handled
by diverting funds from national defense to domestic needs.
Far be it from me to say that defense spending cannot be cut below the
in the President's fiscal 1971 budget. The House Appropriations Committee has
BERALE figure FORD LIBRARK
reduced that figure by roughly $2 billion, and I concur in that reduction.
I have confidence in the House Appropriations Committee, having served on that
group for 12 years prior to becoming Republican Leader of the House. As a member of
the Appropriations Committee, I had a hand in cutting military budgets by
$14.5 billion during my 12-year tenure.
So military budgets can be cut but they should be cut judiciously, not
chopped at by those who would gamble with our national security.
This is Point No. 1. Point No. 2 is that the kind of money needed to finance
an open-ended domestic Marshall Plan cannot be made available simply by cutting
defense spending. Even the end of the Vietnam War will not produce sufficient sums.
What we can save by withdrawing troops from Vietnam is considerably less than
the full cost of the war.
Measured in fiscal 1971 prices, the full cost of our forces totalled
$30 billion in fiscal 1968. Of that amount, some $7 billion represented the cost
that would have been incurred for "baseline" forces if they had been engaged in
peacetime activities elsewhere. This means that the cost directly attributable to
Vietnam was $23 billion.
Second, we have reduced defense spending by almost $18 billion in terms of
1971 prices. That leaves only $5 billion to $6 billion to be realized as a "peace
dividend" once our role in Vietnam is closed out. This sum is only about half of
the Vietnam War cost that will still face us in May 1971 after the withdrawals of
265,500 troops announced so far have been accomplished. This means that we actually
will have overdrawn the "peace dividend" by some $5 billion before the end of fiscal
1971-and only by deferring or reducing other programs.
Perhaps relatively few Americans recognize the size of the cutbacks already
made in national defense.
Our military forces numbered 3.5 million in mid-1968. We will have reduced
them to 2.9 million by mid-1971, a reduction of 639,000.
The Defense Department has dropped 142,000 civilians from its payroll, and
defense contractors have laid off 1.4 million.
This means that total direct employment in defense activities--civilian and
military will have dropped by some 2.1 million between the middle of 1968 and mid-1971
To get back to my opponent and her domestic Marshall Plan, I point out that she
is also calling for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam and huge quantities of economic
aid for a "unified Vietnam." She says nothing about how the vast outlays for such
economic aid would affect the availability of funds for her domestic Marshall Plan.
I submit that my opponent simply has not thought things through. Either that
or she is really calling for massive deficit spending.
# # #
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON--
Tuesday, October 20, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Grand Rapids Lions Club
After every major war in which the United States is involved, the American
people express a deep revulsion against things military.
This is most natural but it also has some dire consequences. It resulted in
unilateral disarmament after World War I, which was a factor in bringing on World
War II. We disarmed ourselves again after World War II, which encouraged the
Communists to start the Korean War.
Now we find a similar atmosphere as we wind down the U.S. role in the
Vietnam War.
Assuredly, the Vietnam War has been a most disheartening and disillusioning
experience. But we will be inviting catastrophe if we make it the springboard for
a new round of unilateral disarmament by the United States.
There have been repeated demands for cutbacks in military spending. And we
have sharply reduced our defense budgets while at the same time putting more of our
federal dollars into human resource programs.
We have seen the present Administration reverse our priorities, allocating
41 per cent of our Federal budget to human resource programs as against 37 per cent
for defense. This is a major shift of Federal funds when you consider that as
recently as 1968 we were still spending 44 per cent on defense and only 34 per cent
on human resources. Going back to 1962 we find 48 per cent of the budget targeted
on national defense and only 32 per cent directed to human resource programs.
In recent days we have heard continuing calls for far deeper cuts in national
defense, with these funds to be redirected into a "domestic Marshall Plan."
This is the cry of my opponent in this election, a candidate who appears to
have declared war on the military.
Nowhere does she put a price tag on her "domestic Marshall Plan." Obviously
the sky is the limit, for she says she proposes "a domestic Marshall Plan costing
whatever it costs to rebuild this nation."
At the same time she adopts the position that this rebuilding can be handled
by diverting funds from national defense to domestic needs.
Far be it from me to say that defense spending cannot be cut below the figure
in the President's fiscal 1971 budget. The House Appropriations Committee has
GERALD
LIBRARI
reduced that figure by roughly $2 billion, and I concur in that reduction.
I have confidence in the House Appropriations Committee, having served on that
group for 12 years prior to becoming Republican Leader of the House. As a member of
the Appropriations Committee, I had a hand in cutting military budgets by
$14.5 billion during my 12-year tenure.
So military budgets can be cut but they should be cut judiciously, not
chopped at by those who would gamble with our national security.
This is Point No. 1. Point No. 2 is that the kind of money needed to finance
an open-ended domestic Marshall Plan cannot be made available simply by cutting
defense spending. Even the end of the Vietnam War will not produce sufficient sums.
What we can save by withdrawing troops from Vietnam is considerably less than
the full cost of the war.
Measured in fiscal 1971 prices, the full cost of our forces totalled
$30 billion in fiscal 1968. Of that amount, some $7 billion represented the cost
that would have been incurred for "baseline" forces if they had been engaged in
peacetime activities elsewhere. This means that the cost directly attributable to
Vietnam was $23 billion.
Second, we have reduced defense spending by almost $18 billion in terms of
1971 prices. That leaves only $5 billion to $6 billion to be realized as a "peace
dividend" once our role in Vietnam is closed out. This sum is only about half of
the Vietnam War cost that will still face us in May 1971 after the withdrawals of
265,500 troops announced so far have been accomplished. This means that we actually
will have overdrawn the "peace dividend" by some $5 billion before the end of fiscal
1971-and only by deferring or reducing other programs.
Perhaps relatively few Americans recognize the size of the cutbacks already
made in national defense.
Our military forces numbered 3.5 million in mid-1968. We will have reduced
them to 2.9 million by mid-1971, a reduction of 639,000.
The Defense Department has dropped 142,000 civilians from its payroll, and
defense contractors have laid off 1.4 million.
This means that total direct employment in defense activities--civiliar and
military will have dropped by some 2.1 million between the middle of 1968 and mid-1971
To get back to my opponent and her domestic Marshall Plan, I point out that she
is also calling for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam and huge quantities of economic
aid for a "unified Vietnam." She says nothing about how the vast outlays for such
economic aid would affect the availability of funds for her domestic Marshall Plan.
I submit that my opponent simply has not thought things through. Either that
or she is really calling for massive deficit spending.
# # #
Office Copy
NEWS RELEASE
AMERICANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ACTION
20 E STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON 1, D.C.
737-0937
Charles A. McManus, Executive Director
FOR RELEASE: October 22, 1970
WASHINGTON, D. C. -- Michigan's United States 5th District Congressman
Gerald R. Ford was endorsed for re-election today by ACA (Americans for
Constitutional Action). The non-partisan National organization, headquartered
here, said it was endorsing Ford because of his consistent voting record for
constitutional principles.
Charles A. McManus, President of ACA, stated, "Jerry Ford is best
judged by his performance during the 22 years which he has served in the
House. His legislative record gives factual evidence of his valuable and
unselfish service to our Nation."
He has repeatedly stood for fiscal responsibility; firm responsible
opposition to the Communists; and for law and order in our streets and
institutions of learning.
Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA) periodically rates all Members
of Congress on issues which are of major National importance and adherence to
constitutional principles. ACA's President stated, "If every Member of Congress
voted as Congressman Ford, there would be little or no Federal debt, inflation
would not be a problem, our National military strength would not be in question,
Americans would be paying lower taxes, and our wives and children would not be
in constant fear for their safety."
Mr. McManus cited Congressman Ford's voting record as outstanding. "He
puts the interest of the United States first and works continually for the
preservation of constitutional government."
The endorsement of ACA brings to the Congressman the support of highly
distinguished citizens, Democrats, Republicans and Independents, who are
Members of ACA's Board of Trustees.
##########
all Fifth District only
Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
Issued Friday, October 23, 1970
The Federal Government will provide Kent County colleges with $205,500 for
the period Jan. 1 through June 30, 1971, for continuation of a work-study program
benefiting 543 students, Congressman Gerald R. Ford reported today.
Ford noted that these Federal funds cover 80 per cent of student payrolls,
with the college or an off-campus agency putting up the remaining 20 per cent.
Nationwide the work-study program grants for the six-month period involved total
$85,755,491. An estimated 268,158 students will benefit.
Kent County schools and their participation in the program: Calvin College,
$62,000 in Federal funds, 194 students benefiting; Grand Valley State College,
$53,000, 166 students; Grand Rapids Junior College, $45,000, 141 students; Aquinas
College, $25,000, 78 students; Davenport College of Business, $17,000, 53 students;
and Grand Rapids Baptist College and Seminary, $3,500, 11 students.
###
GERALD LIBRARY R FORD
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
Issued Friday, October 23, 1970
The Federal Government will provide Kent County colleges with $205,500 for
the period Jan. 1 through June 30, 1971, for continuation of a work-study program
benefiting 543 students, Congressman Gerald R. Ford reported today.
Ford noted that these Federal funds cover 80 per cent of student payrolls,
with the college or an off-campus agency putting up the remaining 20 per cent.
Nationwide the work-study program grants for the six-month period involved total
$85,755,491. An estimated 268,158 students will benefit.
Kent County schools and their participation in the program: Calvin College,
$62,000 in Federal funds, 194 students benefiting; Grand Valley State College,
$53,000, 166 students; Grand Rapids Junior College, $45,000, 141 students; Aquinas
College, $25,000, 78 students; Davenport College of Business, $17,000, 53 students;
and Grand Rapids Baptist College and Seminary, $3,500, 11 students.
###
LIBRARY
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON MONDAY--
October 26, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Grand Rapids Exchange Club
What of the environmental crisis?
We must declare war on environmental pollution, and it is a war we must win.
But we must pursue a grand strategy in waging that war, not engage in a targetting
of industry which will wreck our economic machine and throw thousands of people out
of work.
Meeting the environmental crisis will be a test more severe than any other
for business and industry.
I agree with those who set tough goals for industry to reach--who seek a
pollution-free automobile engine by 1975 or 1976, for instance. But we have made
significant progress in meeting the problem, and the automotive industry has
committed itself to solving the pollution problem at the earliest possible time.
I'm betting that the men in Detroit or Bill Lear, the engineering genius who
is developing a steam turbine car, will lick the automotive pollution problem for us.
There is a critical need today to bring man into harmony with nature. But I
don't think we should do it by declaring war on industry and shutting off all
economic progress.
We need a partnership between government and business. In fact, we need a
network of partnerships in the war against pollution--between government and business.
between the Federal Government and the state and local governments, between government
and the individual citizen.
Working together we can meet the environmental crisis. Working against each
other, we can only come to grief.
We should adopt the 37-point anti-pollution program President Nixon sent to
Congress last February. I sponsored all seven of the Administration's major anti-
pollution bills. It would be helpful if the majority party in Congress would at
least hold hearings on my Environmental Financing Authority bill which is designed
to help finance the State and local share of waste treatment plants.
I am proud of my record on environmental issues. I have voted in favor of
every practical anti-pollution measure during my entire stay in the Congress. And
I have had a hand in bringing nearly $1.5 million to Kent and Ionia Counties for
sewer and water improvements and $3.1 million for more parklands. I'll gladly stand
on that record.
###
GERALD
LIBRARY
Fifth District
O Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON MONDAY--
October 26, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Grand Rapids Exchange Club
What of the environmental crisis?
We must declare war on environmental pollution, and it is a war we must win.
But we must pursue a grand strategy in waging that war, not engage in a targetting
of industry which will wreck our economic machine and throw thousands of people out
of work.
Meeting the environmental crisis will be a test more severe than any other
for business and industry.
I agree with those who set tough goals for industry to reach--who seek a
pollution-free automobile engine by 1975 or 1976, for instance. But we have made
significant progress in meeting the problem, and the automotive industry has
committed itself to solving the pollution problem at the earliest possible time.
I'm betting that the men in Detroit or Bill Lear, the engineering genius who
is developing a steam turbine car, will lick the automotive pollution problem for us.
There is a critical need today to bring man into harmony with nature. But I
don't think we should do it by declaring war on industry and shutting off all
economic progress.
We need a partnership between government and business. In fact, we need a
network of partnerships in the war against pollution--between government and business,
between the Federal Government and the state and local governments, between government
and the individual citizen.
Working together we can meet the environmental crisis. Working against each
other, we can only come to grief.
We should adopt the 37-point anti-pollution program President Nixon sent to
Congress last February. I sponsored all seven of the Administration's major anti-
pollution bills. It would be helpful if the majority party in Congress would at
least hold hearings on my Environmental Financing Authority bill which is designed
to help finance the State and local share of waste treatment plants.
I am proud of my record on environmental issues. I have voted in favor of
every practical anti-pollution measure during my entire stay in the Congress. And
I have had a hand in bringing nearly $1.5 million to Kent and Ionia Counties for
sewer and water improvements and $3.1 million for more parklands. I'll gladly stand
on that record.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 7 P.M. TUESDAY-------
October 27, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Grandville Jaycees
We are today witnessing the most progressive and far-reaching Federal attack
on drug abuse ever undertaken in the United States.
The attack is two-pronged--legislative and administrative.
Legislatively, the Congress has just completed action on the most
comprehensive drug abuse prevention and control bill ever written.
Administratively, the Nixon Administration has embarked on the most sweeping
effort ever launched to curb the drug traffic in this country and choke off sources
of supply.
One of the most dramatic developments in the war against dope was the nation-
wide raid earlier this year in which 139 persons were arrested in 10 different cities.
That was the largest narcotics raid in the history of this country. It is estimated
that the ring which was broken up had handled 30 per cent of all heroin sales in
the United States and 75 to 80 per cent of all cocaine sales.
Ever since taking office, President Nixon has directed a stepped-up campaign
against the illicit traffic in hard drugs, aimed chiefly at peddlers who are trading
in young lives.
Moving against sources of supply, the Administration has negotiated with the
governments of Turkey, France and Mexico to enlist their support in cutting off the
flow of heroin.
Most recently France has joined with the United States in a drive to curb the
narcotics traffic flowing from Turkey to France via the Mediterranean and thence
across the Atlantic. About 80 per cent of the heroin reaching the United States
comes from opium shipped illegally from Turkey and processed in Southern France.
The French Embassy has informed me that 380 new recruits have been assigned
to narcotics control duty in France since 1969, and 5,000 agents of the Customs
Service Gendarmerie and National Police Force have received basic training in the
drug problem and drug detection methods.
The accelerated French effort has resulted in the indictment of 311 trafficker:
in drugs and the apprehension of 1,400 drug users. French authorities have seized
1,290 pounds of opium, 286 pounds of morphine, 143 pounds of heroin and 586 pounds
of marihuana in the past 12 months.
(more)
This type of program is the most effective way of preventing illegal drugs
from reaching the U.S. market. If we can stop the production and exportation of
illegal narcotics from foreign nations, we will have made great progress toward
combatting the drug abuse problem at home.
Meantime the Congress has passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970, completing action on it a little earlier this month. President
Nixon had sought passage of this legislation in a message to Congress more than
14 months ago, so I would say the Congress acted a bit tardily.
But now we have the legislation and it promises to be a tremendous help in
meeting the drug problem.
The new drug control legislation has three principal objectives: To deter
drug abuse through improved drug abuse prevention and control and through expanded
educational programs; to provide improved rehabilitation treatment of drug abusers;
and to encourage research into the causes of drug abuse.
The program called for by the new legislation is most ambitious but it is
mandatory if we are to deal effectively with the crisis of drug abuse which is
sweeping our Nation.
The new drug control legislation gets tougher with the peddler and pusher
while seeking to rehabilitate the user and warn away the potential user.
The educational provisions of the new legislation are among the most important
In the ultimate, the success of the war on drugs will depend on the extent and
quality of the education effort engaged in by the Government and private organizations
combined. This is why the work being done locally by Project Rehab is so vital.
The new legislation authorizes grants and contracts by the Secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare, first, for the collection, preparation and dissemina-
tion of educational materials on drug use and abuse; and, second, for the development
and evaluation of programs of drug abuse education directed at the general public,
school-age children, and special high-risk groups.
In addition to these responsibilities, the HEW Secretary will train persons
to organize and participate in programs of public drug abuse education; coordinate
Federal efforts in drug abuse education; and provide technical assistance to the
States and local communities regarding drug abuse education programs.
The use of drugs presents a danger not only to the individual but to the
community in general. Drug abuse is a primary cause of the enormous increase in
street crimes in the last decade. And so in moving against drug abuse, we are
also moving against crime.
The job of curbing drug abuse will be a long hard one, for the Nation must
repair damage incurred by years of neglect of the drug war.
# # #
all I ifth District only
Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 7 P.M. TUESDAY--
October 27, 1970
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Grandville Jaycees
We are today witnessing the most progressive and far-reaching Federal attack
on drug abuse ever undertaken in the United States.
The attack is two-pronged--legislative and administrative.
Legislatively, the Congress has just completed action on the most
comprehensive drug abuse prevention and control bill ever written.
Administratively, the Nixon Administration has embarked on the most sweeping
effort ever launched to curb the drug traffic in this country and choke off sources
of supply.
One of the most dramatic developments in the war against dope was the nation-
wide raid earlier this year in which 139 persons were arrested in 10 different cities.
That was the largest narcotics raid in the history of this country. It is estimated
that the ring which was broken up had handled 30 per cent of all heroin sales in
the United States and 75 to 80 per cent of all cocaine sales.
Ever since taking office, President Nixon has directed a stepped-up campaign
against the illicit traffic in hard drugs, aimed chiefly at peddlers who are trading
in young lives.
Moving against sources of supply, the Administration has negotiated with the
governments of Turkey, France and Mexico to enlist their support in cutting off the
flow of heroin.
Most recently France has joined with the United States in a drive to curb the
narcotics traffic flowing from Turkey to France via the Mediterranean and thence
across the Atlantic. About 80 per cent of the heroin reaching the United States
comes from opium shipped illegally from Turkey and processed in Southern France.
The French Embassy has informed me that 380 new recruits have been assigned
to narcotics control duty in France since 1969, and 5,000 agents of the Customs
Service Gendarmerie and National Police Force have received basic training in the
drug problem and drug detection methods.
The accelerated French effort has resulted in the indictment of 311 trafficker:
in drugs and the apprehension of 1,400 drug users. French authorities have seized
1,290 pounds of opium, 286 pounds of morphine, 143 pounds of heroin and 586 pounds
of marihuana in the past 12 months.
(more)
This type of program is the most effective way of preventing illegal drugs
from reaching the U.S. market. If we can stop the production and exportation of
illegal narcotics from foreign nations, we will have made great progress toward
combatting the drug abuse problem at home.
Meantime the Congress has passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970, completing action on it a little earlier this month. President
Nixon had sought passage of this legislation in a message to Congress more than
14 months ago, so I would say the Congress acted a bit tardily.
But now we have the legislation and it promises to be a tremendous help in
meeting the drug problem.
The new drug control legislation has three principal objectives: To deter
drug abuse through improved drug abuse prevention and control and through expanded
educational programs; to provide improved rehabilitation treatment of drug abusers;
and to encourage research into the causes of drug abuse.
The program called for by the new legislation is most ambitious but it is
mandatory if we are to deal effectively with the crisis of drug abuse which is
sweeping our Nation.
The new drug control legislation gets tougher with the peddler and pusher
while seeking to rehabilitate the user and warn away the potential user.
The educational provisions of the new legislation are among the most important.
In the ultimate, the success of the war on drugs will depend on the extent and
quality of the education effort engaged in by the Government and private organizations
combined. This is why the work being done locally by Project Rehab is so vital.
The new legislation authorizes grants and contracts by the Secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare, first, for the collection, preparation and dissemina-
tion of educational materials on drug use and abuse; and, second, for the development
and evaluation of programs of drug abuse education directed at the general public,
school-age children, and special high-risk groups.
In addition to these responsibilities, the HEW Secretary will train persons
to organize and participate in programs of public drug abuse education; coordinate
Federal efforts in drug abuse education; and provide technical assistance to the
States and local communities regarding drug abuse education programs.
The use of drugs presents a danger not only to the individual but to the
community in general. Drug abuse is a primary cause of the enormous increase in
street crimes in the last decade. And so in moving against drug abuse, we are
also moving against crime.
The job of curbing drug abuse will be a long hard one, for the Nation must
repair damage incurred by years of neglect of the drug war.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON WEDNESDAY--
October 28, 1970
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the South Kent Exchange Club
Legislation which puts together an organized assault against organized crime
and bombings in this country has become Federal law.
This legislation, S. 30, is one of the greatest achievements of the 91st
Congress and a major accomplishment of the Nixon Administration. There is credit
enough for everybody, and credit is due. My only criticism is that the legislation
should have been passed months earlier.
Apart from giving authorities new tools to fight organized crime, the new
Organized Crime Control Act also zeroes in on bombings, arson and other criminal
acts which threaten to turn our citadels of learning into citadels of violence.
I sponsored the anti-bombing provisions which were written into the Organized
Crine Control Act of 1970, in addition to sponsoring other anti-crime measures which
became part of the omnibus crime control bill. I am most pleased that my
legislation has been enacted into law.
Let me impress upon you how critical the campus violence situation has become.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover has informed me that the Students for A Democratic
Society, during the last academic year, alone was directly involved in 247 arson
cases, 462 personal injury incidents and more than 300 other episodes of destruction.
Such acts--the most recent at the University of Wisconsin where a student
died in a bomb blast--cannot be allowed to continue. Those responsible must be
tracked down. And the law enforcement agency best suited to that job is the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. I was therefore glad to give my support to the President's
request for 1,000 more FBI agents to investigate campus bombings and arson as well
as to help combat airplane hijackings.
As you know, the FBI now will investigate bombings and arson at all colleges
receiving any form of Federal aid, and that includes virtually all of them.
Under the Organized Crime Control Act just enacted into law, Federal lawmen
will be able to move swiftly and forcefully against terrorist bombers and other
segments of the criminal world.
Not only does the anti-bombing provision cover government buildings and nearly
FORD
all college campuses, it also applies to police stations where the City is receiving
(more)
LIBRARY
funds under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act as is the case in Grand Rapids.
The new Organized Crime Control Act is of course primarily designed to combat
organized crime.
Basically, it provides for new perjury and contempt procedures calculated to
induce reluctant witnesses to testify and it provides stiffer jail terms for
habitual criminals.
The first five titles of the Act are designed to accomplish one purpose: To
get the facts needed to obtain indictments and convictions.
The new law establishes special grand juries which may exercise more
independence in fulfilling their duties and may sit for up to 36 months. The grand
jury may compel witnesses to talk by guaranteeing their testimony will not be used
against them. If they refuse to talk, they may be held in contempt. If they talk
but lie, they may be tried for perjury. And if the witness puts his life in jeopardy
by talking the Government will protect him and even try to relocate him.
Titles VI and VII of the new law facilitate the actual trial of organized
criminals.
Title VI allows the Government to take a deposition of a Government witness
and use it at the trial if the witness for certain reasons will not be available to
testify in person. This not only protects the Government's case but the witness as
well.
Title VII rules out litigation involving claims of illegal electronic
surveillance by the Government--surveillance which could not have possibly produced
evidence for the prosecution.
Title VIII makes a Federal crime of large-scale gambling operations which are
in violation of State law.
Title IX makes it unlawful to engage in a pattern of racketeering activity as
a means of acquiring, maintaining or conducting a business.
Title X establishes a pre-sentencing procedure for determining whether a
convicted defendant is an habitual, professional, or organized criminal-- and provides
an extended sentence for such an offender.
Title XI is the anti-bombing part of the new crime control law.
I do not claim that the new Organized Crime Control Act is a panacea for our
criminal ills. I do not claim we will solve all of our crime problems simply by
having enacted this legislation. But I do believe it will enable local, State and
Federal law enforcement officials and our court system to deal more effectively with
the problem of organized crime.
I have been most anxious to give law enforcement officials the tools to get
the job done. This I believe the Congress has accomplished by enacting the
Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.
# # #
Fifth District mailed 12/2/70 a.m.
O Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE WEDNESDAY, DEC. 9, AND THEREAFTER
Congressman Gerald Ford announced today that he has for distribution in
Kent and Ionia Counties about 700 pictorial 1971 calendars and about 100
two-year (1971-72) wall calendars. Requests made to Ford's Grand Rapids office
at 425 Cherry Street, S.E. (telephone: 456-9747) or to him at the House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C., will be honored as long as the supply lasts.
The pictorial calendar entitled "We, the People," contains thirteen full
colored pictures of scenes in the national capital. The two-year calendar is the
more traditional type with one picture of the capitol building.
###
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD