Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to Douglas MacArthur, Harry Truman.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525432
label
Ford Newsletter, Apr.-June 1951
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525432
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Newsletter, Apr.-June 1951
description
This file contains material relating to Douglas MacArthur, Harry Truman.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Newsletters
subjects
Great Britain
Commerce
Economic stabilization
Electricity
Foreign aid
Korean War, 1950-1953
Legislation
Waterways
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525432
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1951-06-30
month
6
year
1951
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1951-04-01
month
4
year
1951
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
633dc505f03eb902
ocrText
This document scanned from Box D1 of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
For Release April 5, 1951
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW
BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
The week following Easter brought many visitors from home, particularly
high school students including ninth graders from Ottawa Hills and a group from
nine schools with Reverend Hauserman and his wife. The House of Representatives
was in recess so we were able to spend quite a bit of time with the visitors.
* * *
The lull in House legislative matters didn't interfere with Senate
activity or official functions of an international flavor. The President of
France came to town and a full-blown parade with all the fanfare marked the
occasion. About 250,000 Washingtonians lined the streets to see Mr. Truman,
President Auriol, the cadets from West Point, the midshipmen from Annapolis, and
a number of other units of the Armed Forces. It was encouraging to hear the
leader of France say his country would stand with America in defense of peace and
liberty. He said it with a convincing firmness.
* # *
The 21 foreign ministers of all the North and South American republics
convened in Washington to discuss the problems of hemispheric defense. The
opening session of this gathering was held at Constitution Hall. Betty and I had
invitations so took in this interesting event. President Truman gave the opening
address followed by a speech by the Foreign Minister of Brasil. Half of the
audience' could understand English and without any interpreter could understand
Mr. Truman. However, when Ambassador Fontura of Brazil spoke we had to rely on
gadgets similar to those used at the meetings of the United Nations.
To understand the speech in a foreign language you put on a set of head-
phones and tune in to an interpreter who gives you a simultaneous translation.
When President Truman spoke the South Americans who didn't understand the English
language wore the mechanical headdress just as we had done.
From all indications the American Republics will get together on a
mutual defense plan along the lines already being followed in the North Atlantic
Treaty alliance. Until now each of the Latin American nations has built up its
Army, Navy and Air forces with an eye to its national pride or its national defense
alone. Our U. S. officials in conjunction with five South American representatives
have submitted a resolution calling for an integrated program for the collective
GERALD
Your Washington Review - Page 2
April 5, 1951
defense of this hemisphere. Argentina isn't too enthusiastic; in addition to
the six sponsors others are more or less favorable.
* * *
If it were possible to be entirely unconcerned, one might get a chuckle
at the problems the British government is having in Iran. Britain, which has had
a Socialist government for five years, has been nationalizing its own basic in-
dustries. Recently Iran decided to nationalize its oil industry, including the
British-owned oil fields in that country. Prime Minister Attlee and his Labor
Government officials in England don't like the socialization of the oil industry
in Iran, even though Attlee socialized steel and other industries in Britain.
Guess one's point of view varies depending on whose industries are being gored.
* * *
From now until early fall the House and Senate will be in continuous
session. Before there is any vacation for Congressmen the President wants a
new tax increase bill, authority to spend 98 billion, changes in the Selective
Service Act, and a new price and wage control law. It's a heavy schedule, so
unless the legislative tempo increases, the Fords probably won't be home until
Christmas.
* * *
VISITORS: This past week we've had lots of friends in Washington.
Mrs. Mary Milanowski of Grand Rapids was here with Rita Milanowski, Marcia
Milanowski (Mike's daughter), and Rosemary Hermann, visiting John and seeing
the sights. Also down from Grand Rapids for spring vacation were Esther Thomasma,
Jacoba Dalebout, Anna Baar, Elsie Tracey, Helen Williams, Lt. and Mrs. Wendell
P. Rehkopf. W. W. Hoagland and also Mr. and Mrs. George Yonkman, all of Grand
Rapids, were here on business. Visiting from Holland was the Edward Damson
family, Mr. and Mrs. Lyman J. Sicard, Miss Ella A. Hawkinson, and Mr. and Mrs.
Alvin Vander Bush. Emil Gaul of Grand Haven is here on business.
For release April 12, 1951
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW
BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
This past week has been a rough one in our Congressional office. The
hours in each day have been far too few to get all the work done on time. In
fact, almost missed my deadline on the weekly column.
For example, my subcommittee on Appropriations has been listening to
the testimony by the Army Engineers as General Pick and Colonel Potter attempt to
justify proposed expenditures totaling $624 million. Our group of five Congress-
men holds hearings from 10 a.m. to noon and from 2 to 5 p.m. In a period of one
week the Army Engineers have given facts and figures on 29 out of approximately
130 river, harbor and flood control projects. It will probably take two to three
weeks more to finish this testimony and then the committee listens to the group
from all over the country who come to plead for a home town harbor or flood control
project.
Some will say, "That isn't much of a schedule for a Congressman--only five
hours a day." Folks should know, however, that while our hearings are taking place
the House itself is in session each day from noon until 5 or 6 p.m. Since one
can't be in committee hearings and on the floor at the same time, I have to read
the House debate in the Congressional Record. In addition, there is the regular
administrative work in the office plus the daily correspondence which must be
answered. Your Congressman isn't objecting to the situation-just explaining why
there may be some slight delay in responding to your letters.
* * *
Had a visitor from home in the office last week who asked, "Jerry, what
do you know about all these huge river, harbor and flood control projects that the
Army Engineers are presenting to your committee?" My knowledge and information
comes from two sources. During the 81st Congress I served on the Committee on
Public Works. This committee didn't appropriate the funds but did investigate to
determine whether or not any new projects should be authorized by law.
The rest of my background comes from an analysis of the material which the
Army Engineers present both before and during the hearings. Fortunately, I have on
my staff for a three-month period Professor Brainard of Michigan State College, who
spends all his time reviewing the data from the Engineers. Professor Brainard and
GERALD FORD
Your Washington Review - page 2
April 12, 1951
I go over each project before the Engineers make their oral presentation to the
committee. On the basis of our previous conference I quiz General Pick and
Colonel Potter just like a lawyer in a court trial goes after an adverse witness.
If there are any weaknesses in the individual cases presented by the Army Engineers,
and some have turned up, it is my job and the responsibility of the other committee
members to bring out the facts. As you know, it's the obligation of Members of
Congress to know where the taxpayers' money is to be spent and this is the only
way one can find out.
# # *
If anyone wants a cookbook prepared by the Department of Agriculture,
drop me a line. Just ask for a booklet entitled "Family Fare." I took a copy
home to Betty a few months ago and she uses it extensively in our home. I can
testify that the meals are good, nourishing and of the thrifty type.
* * *
The Congress, by public resolution, has designated April as Cancer Control
Month, and the President has issued a proclamation calling upon all of our people
to help bring this vicious disease under control. Cancer strikes on the average
in one out of every two families. Every day 575 Americans die of cancer.
Certainly we will all want to help do something about this terrible disease. We
can do something about it, for under the leadership of the American Cancer Society
we can furnish the money necessary for the world's foremost scientists and medical
men to devote their full time to finding the cause of and cure for cancer.
Join the 1951 Cancer Crusade. Contact the local solicitors and make your
contribution to this worthwhile cause.
* * *
VISITORS: All Grand Rapids folks this week. Mrs. Leonard H. Verschoor is
visiting in Washington. Abe Ghysel's son Dave was here on an educational tour from
Annapolis. Mr. and Mrs. B. S. Montague are here for 2. few weeks en route back from
Florida, and Carl McManamy and Britt Gordon were here on a short business trip.
GERALD
For release April 26, 1951
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW
BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
In the short period of three days the nation paid high tribute to a great
military man, General Douglas MacArthur, and mourned the loss of another patriot of
heroic stature--Senator Arthur Vandenberg. The achievements of both men are in-
delibly written on the pages of history. It is tragic that in this perilous hour
the free people of the world no longer have the benefit of the Senator's leadership
in the Congress and the General's vast skill, knowledge and integrity in the high
councils of the military.
*
The passing of Senator Vandenberg brought sadness to all and a feeling of
irreparable loss. It was fitting that so many dignitaries from Vice President
Barkley on down should come to his home for the final services. The Senator has
departed but his work will forever be a guiding light for the generations to follow.
His death is a tragic loss to all the free people of the world. He served the
nation he loved so well far beyond the call of duty.
* * *
Undoubtedly most of you heard or saw through radio and television General
MacArthur's historic speech before a joint meeting of the Congress. The emotional
reaction to the speech among members of the House and Senate was undoubtedly similar
to your own. It was the General's day and rightly SO.
Many friends have asked me whether the Democrats of the Congress applauded
the General's remarks. Frankly, I didn't spend much of my time watching the actions
of my Democratic colleagues during the 37 minutes General MacArthur spoke. It was
my general impression, however, that the Democrats of the House and Senate on all
but three or four occasions did applaud. The General's speech, given without rancor
or bitterness, was so fair and logical that only the extreme pro-Trumanites could
take exception.
The bombshell in the speech was General MacArthur's statement that "from a
military standpoint his views have been fully shared by practically every military
leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff."
The General spoke these words with pointed emphasis. It was apparent that he was
Your Washington Review - Page 2
April 26, 1951
disgusted with the recent statements of General Bradley, head of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff. General Bradley of late has been echoing the words, phrases and policies
of President Truman and Secretary Acheson. It is well known that General MacArthur
has documentary proof that the Joint Chiefs supported his military policies.
Obviously, it shocked General MacArthur to find General Bradley now reversing his
field under White House pressure. Congress must investigate this situation for it
is unsound to have the Secretary of State making military policies and decisions
where American lives are at stake.
I hope and trust General Bradley has not become a "me-tooer" to the President
and Secretary Acheson. General MacArthur, when he is called to testify before
Congressional committees will give his own honest views. Bradley should do the same.
Too often in the past witnesses from various branches of the Armed Forces,
when questioned by Congress have failed to raise their voices in opposition to
programs and policies which they considered detrimental to the best interests of
the United States. In many cases, their reluctance to speak their convictions has
been conditioned by the practice of President Truman and Secretary Acheson of taking
immediate and violent reprisals against those who dared to disagree. Admiral Denfeld
spoke his convictions to the Congress-he is on the retired list today. A distin-
guished American Surgeon, Admiral Boone, spoke his beliefs. He was retired. General
Edson of the Marine Corps disagreed with the present bosses in the Administration
and dared to tell the Congress so. Edson is now retired. In other words, any critic
of Administration policies within the government lives under the shadow of the ax.
As shown by the MacArthur-Truman incident, the American public admires a person who
is willing to sacrifice a personal career for the best interests of the entire nation.
* # *
The great tributes paid to General MacArthur and the reaction against the
President have resulted primarily from a long pent-up disgust with White House poli-
cies. Mr. Truman is judged as an appeaser in the eyes of the public. He tolerates
White House aides who are mixed up with R.F.C. scandals. He has been soft with men
like Alger Hiss and other communist sympathizers. He dismissed General MacArthur
who was the symbol of anti-communism in the Far East.
General MacArthur could not compromise principle for expediency. He stands
for a strong virile America and we Americans must honor and respect him for his great
service to our country and for his selfless devotion to duty.
GERALD
For release May 3, 1951
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW
BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
Last week I attended a small dinner with 15 other Congressmen at which
Mr. Eric Johnston, Administrator of the Economic Stabilization Agency, was the
guest speaker. Frankly, after listening to the problems confronting him I am
convinced he has one of the toughest civilian jobs in the nation. It's the res-
ponsibility of Eric Johnston under the Defense Production Act of 1950 to keep labor,
management, agriculture and all other segments of our population on an equal economic
status during this emergency. He has a thankless job. Organized labor is mad be-
cause he won't approve all contracts for wage increases. Businessmen lambast him
because he restricts their profit margins and mark-ups. Farm groups berate him be-
cause he imposes certain ceilings on agricultural products, particularly on cotton.
During the question and answer period after his speech a Congressman
asked Mr. Johnston why he took the government job when he was receiving a salary of
175 thousand dollars a year as boss of the motion picture industry. His reply might
well be an example to all of us. He said his son-in-law was a corporal in the Army
in Korea and if someone in his family could make such sacrifices then he felt it
was his duty to his country to accept such a job with all its headaches.
Does Eric Johnston believe in permanent controls? Definitely not. As
head of the Economic Stabilization Agency he believes controls will be necessary for
two years at the most. Controls to prevent further inflation are essential now
while the Armed Forces get the necessary guns, tanks and aircraft, but once our
productive capacity is increased the need for regimentation will cease. Let's hope
SO. In the meantime, let's remember that although we may not like the various
government regulations the sacrifices we are making at home are small in comparison
to the sacrifices the G.I.'s are enduring on the battlefields in Korea.
I was very interested in Mr. Johnston's further recommendations for the
stabilization of our economy. In his estimation the U.S. must in the next two years
increase its productive capacity. He gave some convincing figures to show that our
supplies of steel, rubber and other commodities will be expanded tremendously in
the months ahead.
Second, Mr. Johnston advocates a sound fiscal policy for the federal
government. With that I wholeheartedly agree. Until Uncle Sam balances his budget
inflation will increase. Right now the House Committee on Appropriations is doing
its level best to achieve a balanced budget. So far the Committee and the House
Your Washington Review - Page 2
May 3, 1951
as a whole has made some sizeable cuts in President Truman's budget and we intend to
continue hammering away. As you probably noticed, my amendment to cut 5½ million
dollars from the funds of the Bonneville Power Administration was approved 110 to
91. This is just a bite in the over-all total, but by nicking away at every item
as we go along the Congress can reduce substantially the outrageous budget of
President Truman. So far I have voted for every cut in the President's budget
affecting non-defense agencies, and it is my intention to carry out such a policy
in the future.
Here's the story on my amendment. The Bonneville Power Administration
wanted $69,500,000 for the next twelve months for the construction of electric power
transmission lines in the northwest Pacific states. The Committee on Appropriations
cut the request by two million. After investigation I felt it could be reduced
still further so offered my amendment for a further cut of 5.5 million. After bitter
debate it was approved. I only hope the Senate concurs.
VISITORS: Last week William Peterson of Grand Rapids was in Washington
on business. Mr. and Mrs. W. Van Eenenaam from Holland were here for a visit. This
week Mr. and Mrs. H. J. Barkel and Mr. and Mrs. J. H. Klomparens, all of Holland,
visited us; Clarence Boomsma of Grand Rapids and his mother, Mrs. Jennie Boomsma of
Wheatfield, Indiana stopped in for a visit; and Rowland L. Hall of Grand Rapids
was in Washington on business.
For release: May 10, 1951
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW
BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
A couple of months ago when the President submitted his 94.4 billion dollar
budget to the Congress, he "dared" the House and Senate to make any cuts. This was
a silly and brazen statement for the President to make for he well knows because of
his service in the Senate that Congress can and undoubtedly should pare down any
Presidential budget. Just as an example, here's what the House of Representatives
did last week on the appropriations for the Department of Interior. The President
proposed 559.2 million dollars for this agency for the next 12 months. The Committee
on Appropriations cut 39.2 million dollars off the White House proposals. The House
as a whole went even deeper by slicing $23,267,000 more from Mr. Truman's budget.
The fate of the bill is now in the hands of the Senate. The House did some down-to-
earth economizing by approving savings totaling over 62 million dollars. This is
better than a 11% cut and a good answer to Mr. Truman's "dare." Incidentally, the
best way to prevent an increase in federal taxes is to practice some economy in the
federal government.
Presumably most of you saw the admission by the British trade officials
that since the outbreak of the Korean War the English have sold 120,000 tons of rubber
to Communist China and 40,400 tons to Soviet Russia. During debate in the House of
Commons it was admitted that the British sold in 1949, the year before the Korean
War, only 27,500 tons of rubber to Red China. In other words, British sales of
rubber to the Communists have increased heavily since the United Nations undertook to
stop Communist aggression in Korea.
In my estimation this deplorable situation calls for strong action. It is
unthinkable that the British Labor Government should permit such transactions. How
can the British officials in good conscience allow the sale of critical and strategic
materials to the enemy when substantial portions of the materials sold to the
Communists will eventually be used against our men on the battlefields?
Several months ago when there were rumors of heavy rubber sales by the
British to the Reds, I contacted our own State Department concerning the matter and
strongly urged that the United States use its influence to stop such sales. The
Department of State gave no adequate answer and didn't appear too eager to intervene,
GERALD R.FC GRANT
Your Washington Review - Page 2
May 10, 1951
The situation can and must be corrected by the United Nations and our
State Department should take the lead in forcing the necessary action. The U.N.
through collective action can impose effective embargoes on the shipment of goods,
including rubber, to Red China and Russia. Failure of the U.N. to curtail such
shipments is additional evidence of a lack of policy by the diplomats in the Korean
War. If the diplomats in the United Nations condone and permit the sale of rubber
and other strategic materials to the Reds, it proves much of what General MacArthur
has said since his return. General MacArthur has repeatedly stated that the U.N.
had no real policy in Korea, that he and his troops had to operate in a vacuum while
the diplomats talked on and on. General MacArthur has repeatedly urged an all-out
embargo on the shipment of rubber and other materials to the Reds. Unfortunately,
the British have fought him on this and other issues. As the facts come to light
it is becoming increasingly evident that the British Labor Government has not
supported the Korean War to the fullest extent. It is regrettable that the British
have sold rubber to the enemy at a sizeable profit and in addition have blocked any
effort in the United Nations for an embargo or economic restrictions. In the light
of the disclosures by the British that the enemy has been aided and abetted by
English trade practices in the Far East, the Department of State under Secretary
Acheson and the American delegation in the U.N. must demand long overdue action by
the U.N.
VISITORS: We were pleased to have 18 members of the Chamber of Commerce
from Grand Haven here this week, and 20 members from Grand Rapids. Mr. and Mrs.
Joseph P. Lynch, Jr. of Grand Rapids mixed a bit of pleasure with business in
Washington this week; Maurie Walters of Lamont was here on a hurried business trip;
Walter Thomasma of Grand Rapids also had some business in the District this week.
For release May 17, 1951
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW
BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
All last week the Appropriations subcommittee on Rivers, Harbors and
Flood Control carefully moved through 23 hours of hearings. Approximately 200
witnesses from all over the United States made ardent pleas for their pet projects
at home. They came from Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
New York, Hawaii and most of the other states in the Union. Some were farmers who
were desperate because the Mississippi River is eating away many acres of highly
productive land. Some witnesses were ocean fishermen who need a harbor of refuge
or an emergency inlet to protect them from squalls or currents. Others were city
dwellers whose homes and businesses have been inundated by repeated floods.
Most of the witnesses were urging the Congress to spend just a little more
money in order to fix up that levee down in Arkansas or dredge out that fishing
inlet in North Carolina or New York. A few of the 200 witnesses, however, were
before the committee urging that certain projects, principally hydro-electric power
dams in the Columbia River basin, be stopped once and for all. Among those voicing
their protests were representatives of four Indian tribes from the Northwest Pacific
area.
In his budget this year President Truman recommended that Congress appro-
priate sufficient funds to initiate construction on the Dalles Dam in the state of
Oregon. The total cost of the Dalles Dam when completed would be over 325 million
dollars. The President proposed 18 million to get the project started this year.
It is Mr. Truman's belief and the opinion of others in the Executive
Department of the federal government that this huge hydro-electric power dam is
essential in the defense effort. The atomic energy plant at Hamford, Washington,
is nearly finished and there are some aluminum plants in the same area which would
use this electric power. The Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior
and the Bonneville Power Administration officials all made strong pleas for 18 millic
dollars from the U. S. Treasury for this project in the next 12 months.
At the same time there is determined opposition to this project from
other parties. For example, it is the contention of the salmon fishermen that the
construction of the Dalles Dam will ruin this long-established industry. The salmon
fishing industry has an annual value of 20 million dollars. Certainly the Congress
should move slowly when there is a danger that the livelihood of thousands may be
adversely affected by the construction of such a federal project,
GERALD FOND LIBRAN
Your Washington Review - Page 2
May 17, 1951
In connection with this tremendous power project the committee had wit-
nesses from four Indian tribes who objected strenuously to the building of the
Dalles Dam. The Umatilla, Warm Spring, Nuz Perce and Yakima tribes all sent
representatives to plead their case. It seems the United States government by a
treaty signed with these Indians in 1855 guaranteed certain rights and privileges
including salmon fishing rights at Celilo Falls in Oregon. The Dalles Dam, if
constructed, would inundate Celilo Folls thereby destroying the salmon fishing
locations from which the Indians make their living.
The Yakima Indians were the most colorful witnesses. Watson Totus, one
of the Yakimas in a bright red shirt and green scarf, came before the committee with
his hair in long braids over his shoulders. He spoke in broken English but was most
effective as he pleaded his case with native eloquence and gestures. Another Yakima
Indian, Alex Saluskin, spoke no English but gave his testimony through an inter-
preter from the tribe. Although these witnesses were not fluent, their conviction
and sincerity made the committee realize that our government has a serious responsi-
bility to maintain treaty obligations with the descendants of the original inhabi-
tants of America. The national defense needs may require that Celilo Falls be
inundated, although our committee has not made a decision so far, but if the Dalles
Dam is constructed these Indians certainly deserve, both legally and morally, full
reimbursement.
VISITORS: We had a big time with the folks from Holland this week.
Janet Kay Walker was here with her parents, Mr. and Mrs. W. Clare Walker. Jimmie
(Butch) Glatz and his mother, Mrs. Gerrit Glatz, and his grandmother, Mrs. Harlow
Burrows, were also here. Janet and Butch, along with Doris Eash of Holland, dis-
tributed tulips tied with tiny wooden shoes to the Congressmen and Senators. Janet
and Butch were also on a TV show over WMAL with your Congrescman. C. T. Vermurlen
was also here from Holland. Manuel Brown, and also Harry J. Kelley, both of Grand
Rapids, were in Washington on business. Also here visiting from Grand Rapids were
Mr. and Mrs. Clarence G. Werkema and Louis F. Baker.
For release May 24, 1951
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW
BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
This past week the President refused to approve H.R. 3096, a bill to re-
quire that all real estate transactions of the Department of Defense before being
signed be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services for the
information of the Congress. The first veto by Mr. Truman in the 82nd Congress ran
into stiff opposition by the top House leaders in both political parties. As a result
the President's veto of this measure was overwhelmingly overridden in the House by a
vote of 312 to 68 which is considerably more than the necessary two-thirds.
Why did the Congress feel that the House and Senate Committees on Armed
Services should be informed beforehand concerning the sale or acquisition of real
property by the Army, Navy or Air Force? Here's one answer and it's a good one.
When the Department of Defense knows before it makes a sale or purchase, that the
"deal" will be scrutinized by the Congress, a better bargain for Uncle Sam usually
results. During the debate on whether or not to override the President's veto,
Representative Vinson, Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, cited a
specific example. Congressman Vinson told of a "deal" where the Navy wanted to spend
30 million for a factory for the construction of aircraft engines. When the pro-
posed purchase agreement was submitted to the House Committee on Armed Services the
committee told the Navy the "deal" didn't look good from the taxpayers' point of
view. The Navy after another look agreed and made the necessary arrangements at far
less cost to Uncle Sam.
It is interesting to note in this regard that the Navy Department has been
operating under such a procedure for the past ten years. The Navy got along very
well under this set-up during World War II. The bill vetoed by the President would
extend the same review procedure to the Army and Air Force.
During the debate Representative Vinson showed the House a 1944 report
from the old Truman Committee. As you undoubtedly recall, Senator Truman was chairman
of a committee in World War II that investigated expenditures of the Army, Navy and
Air Force. For example, the Truman Committee in the last war investigated the Air
Force purchases of many "plush" hotels in Miami, Florida. The Truman Committee in
its 1944 report indicated disapproval of these real estate deals by the Air Force
and recommended: "The manner in which the hotel acquisition program was carried out
Your Washington Review - Page 2
May 24, 1951
resulted in many injustices which the War Department has shown little inclination to
correct
The War Department should review the entire situation in detail and
report to the proper legislative committees of Congress. It should be pointed out
that the Navy Department advises the legislative committees of its real-estate ac-
quisitions in advance and keeps these committees advised of its situation.
"The Navy showed greater efficiency and care than the Army, both in
formulating its original program and in carrying it out with the fairness and
courtesy that citizens are entitled to expect from the military."
However, come 1951, President Truman vetoes a bill which seeks to do
just what he, Senator Truman, and his Senate colleagues in 1944 proposed as a safe-
guard for the federal Treasury.
The President in his veto message said this: "Finally I am concerned by
what appears to me to be a gradual trend on the part of the legislative branch to
participate to an even greater extent in the actual execution and administration of
the laws. The House by overriding this veto, in effect told the President that the
Congress has a solemn duty to see that the laws of the United States are executed
and administered intelligently and economically. In the last few years it has
become apparent that the Executive branch of the federal government wants unlimited
authority to grow and spend without any check. Congress said NO on this occasion,
and I hope the House and Senate say NO more often in the future.
The Department of Agriculture appropriations bill for the next fiscal year
was approved last week by the House of Representatives. It now goes to the Senate
for action. As passed by the House the funds for the Department of Agriculture would
be 7.2 per cent less than the amount for the current fiscal year and 12.5 per cent
below the 820 million dollars requested by the President for the next 12 months.
One amendment cut $75,000 off the office operation funds for Secretary of Agriculture
Brannan.
VISITORS: Not very many fifth District people in town this week, but we were glad to
see C. A. Parrish of Grand Rapids and Ed and Betty Ellis of Grand Haven here.
For Release May 31, 1951
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW
BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
This column will be in the nature of a progress summary relating to 1952
appropriations for the Army Corps of Engineers. This agency is requesting of Con-
gress $622,000,000 to carry on its civil functions work for the fiscal year 1952.
With this amount of money the Corps proposes to complete, continue and initiate a
large number of projects concerned with rivers, harbors, and flood control. The
rivers and harbors program involves 41 projects. There are 65 projects in the
scheduled flood control program.
The purpose of these programs is to improve and control the waterways of the
nation. This means the dredging of harbors and rivers, the construction of locks and
canals, the building of levees, and the erection of dams. The benefits derived from
such activities are important and significant. Levees reduce flood losses, dredging,
locks and canals, speed commerce, and tremendous power in the form of electricity is
derived from harnessing our rivers. This is the work of the Army Engineers; it is
important work; at the same time it is costly work.
For the past several months a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee
has held extensive hearings with General Pick, Colonel Potter and others of the Corps
of Engineers to determine the validity of the requested $622,000,000 for next year.
As you know, I am a member of this five-man committee composed of three Democrats
and two Republicans. While these long and extensive hearings have been in progress,
Professor Brainard, on loan to my Washington staff from the Economics Department of
Michigan State College, has made a careful and detailed study of each project. The
hearings are now finished and this week the subcommittee will determine the amount
of money to be recommended to the Appropriations Committee and the House as a whole.
During the past week Professor Brainard and I have reviewed thoroughly the
vast amount of information that has been submitted to the committee. So you will
know how much data has been submitted to our subcommittee, the hearings when printed
will be in two volumes totalling approximately 1,600 pages. If anyone would like
copies, I'll be glad to send them on. This has been done so that I can make specific
and sound recommendations to the Appropriations Committee and to the Congress with
respect to funds for the Corps of Engineers. It is perfectly clear to me that, under
Your Washington Review - Page 2
May 31, 1951
present conditions, the full request of the Corps of Engineers will have to be re-
duced. I am also convinced that much of the work of the Corps must be continued,
but it can be done on a reduced scale without jeopardy to the public welfare.
Based on these convictions we have worked out a plan by which substantial
savings can be made on a sound basis. In the first place, I am going to suggest to
my colleagues on the subcommittee that several projects be postponed at this time.
These are new undertakings for which plans have been prepared but on which there
has been no actual construction. I do not argue that these projects are not desir-
able--my position is that other things are more important at this time. The savings
in this particular category will be about $29,700,000.
Many projects are of the continuous type, or almost SO. For example, a flood
control program will provide for a series of levees which are to be built over a
period of years. It is my recommendation that work in progress continue in such
instances but that no new phases of such projects be started next year. If this
suggestion is followed, another $17,542,000 can be deleted from the requested
appropriation.
For all the rest I am suggesting a uniform 10 per cent reduction in the
request for each project, with certain specified exceptions. For example, there are
several projects which contribute materially to national defense. Funds for such pro-
jects should be available for completion as soon as possible. The savings achieved by
this 10% cut omitting any reductions on national defense projects will total $50,818,000
To summarize, the Army Engineers this year are requesting $622,000,000 to
carry on their civil functions activities. On the basis of hearings and the work of
Professor Brainard, I am suggesting that $523,940,000 be recommended to the Congress.
This represents a savings of $98,060,000. A savings which, in my opinion, will in no
way limit the effectiveness of the work of the Corps of Engineers.
The recommendations for cuts I shall make to the four other members of our
subcommittee are economically sound and thoroughly justified. Essential work will,
of course, be done; non-essential activities must wait.
*
*
*
VISITORS: We've had a lot of friends enjoying Washington's spring weather
this week. From Grand Rapids, Carson and Lillian Snyder, Mr. and Mrs. Otto Frey, Mr.
and Mrs. A. Vander Werf, Mrs. R. C. Boelkins and her son, Chuck Boelkins, Mr. and Mrs.
William Karpowicz, all vacationing, and William S. Bennett here on business, as well
as B. H. Anderson also here on business. Here on vacation from Holland were Mr. and
Mrs. E. M. Ten Clay and Mr. and Mrs. R. H. Rewerts.
FORD LIBRARY
For release June 7, 1951
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW
BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
A prime example of how extravagant some departments in the federal govern-
ment would like to be was illustrated in a recent speech by Senator Homer Ferguson.
Frankly, the situation sounded so bad I could hardly believe it, After reading
our Michigan Senator's speech I checked the facts myself and everything Senator
Ferguson said was entirely accurate.
Here's the story. The State Department officials in February and March
of this year presented their budget requests to the Congress. Secretary of State
Acheson asked Congress for approximately 284 million for the operations of his
department for the next 12 months. This is about ten million more than Congress
approved for the State Department last year.
Will Secretary Acheson's department get all the money requested? Unques-
tionably and emphatically NO. Congress is more than a little skeptical about the
activities of this branch of the federal government. Senator Ferguson's speech
pointed out a good reason for this skepticism.
According to Senator Ferguson, the State Department in one item asked
Congress for $24,875 as a "lunch fund" for diplomatic visitors from other nations.
In the next twelve months Secretary Acheson's department wants to have 175 lunch-
eons for foreign dignitaries at a cost of approximately $8.70 per plate. It must
be awfully good "chow."
Here are some excerpts from the Michi can Senator's speech:
"Now let's analyze the cost of furnishing our foreign visitors with lunch,
necessary services or they wouldn't be in the budget.
"As the President would have it, their absence would permit the spread of
communism and hazard our defenses. In the functions designated No. 1, there would
be 75 luncheons, each for 14 persons--one foreign visitor and 13 State Department
emissaries--at a cost of $125 for each luncheon or $8.93 for each meal served.
"In function No. 2, there will be 100 luncheons, each for 18 persons--three
foreign visitors and 15 State Department emissaries--at a cost of $155 for each
luncheon, or $8.61 each meal.
"How is it possible to eat $8 worth of food at one sitting?"
Your Washington Review - Page 2
June 7, 1951
Several months ago President Truman demanded that Congress increase
federal taxes about 16 billion annually. The federal taxes, those now being paid
and those requested by the President, would help to pay for the "eight buck"
meals.
The "lunch money" (24 thousand plus) for the State Department would take
all the federal income taxes paid by 102 average American families with an income
of $4,200 annually. Will Congress approve this request by the Department of
State? I repeat NO--and Sonator Ferguson deserves a pat on the back for exposing
the situation.
*
*
Here is some information about the Department of Agriculture appropriation
bill. The President and Mr. Brannon told Congress the Department of Agriculture
could well use 820 million in the next fiscal year. Last year Congress appro-
priated approximately 773 million for this department so you can see President
Truman upped the figure about 57 million.
Did the House of Representatives cut the President's budget for the
Department of Agriculture? Yes, by slightly over 100 million. The funds pro-
vided by the House will enable essential work to continue. Admittedly, there will
not be enough money during the next fiscal year to carry on all the activities
of the Department of Agriculture at their present level. This, however, has to
be the case, for Uncle Sam at this time must exercise strict economy in each and
every non-military agency.
*
*
*
VISITORS: Mrs. Tony Stank, Mrs. Telmon Caufield, Mrs. Charles Van Dyke of
Grand Rapids. Mrs. Edward Fenske, Mrs. J. F. Burklund, Mrs. Myrtle Elderkin, Mrs.
Jacob Boss, Joe Weiner, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Masterson and their daughter, all of
Grand Rapids. Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth DePree of Holland with their family.
For release June 14, 1951
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW
BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
Several weeks ago in this column I made an interim report on what my
subcommittee on Appropriations might do with President Truman's budget proposal on
project funds for flood control, rivers and harbors. Mr. Truman requested
$640,637,843. This subcommittee, composed of three Democrats and two Republicans,
recommended $514,427,400. In other words, we slashed over 126 million from the
President's budget. This is a cut of approximately 20 per cent and the biggest
percentage cut in any appropriations bill this year.
In previous years this subcommittee has been accused of being too liberal
with the taxpayers' money. The committee members in the past have been condemned
for so-called "pork-barrel" spending. This year a disappointed Congressman from
Minnesota called our subcommittee the "stingy five." Quite frankly, this label is
okay with me for we who serve on the Committee on Appropriations have a real res-
ponsibility to make certain that the taxpayers' money is spent wisely and well.
The first true test as to whether or not the subcommittee cut deeply
enough came when our bill was up for approval by the full Committee on Appropriation
The five of us on the subcommittee expected some criticism from the other 45 members
on the full committee, Our expectations and fears were well founded. Four indivi-
dual amendments were offered to increase the expenditures for flood control and
rivers and harbors. Fortunately for the taxpayers of the country the amendments
were all rejected.
Many of you will wonder how the President's budget can be cut so drasti-
cally, particularly when Mr. Truman with a straight face "dared" the Congress to make
any reductions. The answer is simple. The five Congressmen on the subcommittee
just decided Uncle Sam's treasury couldn't afford to spend what President Truman
proposed. It might interest you to know that we, over a three-month period, heard
testimony from 421 witnesses. Ninety-nine per cent of the witnesses wanted us to
approve greater expenditures. Despite their pleas our subcommittee sincerely felt
that economy and less federal spending was a better policy.
On what basis were the cuts made in the Truman budget? First, all pro-
jects not recommended by the Bureau of the Budget were excluded. Second, all new
projects, even the new ones recommended by the Bureau. of the Budget were excluded.
Third, practically all new segments of projects already underway were excluded.
Fourth, other reductions on an individual project basis were made.
GERALD FORD
Your Washington Review - Page 2
June 14, 1951
By this formula our subcommittee was able to justify a 20 per cent cut
totalling over 126 million dollars. The bill still has a long legislative road to
travel. It comes before the 435 members of the House this week. Undoubtedly,
attempts will be made by some disappointed Congressmen and their constituents to
increase the expenditures but I think we can hold the line. From the House the bill
goes to the Senate where additional amendments undoubtedly will be offered to cut
down our "savings." We can only hope the Senate will vote the economy line. Past
history indicates the Senate is rightly called the "upper" house in the Congress
inasmuch as the Senate usually increases or "ups" expenditures.
*
*
*
For some time I've had a pet peeve against the "plush" limousines and
chauffeurs that so many federal department heads have at their disposal. Frankly,
it's a disgusting situation. Senator Ferguson, as a member of the Senate Committee
on Appropriations, recently found out that the federal government operates 19,888
automobiles--and this does not include cars used by the Department of Defense.
Senator Douglas, Democrat of Illinois, says that the Pentagon alone has 25 limousine
The Senator also said that in Washington "there is one Under Secretary who has one
for himself, uses one for his wife, and one for his kids when they come home from
school for a vacation."
The federal government hires 7,052 full and part-time chauffeurs. Seems
like every other automobile in Washington is a government car with a chauffeur and
some big-wig bureaucrat as a passenger. A 1949 automobile, which I drive myself,
or the regular Washington streetcars or buses are good enough for members of Con-
gress. Why can't those in the Executive branch of the federal government do the
same? In the months ahead, as a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I
intend to get some answers.
*
*
*
VISITORS: Mr. and Mrs. C. J. Bos with Sylvia, Sue and Sally Bos, Mr. and
Mrs. Jack Mitus and Mr. and Mrs. Robert D. Mitus; Robert i. McBain; Reverend Charles
A. Salatka; Helen Jean McCabe; Mr. and Mrs. Irving Franson; Margaret Hansknecht; Mr.
and Mrs. George Zarafonetis; Mr. and Mrs. James VerMeulen and their three children;
and Mr. I. Shapiro, all of Grand Rapids.
In addition, the Byron Center High School and the Sparta High School
seniors were in town.
For release June 21, 1951
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW
BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
The Congress recently voted to prohibit any further American aid
to other nations which continued to trade with Russia and her satellites.
In other words, the House and Senate felt it wasn't good sense to help any
nation with American dollars or materials if that nation continued to trade
with the enemy. Congress in this law included an "escape clause" whereby
the National Security Council could permit certain limited exceptions to
avoid working particular dships upon friendly nations. I can assure you
it was not the intent of the Congress that this relief or "escape clause"
would be used to nullify the entire law.
How has the President used this law? Mr. Truman has recently made
a "blanket" use of the "escape clause. If The President decided that American
aid should be given to all the various nations even though these nations
continue to trade with the enemy. Mr.Truman by this action has clearly
circumvented the will of the Congress and the American people. This White
House disregard for the legislative intent undoubtedly will lead to more
stringent restrictions in future laws.
Naturally I disagree with the decision of the President to continue
American aid and assistance to all nations even though these nations send
materials to Russia and other Communist countries. In addition, I strongly
disagree with the general trend in recent years whereby the Executive Branch
of the federal government nullifies or thwarts the acts of the Congress and
the decisions of the Courts. There are many examples of this, perhaps the
worst being President Truman's impounding of funds Congress appropriated for
a 70 group air force. To refresh your memories, Congress several years ago
appropriated almost a billion dollars to build up a 70 group air force. The
President simply directed that these funds should not be spent and as a result
the Air Force was not up to essential strength when the Korean War broke out,
Some folks will contend that no real harm is done by the President
overriding the clear directives of Congress. Such an attitude is extremely
dangerous for every time the President thwarts the will of the 531 Members of
Congress there is another precedent which some future President can use for
his own personal gain. Conceivably twenty years from now some occupant of the
White House might decide that all power and authority should be in his hands
and none in the Congress or the federal courts. This would be un-American
SERVICE YORD
and certainly against the best interests of all our citizens.
Your Washington Review - Page Two
June 21, 1951
What can be done to prevent this usurpation of constitutional Con-
gressional rights by the President? As a Member of Congress I intend to
fight for the traditional concepts of our tripartite system of government.
America grew strong under a balanced form of government. Our Nation will
continue strong only if the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of
the government work as a team. The domination of one over the others will
inevitably lead to dire results. Our citizens should be cognizant of what
the President has done for our liberties can be lost if we are not alert.
The testimony of Secretary of State Dean Acheson that no officials in
the State Department ever wrote off the Chinese Communists as mere "agrarian
reformers" has been branded a lie by John C. Caldwell, former State Department
attache at the United States Embassy in Seoul, Korea. In a speech June 14
at St. Louis, Caldwell, a veteran of eight years in Far Eastern diplomatic
service, said that Acheson "is simply not stating the truth. "
The former State Department official said: "All through 1944 to 1947
everyone of us in the Department of State was subjected to indoctrination as
to the fact that the Chinese Communists were not really communists and that
if we were patient long enough we would find a way to get along with Far
Eastern communism."
Caldwell, a life-long Democrat, said he was asked to prepare a report
in 1946 on communist propaganda methods in China, He then said: "My report
was a revealing document, showing the full scope of anti-American bias, appar-
ent in every medium used by the communists and their propaganda. Even though
I was ordered to make the study, I was severely reprimanded for doing so when
the full nature of my report was known to Washington. Caldwell's 1946 report
on communist propaganda leaked to the press and as a result he was asked to re-
sign his post, He quit in 1947, later rejoined the Department and resigned
again in 1948.
VISITORS: There were a good many representatives of Michigan Postal Employee
groups here for a conference this week. Among those from this group who stopp
in the office were Frank Clark, Fred Van Eck, Fred van Hartesveldt, A.E. Harret
Floyd A. Thornton, M. L, Herlein, L. B. Hoogerhyde, Ed Sargent, T.W. Tanner,
Herman Hoogerhyde, J.W. Townshend, G.H. Lindberg, Wm. J. Plaubinger, all of
Grand Rapids. Mr. and Mrs. Fred Tanner and Mr. and Mrs. John Iberhof from
Grand Rapids were here vacationing. Silas F. Albert, MacGregor G. Scott and
Robert Lynn, all of Grand Rapids, were also in the Capital.