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 Dwight Eisenhower.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525457
label
Ford Newsletter, May-Sept. 1959
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525457
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Newsletter, May-Sept. 1959
description
This file contains material relating to Dwight Eisenhower.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Newsletters
subjects
Poland
Soviet Union
Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-
Agriculture
Federal budget
Foreign aid
Grain
Housing
Industrial relations
Legislation
National security
Roads
Veto power
Voyages and travels
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525457
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1959-09-30
month
9
year
1959
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1959-05-01
month
5
year
1959
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3fa383141f74f56d
ocrText
This document scanned from Box D2 of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
May 6, 1959
Your Congressman believes that the Congress of the United States has a moral ob-
ligation to provide the Federal Treasury with sufficient revenue to meet all current ex-
penditures voted by the Congress. In a quiz session for members of Congress at an
annual Congressional dinner last week I was asked whether such a proposition was sound.
In reply your Congressman pointed out that while under our constitutional and
legislative system it is not practical to provide a revenue bill for every specific
appropriation bill, the Congress should, in order to maintain its moral integrity, be
willing to provide sufficient money to pay the expenditures it has authorized. I see
no justification, except in time of great national emergency, for not operating the
Federal government on a pay-as-you-go basis. To do otherwise is to demand that our
children and grandchildren pay our bills with interest. This is diametrically opposed
to the traditional American philosophy which would have the fathers pass on to the
children a heritage of freedom, hope, and improved opportunities.
In practical application this means that those members of Congress who advocate
and vote for increased spending must also vote in favor of greater taxation. To vote
governmental benefits without providing a means for payment is moral irresponsibility as
well as economic folly.
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION: As the FHA celebrates its 25th anniversary it is
good to note that since July 1, 1940 this Federal agency has been self-supporting and
has paid all expenses out of earnings. In the early years of operation the Treasury
Department advanced funds totaling $65.4 million to pay expenses and to establish certain
of the Insurance Funds. In the fiscal year 1954 all of the funds advanced were repaid
to the U. S. Treasury together with interest thereon in the amount of $20.3 million.
During the quarter century FHA has written insurance on 4.7 million home mortgages,
on 22.3 million property improvement loans, and on other mortgages totaling $53.3 billion.
Losses have amounted to only 31/100 of 1 per cent of insurance written.
A VETO SUSTAINED: The House of Representatives has sustained President Eisenhower's
veto of a bill which would have removed from the Secretary of Agriculture any supervision
over loans by the Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration (REA).
Originally an independent agency, the REA was placed within the Department of Agriculture
and under the general direction of the Secretary of Agriculture by a Reorganization Plan
submitted by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1939.
The bill vetoed by President Eisenhower would have altered this Plan by removing
the REA Administrator's loan-making authority from supervision by the Secretary of
Agriculture.
There certainly was no earth-shaking issue involved in this legislation which,
however, did concern good management principles as endorsed by the first Hoover Com-
mission. It was surprising to find the majority party making a determined effort to
override this specific veto One could detect obvious political considerations in the
move. President Eisenhower has vetoed 138 bills (private and public) and while this was
the fifth attempt to overrule Ike, no veto has been overridden in his seven years in the
White House This attempt apparently was a test of strength. If the veto of an
innocuous bill with some emotional appeal cannot be overridden, the majority party in
the House and Senate has little chance of overcoming a veto of the major budgetary issues
where President Eisenhower stands firmly for economy.
A LABOR-MANAGEMENT BILL ARRIVES - The Senate has passed and sent to the House the
Kennedy-Ervin bill This 1959 version is an improvement over the 1958 Kennedy-Ives bill
but badly needs revision if the abuses uncovered by the McClellan Committee are to be
remedied. It is hoped that the House will add provisions dealing with secondary boycotts,
blackmail picketing, and the legal "no-man's-land" problem,
AID TO MEDICAL RESEARCH: In an appropriation bill passed by the House last week
the National Institutes of Health were allocated $344.2 million for research and service
during the next fiscal year This is an increase of 13.8 per cent over the appropriation
for the current year. The Committee on Appropriations reported that the "National
Institutes of Health have over the years amply demonstrated wisdom, foresight, integrity,
and good judgment in the administration of medical research and training programs."
The largest single amount in this part of the bill, $83.3 million, goes for the
Cancer Institute with mental health activities being second with $60.4 million. Recent
figures presented to the Committee indicate that mental illness costs this country a
minimum of $3 billion a year. Despite the staggering economic losses, the committee
received evidence of remarkable progress against mental illness. Over the past three
years, there has been a drop of 13,000 patients in State mental hospitals. At the end
of 1958 there were 52,000 fewer mental patients in all mental institutions than might
have been expected on the basis of the rate experienced from 1945 to 1955.
The National Heart Institute was given $52.7 million. The Committee found that
"the returns for the investment have actually been unusually high" in heart research
although probably no other field of research has been pointed to more frequently by the
'doubting Thomases'.
While the National Institutes at Bethesda, Md. administer the appropriated funds,
much of the work on the various research projects is done at universities, hospitals,
and other centers throughout the country.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
May 13,1959
The House of Representatives passed legislation (H. R. 3460) last week to extend
and expand TVA which can have a further detrimental effect on the economy of Michigan.
While the announced purpose of the bill was to authorize TVA to issue $750 million
worth of revenue bonds and put TVA on a self-financing basis, H. R. 3460 also broadens
the TVA service area by about 30 per cent, thus expanding an area which is in direct
economic competition with our own state. It also authorizes the construction of addi-
tional electrical power plants to supply more "low-cost power" to the expanded area.
While Michigan taxpayers have been contributing to the development of the Tennessee
Valley Authority, the State of Tennessee and other sections of the South have been
soliciting Michigan industry to move to and/or to expand in the TVA area because of its
"abundant low-cost power." Letters to industrialists and advertísements in Detroit
papers have pointed out that "generally, TVA power rates are 30 to 45 per cent below
the national average." A Tennessee State agency tells Michigan industry that "a recent
study for a small Northern manufacturer revealed that his annual power bill of $16,128
could be reduced to approximately $8,000 in Tennessee."
Why? Because of cheap electricity supplied by TVA which is able to provide "low-
cost power" through subsidies paid by the federal taxpayers including all of us in
Michigan.
The cost of the TVA to the American taxpayers has been approximately $1.6 billion
of which a little over $250 million has been returned to the Federal Government in
payments. It is estimated that the taxpayers of Michigan have already contributed over
$100 million to TVA appropriations. The vast sums of money which have been made
available to TVA out of the federal Treasury over the past 20 years have been "interest
free."
Now the House has authorized an expansion of the service area so a larger section
of the South will be able to bid more effectively for Michigan industry. The House has
given TVA the go-ahead sign for constructing more electric power plants. Advertisements
of the Tennessee Industrial and Agricultural Development Commission urge Michigan
industry to expand and provide more jobs in Tennessee. I want Michigan industry to
expand in Michigan. I want more jobs for men and women in Michigan. I vigorously
opposed and voted against H. R. 3460.
This bill also extends from 40 years to 120 years the time limit for repayment of
appropriated funds, weakens congressional control over construction of new power plants
and over the general operation of this federally established corporation, and places the
taxpayers in a secondary position to private bondholders as far as the $750 million of
new revenue bonds is concerned.
Few will argue that TVA has not been of great benefit to the area which it now
serves. Many can argue that the federal subsidy was justified in order to promote the
general welfare of a depressed area. However, TVA has now come to maturity. It is time
to cut it loose from mother's apron strings. There was nothing in this bill to do with
flood control, improvement of navigation, or the production of hydroelectric power, the
original purposes of TVA. This bill allows TVA to expand its service area and thermal
power plants to further encourage recruitment of industry and job opportunities. It is
a bad bill for Michigan in view of the present unemployment problem in our State.
The vote on final passage, however, was 245 to 170. Nine Republican Representatives
from Michigan voted against H. R. 3460 and were joined by one Democrat. Two Republicans
were absent but were paired and recorded against the bill. Four Democrats from our State
voted for the bill, one answered "present" and one was absent.
MR. TRUMAN ENDORSES MUTUAL SECURITY PROGRAM: In testimony before the House Com-
mittee on Foreign Affairs last week former President Truman wholeheartedly endorsed the
Mutual Security Program recommended by President Eisenhower. "This is not a partisan
matter, he stated, "I am glad to say that on the basic policies underlying the Mutual
Security Program, there is no conflict between the Republican Administration now in office
and the prior Democratic Administration."
Mr. Truman went on to say, "The Mutual Security Program is not a soft spot in our
Budget. It is not a place where the country can economize in a cheap and easy fashion
without hurting anything much." The former President pointed out that "not only does
the Mutual Security Program provide us with added safety against foreign enemies, but
in the long run it increases our economic prosperity."
"The program is not a 'give-away program', he said. "It helps us just as much
as it helps the nations to whom we extend assistance."
"MARKING UP" THE DEFENSE APPROPRIATION BILL: Three days last week were among the
most challenging, exhausting, yet satisfying days that I have experienced in this session
of Congress. The subcommittee on defense appropriations engaged in the agonizing task
of evaluating a large number of controversial issues and incorporating its decisions in a
bill to be recommended to the House of Representatives. There was not too much disagreement
on the total dollar amount to be included in the bill; the major conflicts came over how
to apportion these dollars among the various services, program, and weapon systems.
The recommendations of the 17-member subcommittee on the $41 billions involved
must now be approved by the full committee of 50 members before it goes to the House.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
May 20, 1959
According to long-standing tradition it isn't considered proper protocol for a
member of the House of Representatives to speak critically of the U. S. Senate. Like-
wise members of the so called "Upper Body" are supposed to hold their tongues in some
restraint when discussing individuals who serve in the House of Representatives. There
is no prohibition, however, against directly quoting a Senator on the activities of the
Senate. The latest newsletter of my good friend, Senator Norris Cotton of New Hampshire,
contains a most unique analysis of some recent congressional behavior. I thought you
would enjoy reading it in its entirety.
"Last week the President vetoed the bill removing rural electrification from the
control of the Secretary of Agriculture. This marked the opening of a long-awaited
battle between the White House and the Congress.
"The veto has always been a double-edged tool to make or break Presidents.
Jackson's veto of the Bank of the United States made secure his niche in history and
killed Henry Clay's last hope for the Presidency. Tyler's veto of a central fiscal
agency made him a political orphan and hastened the end of the Whig Party. After the
Civil War Andrew Johnson threw vetoes at a vengeful and blood-lusty Congress as a
policeman vainly flails a mob with his club, only to be borne down and escape impeach-
ment by a single vote. Cleveland's veto of the Silver Bill led to the meteoric rise
of Bryan with his "Cross of Gold" speech. FDR, with the most vetoes, was the only
President to deliver one (the Soldier's Bonus) to Congress in person. Eisenhower
(except Harding with his brief tenancy) is the only 20th Century President to have no
vetoes overturned. However, he had a hairbreadth escape last week when the Senate
overrode him and the House failed to do so by only four votes.
"Since last January when the new 86th Congress came in with fire in its eye,
ready to roll through a procession of bills that would blow the President's budget to
smithereens, it has been clear that another historic chapter of the Presidential veto
was about to be written. At the outset Majority Leader Johnson and AFL-CIO's Meany
charted their expanded programs, upping budget amounts on every front. It was a cinch
they had the votes to pass their bills. Obviously, the President would use the veto
to resist this massive raid on the Treasury. It was equally clear that it would be a
close tug-of-war on whether they could muster the two-thirds necessary to override.
We have all been waiting for the curtain to rise on this struggle.
"It has been slow to rise. The Majority Leadership controls the Calendar. They
choose the first spot to attack. Just as Ike himself once studied the coast of Europe
before the Normandy invasion, they have been probing and planning to decide which bill
would have the most appeal and the best chance to override a veto and gain the first
budgetary beachhead. At first, it looked like Aid for Airports. Then Housing. Finally,
they picked the REA Bill. Its appeal: It was a crack at Secretary Benson so Midwest
members would hate to vote against it. Benson is a bad word in the Farm Belt because
he fights to cut support prices and surpluses. (We've piled up wheat for 540 loaves of
bread per person in the U. S., so you'd better start eating!) Its weakness: REA, as
a farm program, belongs in the Department of Agriculture where it was placed by Franklin
Roosevelt. There it has worked efficiently and well. Boiled down, the bill was purely
a spite attack on Benson.
"The President won, but by such a narrow squeak that both sides are tightening
their belts for the next round."
Senator Cotton's newsletter to his constituents in New Hampshire continued with
the following comments on two other matters:
"Speaking of spite, it seems to be the watchword right now. With business on
the upturn and the easing of the Berlin tension, it's open season for political sniping
and petty feuding. For 13 long days of bulb-flashing hearings, Lewis Strauss has been
before my Committee for confirmation as Secretary of Commerce. He has been a lusty
fighter for his convictions and has stepped on many toes, but in my book this man
deserves well of his country. On the Atomic Energy Commission he insisted that the
U. S. produce the H-bomb ahead of Russia and hung to it like a dog to a bone against
the opposition of his fellow Commissioners and many scientists. We shudder to think
of using this dreadful weapon, but most of us shudder, too, to think where we would be
if Russia had gotten it first. It seems strange indeed to hear Senators who scream
that we have permitted the Soviets to get the jump on us in guided missiles, trying to
tear this man to shreads because he fought bare-fisted to give us the H-bomb.
"Further proof that the Senate is in one of its 'silly seasons' was the bitter
vilification of Mrs. Luce by Senator Morse when she was named Ambassador to Brazil.
This vendetta was carried so far that, in spite of her brilliant record as Ambassador
to Italy, she felt her usefulness was impaired and resigned after confirmation. It's
a sad commentary on the Senate that 28 pages of the Record are filled with all kinds
of picayune charges against a lady of unquestioned character and ability."
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
May 27, 1959
The House of Representatives batted .500 in support of the taxpayers and a
solvent federal treasury in two significant actions last week.
During consideration of the $3.9 billion Department of Agriculture and Farm Credit
Administration Appropriations bill, Rep. John Taber, Republican of New York, offered a
recommital motion to provide "that no funds appropriated in this action shall be used to
process a Commodity Credit loan which is in excess of $50,000."
The purpose of this amendment was to limit the total amount of loans to be made
under the farm price-support program on any one commodity produced nn any one farm.
It was to prevent payments such as that of $1,167,502.35 in 1957 to the Delta and Pine
Land Co. of Scott, Mississippi for cotton support or that of $1,460,902.11 to the
Producer's Rice Mill, Inc. of Stuttgart, Arkansas for rice. It was to outlaw other
indefensible price-support payments made out of the taxpayers' treasury to the big
agricultural operators and the large corporate farms. It was to help return the farm-
support program to its original purpose of protecting the small family-type farmer and
his family. And a $50,000 limitation is not going to hurt many family farms.
Yet on a roll call vote 165 members of the House opposed this $50,000 limitation.
These men wanted to continue subsidies and supports to those farmers," in reality big
corporate operators, who can harvest one crop valued in excess of $50,000.
In approval of such a program only 4 Republicans joined 161 Democrats. In
contrast 147 Republicans in the House voted for the small farmer and against the big
producer. They were joined by 115 Democrats. In all fairness and in credit to our State
delegation, I am pleased to report that all 18 Congressmen from Michigan, Republicans
and Democrats, voted for the limitation.
Your Congressman will continue his efforts in behalf of a solvent treasury and a
sane and constructive agricultural program. The Congress must always be mindful of you
who pay the bills and of you who are deeply concerned with the family-type farms as we
know them in Michigan.
THE HOUSING BILL: In consideration of S.57, a housing bill approved by the
Senate on February 5, the House of Representatives didn't do so well.
There is need for some housing legislation. In his budget message President
E'senhower recommended revision of the urban renewal laws, some changes in basic FHA
statute, and development of college housing, and a housing program for the elderly. In
Ike's balanced budget fiscal plan $1.6 billion was recommended under "housing."
S. 57 as it passed the Senate, however, was tagged at $3.5 billion or almost
$2 billion in excess of Ike's recommendation.
But the "spenders" on the House. Committee on Banking and Currency were not
contented with this increase. They boosted the total figure to $6.1 billion, nearly 4
times the amount necessary for a good program and a balanced budget. The Committee's
version of S. 57 authorized $5.8 billion in new funds but the House had already passed
a $300 million bill for direct VA loans, making a total of $6.1 billion.
While the President requested no new additional authority for public housing,
the Senate version of. S. 57 provided for 45,000 additional units which the House Com-
mittee increased to 190,000 units. This was done in face of the fact that by July 1960
over 475,000 federally aided public housing units will be occupied by about 2 million
people, and an additional 110,000 units already authorized will not yet have been built,
Your Congressman was particularly opposed to this provision of the bill in
view of the additional fact that on two different occasions the citizens of Grand Rapids
have decidedly voted down proposals to develop a public housing program in our city.
Unfortunately, on a test vote the House "spenders" won 203 to 177. Rep. Herlong,
Democrat of Florida, submitted a substitute for S. 57. His proposal would have cost
the taxpayers only $1.3 billion, a savings of $4½ billion: over the House Committee
version of S. 57. It lost by 26 votes and found your Congressman voting with the
minority.
On. final passage 228 Democrats and only 33 Republicans endorsed the "spenders"
bill to put through a housing measure with a $5.8 billion price tag. But 145 Repub-
licans and 48 Democrats voted "no." The bill deserves a presidential veto.
MICHIGAN WEEK: Partisan politics and affairs of state were put aside last
Wednesday morning as over 200 Michiganites gathered for breakfast at the Supreme Court
Building in commemoration of Michigan Week. Sponsored by the Michigan State Society,
the breakfast honored the entire Michigan Congressional delegation. Michigan's "Mother
of the Year" and "Miss Michigan of 1959" were present. Speaker Sam Rayburn brought
greetings from the House and Senator Everett Dirksen from the Senate.
Twenty different products of Michigan were distributed to the guests who carried
their goods away in special "Michigan Week" shopping bags.
MAILING LIST: We would be pleased to add to our mailing list the name. of
anyone not now receiving "Your Washington Review" who would like to obtain this weekly
5
newsletter. Please send me the name and address.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 3, 1959
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of Defense, of which your
Congressman is the ranking minority member, cut $399.8 million from the military budget
in a bill presented to the full Committee and the House last week, Not all of the 17
members of the subcommittee necessarily agree with every decision in the multi-billion-
dollar appropriation. In fact for four long days we battled over many issues and there
were several very close votes on whether or not specific programs should be eliminated,
added to, or reduced. Despite certain reservations on issues where I disagreed and lost,
I believe that the total program will provide a strong, effective military force to
deter aggression and to win wars.
The Committee recommended expenditures of $38.8 billion for fiscal 1960 which is
over $1 billion less than the appropriation for the present year. The Committee, after
hearing over 500 top civilian and military authorities, saw no reason for increasing the
total defense expenditure and was convinced savings could be afforded. The Committee did
make certain changes to insure that our deterrent power will be most effective. It added
$152.5 million to maintain the National Guard at a strength of 400,000 men and the Army
Reserve at 300,000. It added $200 million to advance the NIKE-ZEUS anti-ICBM missile
and to continue modernization of Army equipment. The Navy was given $255.3 million more
for anti-submarine warfare capability while the Air Force received $172 million to
accelerate the MINUTEMAN ICBM and to initiate an additional eight squadrons of the
ATLAS ICBM program. These increases amounted to $779.8 million.
The Committee made reductions amounting to $1.17 billion. The proposed Navy super
aircraft carrier was eliminated at a savings of $260 million. The Air Force MACE missile
project was cut $127.5 million and the BOMARC anti-aircraft missile program was reduced
by $162.7 million. These and other changes, it is believed, will increase over the next
few years the overall deterrent power of the U. S. military forces.
These changes in the defense program by the Committee result in the Army gaining
$221.9 million over the budget request while the Air Force loses $538.6 million and the
Navy is cut by $82.6 million. One of the factors, but only one, which contributed to
this result was the study and conclusions of the Committee on the question of the proper
relationship between preparation for limited war and preparation for general war. While
it was agreed that global war is the most serious and immediate danger to our national
security, it was also realized that we must maintain a capability of coping quickly with
any international incidents which may develop as an additional assurance against a small
conflict growing into a much larger one.
FOUR RECORDED VOTES: The House Tally Clerks had their busiest single day of this
session last Wednesday when there were two quorum calls and four yea-and-nay recorded
votes. This made a total of 60 for the session with your Congressman answering 58 for
an attendance record of 96.6 per cent.
The first roll call vote on Wednesday was on the question of limiting the Presi-
dent's handling of the Emergency Fund which is annually granted to him for use at his
discretion. It seemed to me that if the President is to have an "emergency fund" he
should be permitted to use it as he sees fit. I opposed the motion to limit the Presi-
dent and it was defeated by a vote of 171 to 229.
Your Congressman also opposed increasing the Department of Justice Appropriations
bill by $2 million to start construction of another Federal prison, but this proposal
was approved 226 to 133. The bill already carried an amount of $41.6 million for the
maintenance and operation of 32 Federal penal institutions in the United States and 5
jails and one camp in Alaska. The bill also provided for the reactivation of a cor-
rectional institution in Minnesota and a new prison camp in South Carolina. It seemed
to me that the $41.6 million was a sufficient amount to spend on prisons during the next
fiscal year.
The two other votes were on H.R. 7086, a bill to extend and amend the Renegotiation
Act of 1951. Originally passed to enable the government to recover excessive profits on
contracts involving the procurement of goods on which it was not possible to forecast
costs accurately, the Act is scheduled to expire on June 30th.
There was little argument on the necessity of extending the Act. The Department
of Defense has stated that present pricing policies and contracting techniques are not
adequate to protect against excessive profits in all cases, especially in those instances
where the Government must obtain new and specialized items. About $20 billion of the
Department's expenditures for goods and services in 1960 will be subject to the provisions
of the Renegotiation Act.
Your Congressman voted for the extension which was approved 380 to 7. However, on
a recommittal motion he voted to extend the Act only 27 months as opposed to the 4 years
provided in H. R. 7086.
Last year the Committee on Ways and Means upon reporting a bill to extend the Act
for six months to June 30, 1959 announced that it intended to undertake a broad review of
the entire subject of renegotiation. No such study has been made and I agreed that a
thorough review should be completed before amending and extending the Act for 4 years.
The House voted 246 to 153, however, for the longer period.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 10, 1959
President Eisenhower holds a weekly conference on legislative and related
matters every Tuesday morning at 8:30. The Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, his
White House staff and the Republican leaders in the House and Senate regularly attend.
When special legislative issues are on the agenda individual members of the House or
Senate who are most familiar with the subject are invited to participate in the dis-
cussions. On three occasions this year Your Congressman has attended White House
legislative conferences and in each case the prupose was to discuss various aspects of
our national defense program.
Perhaps it might be well to explain the overall purpose of these weekly con-
ferences. First, the President wants to be fully and currently informed on the status
of his legislative recommendations to the Congress. Such a report by the House minority
leader, Congressman Halleck, and the Senate Republican leader, Senator Dirksen, keeps the
Cabinet officers and the White House staff up-to-date on what is taking place in
committees and on the floor.
The second aim of such weekly conferences is to offer an opportunity for
the minority leaders to submit Republican legislative policy to the President and others
in the executive branch of the federal government. In other words, these meetings have
a dual objective - a two way street which results in greater cooperation, a singleness
of purpose and better results.
When you are scheduled to appear at a White House morning conference, you
leave the family after an early breakfast and allocate plenty of time to arrive before
8:30. You drive up to the gate on Pennsylvania Avenue, a White House guard checks to
see if you are on the list and you drive in and park on the grounds. You walk into the
Executive office wing on the west side and are shown to the Cabinet Room.
As you enter a few minutes before 8:30 you see a table with hot coffee. One
picks up a cup and moves down the room to the seat set up for him at the conference
Eable. While awaiting the others, members of the staff, the Cabinet, and of the
Congress chat informally. When the President enters the Cabinet Room from his office,
everyone rises. He takes his seat at the middle of the table and the conference begins
with a discussion of the first problem on the well-planned agenda.
The agenda last week had the Defense Appropriations bill at the head of the
list. The President made a few remarks; then asked Representative Taber, ranking
Republican on the Committee on Appropriations, to kick off the discussion on what
our Committee had done with the military budget. Your Congressman followed with a
detailed explanation of the major changes and issues in the $40 billion appropriations
bill.
The President asked many questions and requested comments from his staff.
Also participating was the Vice President who attends all such gatherings and sits
across from the President. Senators who were present expressed their views. After 45
minutes of informal but penetrating discussion the conference passed on to the next
problem on the agenda.
The four of us who where there on military matters, the Deputy Secretary
of Defense, the Comptroller for the Defense Department, Rep. Taber and Your Congressman,
picked up our papers and quietly left the Cabinet Room.
I came away from the White House with the personal feeling that President
Eisenhower has strong views on the adequacy of his recommendations for our national
security. He did not agree in every detail with the action taken on his program but
in general he approved. He was very pleased that the Committee had left him certain
flexibility in the handling of the funds which is so necessary in this era when
scientific breakthrough can make yesterday's weapons obsolete tomorrow.
Let me conclude by saying our President appears to be in excellent health. He
was vigorous in expressing his views and is determined to achieve the results he
believes are sound. Under no circumstances is he a "lame-duck" President who is
merely marking time during the remainder of his second term. In my judgment, contrary
to the forecasts of the cynics, he is doing a most forceful and effective job.
ON THE FLOOR: Later that same day the floor debate on the Defense
appropriation bill got underway. The House of Representatives after two long days
and a total of approximately 12 hours of debate, accepted the Committee recommendations
with but one minor amendment. This provision, with which no one will quarrel, would
bar the use of any funds for support by the armed forces of the Olympic Winter Games
if any free nation of the world is prevented from participating. This action resulted
from a recent decision by the Olympics Committee to expel athletes of the Republic
of China from Olympic Activities.
I think the committee bill gives us a good defense program. None of the ser-
vices got exactly what they wanted. Not all of our defense contractors are going to be
happy. But this defense program is bigger than any service; it is bigger than any
contractor. The committee's bill was the result of the joint efforts of both Republican
and Democratic members. Any differences of opinion were not based on partisan consider-
ations. The Chairman of our Subcommittee, Rep. George Mahon, Democrat of Texas, was
diligent and fair, and made a conscientious and intelligent effort to come to the right
conclusions for the national security of our country.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 17, 1959
President Eisenhower has been required to request an increase in the Federal debt
limit and in the interest rate ceiling on Treasury Bonds. Flexibility in debt manage-
ment is an essential element in a sound fiscal policy but under current conditions the
present law allows very little leeway in this management. Thus the request.
It is regrettable, therefore, that a member of the U. S. Senate would attempt to
make political hay out of a serious and delicate situation facing the Federal Treasury.
Yet we read in the Congressional Record for June 10 (page 9394) that "The President of
the United States, by requesting the lifting of this statutory ceiling (on the interest
rate limit of 4½ per cent) is admitting to an incredible mismanagement of the Nation's
monetary-fiscal affairs." That statement was made on the Senate floor by a Senator
in his first term,
This Senator had neglected to read a speech by the Democratic Chairman of the House
Committee on Appropriations delivered on the floor of the House of Representatives on
June 5th. Chairman Clarence Cannon of Missouri, a member of the House since 1923, said
(pages 9049-9050), "We cannot escape the responsibility for the situation as we find it
today. Congress spent the money and increased the national debt and brought on the
inflation. The responsibility is right here on this floor. We cannot offer an alibi.
We cannot pass the buck. And the reason we can no longer sell bonds at 2 per cent is
because we have steadily and stubbornly and continuously refused to retrench expenditure
and begin systematically and methodically to reduce the national debt and stop inflation.
Congress did it and let no one try to make the people back home believe any different.' "
It should be remembered that the Democratic Party has controlled the Congress from 1933
to 1959 except for four years.
Chairman Cannon went on to say, "Many of us have announced belligerently that no
Budget Bureau could tell us what to do. And we kicked the budget into the ashcan. No
President could tell us there should be no new starts. Congress was the authority on
such matters. So now Congress can take the responsibility. The Government must pay its
obligations. We do not have the money. If we do not get it in taxes, then we have to
borrow it and you cannot borrow it any longer at 4½ per cent. Government bonds are a
drag on the market because we have spent too much for what we could get along without."
I appreciate this effort of a Democratic leader of the Congress to set the record
straight. As your Congressman I shall continue my efforts in support of the sound and
responsible fiscal policies of President Eisenhower to balance the budget and insure
stability of the dollar.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL: The "Spenders" however, are not discouraged. Last
Tuesday the House of Representatives voted 254 to 142 to double the present authoriza-
tion for federal assistance to local communities for construction of sewage-treatment
works. The passage of H. R. 3610 raised the authorization from $50 million per year
to $100 million and increased the overall authorized funds for this purpose from $500
million to $1 billion.
Your Congressman opposed this new spending after voting to amend the bill to at
least require state matching funds. Even this modest requirement was defeated by those
who want Uncle Sam to pay and pay.
THE WHEAT BILL: Congressinnal "Spenders" won the day also in consideration of a
bill on price supports for wheat. Defeating an amendment which would have cut the
cost of the program at least $350 million a year, the House voted to provide a support
of 90 per cent of parity at an increased annual net cost for wheat alone of $110 million.
The bill as passed by the House also further restricts the production of the small
farmer by reducing the present 15-acre exemption to the smaller of 12 acres or the
highest planted acreage in 1957, 1958, or 1959.
The House passed a costly, ineffective wheat control bill by a vote of 188 to
177. Your Congressman voted "No" on the bill, H. R. 7246.
WORLD HEALTH CONFERENCE: U. S. delegates recently returned from a meeting of
the 90-nation World Health Organization at Geneva report that our country is acknowledged
as the leader in health work and research throughout the world. We hear so much of the
foreign ministers' conference at Geneva where the Soviet Union is holding up any progress,
that it is refreshing to know of American success and achievements for all mankind at
this Conference on World Health.
Rep. Mel Laird of Wisconsin who attended the Conference has said, "I shall never
forget the image of the Soviet Delegate standing before the full Assembly, and decrying
the unwillingness of under-developed countries to take advantage of the consultation,
technical aid, equipment, and other assistance offered by the Soviet Union."
It was most significant that the WHO Conference adopted the United States'
proposal for the establishment of an international pool for medical research. This was
strenuously opposed by the Soviet Union but overwhelmingly adopted by WHO. It means the
coordination throughout the world of research in cancer, heart ailment, and other
crippling diseases.
Your Washington Review
KENT
OTTAWA
5
Congressman
JERRY FORD
June 24, 1959
The legislative pace of the Congress has speeded up considerably in the past
several weeks. This development is long overdue. It is quite obvious that the
President's prodding for some action rather than illusory promises has needled the
majority party leadership into moving the House and Senate off dead center.
President Eisenhower has asked this Congress for 201 specific legislative items.
Until very recently the score was miserable with only eight passed and an overwhelming
majority not even considered by either the House or Senate.
Aside from the President's legislative program the overall scorecard on the
accomplishments of this Congress is not too favorable. By late May of this year there
had been 32 pieces of general legislation approved by the Congress. Only four were of
major consequence- (1) Hawaiian Statehood, (2) extension of the Selective Service Act
(3) extension of the emergency unemployment compensation law, and (4) the Railroad
Retirement Act. For comparison, at the same point in 1947, the 80th Congress--falsely
attacked as a "do-nothing" Congress--had passed 60 important bills and had completed
most of its work on such important legislation as the Taft-Hartley Act and comprehensive
tax reduction.
In the remaining weeks or months of this session there is much to be done in-
cluding affirmative, and I hope constructive action, on labor-reform legislation, a
housing bill, appropriation bills, and improved agriculture legislation. It may be a
long, hot summer in the Nation's Capital but the job must be done before adjournment.
WHEAT LEGISLATION- FURTHER COMMENTS: The House and Senate conferees, dominated
by Democrat majorities, came up with the alleged solution to the wheat problem. Even
its proponents called it a "stop-gap" measure. It was promptly rejected as no solution
by the House as a whole by a vote of 214 to 202. Your Congressman voted against this
so-called "stop'gap" legislation. According to one Senator the bill would have stopped
few gaps and opened new loopholes.
What is the problem? The federal government now owns 1,353,000,000 bushels of
wheat--enough to supply all our needs at home and abroad for a year and a half. This
stockpile of wheat represents a taxpayer investment of $3.5 billion. It costs the
U. S. Treasury $1 million per day just to handle the wheat and store it.
I voted against this "stop-gap" wheat bill primarily because, if approved, it
would only serve to delude our citizens into thinking Congress had done something about
the gigantic wheat surplus problem when actually the House and Senate has done nothing.
Despite a proposed mandatory slim cut in acreage there was an incentive for a greater
wheat production on the remaining acres. Furthermore the bill would have imposed
additional governmental restrictions and red tape on farmers when the nationwide plea
among farmers is for more freedom.
The bill would have done virtually nothing to give small family-sized farmers a
vote in a wheat marketing quota referendum. Here is a curious inconsiste.icy on voting
rights for farmers. Under existing law a tobacco farmer with one-tenth of an acre
allotment is allowed to vote on the government's tobacco program but a wheat farmer
with as much as 15 acres is not permitted to vote. In my judgment wheat farmers, re-
gardless of how large or small, should have the right to vote on their commodity program
as long as they stay within their allotments.
The House and Senate conferees, following the wheat bill's defeat in the House,
are now back in conference working on a new solution. The atmosphere in the House of
Representatives on this problem is similar to that which prevails throughout the nation.
In the final analysis the Congress must not perpetuate the basic elements of a wheat
program that has built up vast surpluses, burdened the U. S. Treasury, and imposed
regimentation on our farmers. President Eisenhower and Secretary Benson have recom-
mended a sound solution. Your Congressman favors this approach. The burden is on the
Congress as a whole to act promptly/
CANADA-UNITED STATES INTERPARLIMENTARY MEETING: For three days this week, as
one of 10 members from the House of Representatives and others from the Senate, I will
be conferring in Montreal with selected members of the Canadian Parliament. The major
issues before the Conference will be: (1) Joint Defense Treaties and problems which
include air defense and enemy aircraft warning arrangements and cooperative industrial
mobilization, (2) mutual economic problems, and (3) boundary water matters including
Great Lakes water diversion problems relating to the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power
Project. Pilotage difficulties on the Great Lakes will also be on, the agenda. While
in Canada we plan to attend the dedication ceremonies of the St. Lawrence Seaway where
the Queen of England and President Eisenhower will be guests of honor.
VISITORS TO OUR WASHINGTON OFFICE THIS WEEK: Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Anderson and
family; Mr. and Mrs. R Mallory, Mr. and Mrs. S. O. Thunstrom, Mr. and Mrs. Harry S.
Padgett, Jr.; Dr. and Mrs. John Wiese and family; Mr. and Mrs. H. N. Wood and family;
Mr. and Mrs. C. Lindmuller; H. W. Philo, and Carolyn Schoeter, all of Grand Rapids.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 1, 1959
A two-sentence bill which some contend is the most far-reaching measure to come
before the 86th Congress, was approved by the House of Representatives last week.
H. R. 3, a bill to establish rules of interpretation for Federal Courts involving the
doctrine of federal preemption was passed by a vote of 225 to 192.
H.R. 3 concerns the problem of concurrent Federal-State jurisdiction. Certain
decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court in recent years have nullified many state laws by
the doctrine of preemption. For example in the Nelson Case (1956) the court held that
the state of Pennsylvania could not prosecute its own citizens under state law outlawing
sedition against the federal government, because there happens to be a federal sedition
law. In the Cloverleaf Case (1942) the court decision meant that states may no longer
enforce many of their own agricultural sanitary laws because there happens to be a
federal law pertaining to the same subject.
In both instances the court assumed that by enacting a given piece of legislation
the Congress intended to take over the entire field by legislation. H. R. 3 says that
unless the Congress specifically declares an intention to monopolize the field, any
given Congressional Act shall not be interpreted by the courts as doing SO. However,
if there is a direct conflict between state and federal law in an area of concurrent
jurisdiction, the federal law will apply. Furthermore, H. R. 3 specifically states
that it is not the intention of the Congress to take over completely the protection of
the state and nation against those who would overthrow the government. The state may
share in this responsibility.
H. R. 3 is an amendment to the U. S. Code adding a new section dealing with
rules of statutory construction for the guidance of federal courts. It tells the courts
not to read into congressional intent something that is not there. It says that
Congress does not intend to preempt a field of jurisdiction unless specifically stated
and that as a rule of interpretation the courts must permit state law to stand unless
that law is in irreconcilable conflict with federal law.
Some have feared that the adoption of H. R. 3 will weaken federal legislation
in the areas of labor-management and civil rights. But the words of the bill itself
state precisely that the federal law only will apply whenever "there is a direct and
positive conflict between such Act (federal) and a state law so that the two cannot be
reconciled or consistently stand together." Federal law is to be supreme when there
is conflict, Otherwise, the traditional power of each state to act in its consti-
tutional sphere will be maintained. This seems to me to be a sound position.
THE HOUSING BILL: By a vote of 241 to 177 the House approved and sent to the
President a $2.25 billion omnibus housing bill. Your Congressman could not go along
with the bill as finally presented and in good conscience voted "no."
The President's balanced budget called for new obligational authority in this
area in an amount of $1.66 billion. The final bill is more than a half-billion dollars
over this figure. In his recommendation the President included no additional public
housing. The bill as passed calls for 45,000 additional units of public housing in
1960 and gives discretionary power to whoever is President to complete a program of
190,000 units in future years.
Public housing is subsidized housing. American taxpayers at the present time
are paying approximately $120 million a year for housing subsidies in certain areas.
The 45,000 additional units voted by the Congress will cost the people of our country
$875 million over the 40-year life of the program. The full 190,000 unit program,
when activated, would ultimately cost us nearly $4 billion in contracted subsidies.
It is unfortunate that the "spenders" succeeded again in tapping a mortgaged
treasury with only burdened and bewildered taxpayers left to guarantee solvency. I
am also always cognizant of the fact that the voters of Grand Rapids twice in the
last 10 years turned down public housing for our city.
The Conference Report version of S. 57, the Housing bill as passed, also con-
tained the indefensible provision for an "open backdoor to the Treasury." Under this
provision no further action is required by the Congress to supply funds to implement
the housing programs Normally, the Committee on Appropriations would annually examine
the budget requests, review the program, and appropriate the necessary funds. Through
this "back-door" approach the appropriation process is by-passed and the Executive
Branch of the Government goes directly to the Treasury to get its authorized funds.
This makes congressional control of federal spending most difficult. It prevents
careful review of spending programs. While the House had previously amended S. 57
to eliminate that provision, in conference the Senate insisted on the "open door." The
House Conferees capitulated and Your Congressman could not endorse such a system of
fiscal frresponsibility.
We hope that President Eisenhower will veto this specific measure. There will
then be time enough to adopt sound and effective housing legislation to take care of
the necessary improvements in the FHA program, college housing, urban renewal, and
housing for the elderly. At least 177 members of the House (126 Republicans and 51
Democrats) want a good bill without extravagant spending. They voted against the
final version of S. 57.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 8,1959
Postmaster General Arthur Summerfield deserves the highest commendation for his
hard-hitting efforts to halt the barons of obscenity who are callously dumping into
the hands of our children insidious trash. Recently he has been subjected to unjustified
and unfair criticism by a vocal minority for his firm and courageous position against
mailings of obscene and indecent material.
One columnist wrote that Mr. Summerfield "has put himself in the role of public
arbiter over private morality." A well-known newspaper ridiculed him as a newly-
arrived, pseudo "literary critic" because he found a certain novel unmailable.
In fact, the Postmaster General was simply enforcing Federal law which bars
obscene material from the mails. He makes no claim to being a "literary critic" but he
does recognize his responsibility under the law. If he is a "public arbiter" it is only
because the merchants of filth attempt to use the U. S. postal service to distribute
their illegal books, pictures, films, etc.
I have no sympathy with those who label any production, no matter how obscene
or indecent, as "art" or "literature" and expect it to be circulated freely and easily
throughout the country. The vast majority of our people do not want their homes defiled
with this sort of material and the "majority" in our Nation do have some "rights," the
Supreme Court notwithstanding. Mr. Summerfield is to be congratulated on the vigorous
campaign he is waging to prevent these grave abuses of the mailing privilege.
CANADA-UNITED STATES INTER-PARLIAMENTARY MEETING: As one of 24 members of
Congress who attended the recent sessions of the Canada-U. S. Inter-Parliamentary Con-
ference, your Congressman is more convinced than ever that such international talks
serve an essential purpose. Our meetings at Montreal and Ottawa were productive in
many ways but primarily because they gave comparable officials an opportunity to consider
joint problems before they become acute issues which, if neglected, could plague both our
countries.
In the Committee on Defense and Defense Production we examined the basic factors
in Canada-United States defense relationships. Both we and the Canadians noted the
satisfactory cooperative effort in defense of North America which has produced the radar-
warning lines and the North American Air Defense Command. There was complete agreement
that the best hope of avoiding a nuclear war rests in the collective determination of the
free world to resist aggression and in the maintenance of strong deterrent forces.
EXTRA HOLIDAYS: In the House of Representatives last week we had the most unusual
situation in which the Chairman and ranking minority member of a Committee both voted
against consideration of a bill reported to the House by their Committee.
The bill was H. R. 5752, which would make Friday a holiday for federal employees
if the regular holiday falls on Saturday. This bill was reported by the Committee
before President Eisenhower issued his Executive Order excusing federal employees from
duty last Friday, July 3, or granting compensatory time to those required to work that
day.
Chairman Tom Murray (Democrat of Tennessee) speaking in opposition to further con-
sideration of the bill said, "I see no occasion or necessity for this legislation at this
time since the Executive Order giving the holiday to the employees because July 4th falls
on a Saturday. I feel that in the future this matter should be handled by Executive Order.
There is not another (Saturday) holiday but one during the next 4 years and we do not
know what conditions may be at that time. Why should not this matter be handled by Exe-
cutive Crder in the future?"
I agreed with Chairman Murray as did the ranking Republican member of the Committee,
Rep. Edward Rees of Kansas, but the House approved the proposal which now goes to the
Senate for further consideration.
REVIEW OF SERVICE DISCHARGES: Since 1940 over 278,000 individuals have received
undesirable discharges from the Armed Forces. Over 200,000 others have been given bad
conduct or dishonorable discharges by courts-martial.
Many responsible persons, in and out of government, have expressed the feeling
that the stigma of a discharge under conditions other than honorable is unfair and unjust
in many cases. The effects of the punishment are life-long and often, it is contended,
too severe and inconsistent with comparable punishment in civilian life.
In recently adopting a bill, H. R. 88, the House acted to permit some mollification
of this effect. If the measure becomes law the various Army, Navy, and Air Force boards
which may review discharges and dismissals will take into consideration, among other things,
four specific factors in determining whether to change a discharge. These are the age of
the serviceman and all other prevailing conditions at the time of the incident which
resulted in the discharge, the degree of moral turpitude involved, and the normal punish-
ment which a civilian would have received.
In addition, these boards will be authorized to issue an "Exemplary Rehabilitation
Certificate" if in their judgment a person with a less than honorable discharge merits
this recognition. These certificates will not change the discharge. They will not entitle
an individual to any benefits he is not entitled to under his original discharge. But the
certificate will indicate that in the estimation of the review board this person has shown
exemplary postservice conduct for a period of at least three years after discharge. It
will indicate that the board has considered this and the circumstances. involved in his
original discharge and is granting a certificate which may assist him in adjusting to
civilian life. It is hoped especially that such a certificate would help these persons in
obtaining more satisfactory employment.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 15, 1959
The House Committee on Education and Labor in executive session during the past
weeks has been chipping away at the Senate-approved Labor-Management reform bill. It
appears that the bill to be reported any day by the Committee will be weak, impotent,
and ineffective to handle the deplorable conditions in some labor organizations.
With continued revelations by the McClellan Committee demonstrating the need for
much greater protection for the individual union member, the small businessman, and the
general public, it is obvious that the bill will have to be rewritten on the floor of
the House. The Committee's bill will not meet the challenge of the grave situation now
existing.
It is regretable that a majority of the Committee (20 Democrats, 10 Republicans)
have not been able to see their responsibility to the American people in this vital area
of our economic life. The Senate bill of 1959 is more acceptable than the 1958 Kennedy-
Ives proposal. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 1 on April 25th, but this
is not to infer that the measure is perfect. In fact, it needs improvement. At the
minimum it should be strengthened by the addition of provisions to deal effectively with
the secondary boycott, organizational "blackmail" picketing, and the problem of state
and federal jurisdiction in labor disputes.
But there is no question that the majority of the House Committee will deal dis-
asterously with the Senate bill. I trust that this Committee majority does not reflect
the sentiments of the majority of the House of Representatives. In fact we know
definitely that there will be a vigorous fight waged on the floor of the House to develop
an affirmative and effective labor-management bill to protect the best interests of
labor unions, their members, and the public as a whole. The support and help of all our
citizens is necessary, however, if during the current session of Congress constructive
progress is to be made in this important area.
RECORDED VOTES: Last week, roll call votes developed on two issues in the House
of Representatives. The first involved a Reorganization Plan submitted by the President.
He proposed transferring to the Secretary of Agriculture certain responsibilities now
placed on the Secretary of the Interior in connection with the handling of public lands,
especially forest lands. This was to achieve a more efficient administration based on
the Hoover Commission recommendations. I could see no objection to the Plan and voted
for the change. However the vote was '266 to 124 to nullify the proposal.
The House approved legislation by a vote of 262 to 138 to modify a recent Supreme
Court decision holding that a personal confession of a crime was not admissible evidence
because of a 7½-hour time lapse between arrest and the arraignment before a magistrate.
Solely because of this delay the Court had set free a confessed criminal with a bad
record. This seems most unreasonable and your Congressman voted to amend the U. S. Code
to provide that "evidence otherwise admissible shall not be inadmissible solely because
of delay in taking an arrested person before
an officer empowered to commit."
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES: Five academies operated by the U. S. Government offer
a free college education to boys of the Fifth District who are interested in certain types
of Federal service.
Kent and Ottawa Counties will be entitled to three appointments to the U. S. Naval
Academy in 1960, two appointments to the Military Academy at West Point, and one appoint-
ment to the U. S. Air Force Academy.
In addition, young men from the Fifth District will be eligible to compete for 11
appointments from Michigan to the U. S. Merchant Marine Academy, and for some of the 200
nation-wide appointments to the Coast Guard Academy at New London, Connecticut. Graduation
from any of these academies leads not only to a bachelor's degree but also to a commission
incone of the Services.
Candidates for these appointments generally must be single, in excellent health,
between 17 and 22 years old, high school graduates or in their senior year. Candidates
for West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs are nominated by the Congressman. To
assist him in selecting the best qualified individuals, your Congressman utilizes the
Civil Service Qualifying Examination. This will be given in mid-November of this year to
select candidates for the classes beginning in July, 1960. Anyone interested in further
information on these opportunities should write me at 351 House Office Building, Washing-
ton, D. C., before November 1st.
A congressman may also nominate candidates for the Merchant Marine Academy, which
offers a four-year course leading to a license as an officer in the U. S. Merchant Marine,
a. commission as Ensign in the U. S. Naval Reserve, and the Bachelor of Science Degree.
Application to take the examination for appointment as a cadet at the Coast Guard
Academy is made directly to the Commandant. We will be pleased to supply forms and
further information for anyone interested in a free college education and service as a
Coast Guard officer.
AVAILABLE: Also available through your Congressman's office are new 49-star flags
certified as having been flown over the United States Capitol Building. A 3x5-foot flag
may be obtained for $2.35 while a 5x8-foot flag costs $5.80.
For those interested we have a limited supply of the 6-page pamphlet giving the
program for the laying of the cornerstone of the extension of the Capitol on July 4th.
We also will send upon request a 19-page illustrated booklet entitled, "Congress at Work"
presenting considerable details on "Facts, Functions, Organization, and Personalities of
the 86th Congress."
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 22, 1959
In the Senate Office Building Senator John McClellan's Committee continues to un-
cover instances of bribery, coercion, fraud, pay-offs, sell-outs, goon-squad tactics, and
double crossing of its own members by some of Jimmy Hoffa's hierarchy in the Teamsters'
Union. The Committee continues to witness the unsavory spectacle of certain teamster
henchmen invoking the Fifth Amendment to hide their criminal records and their illegal
activities. Senator McClellan and his colleagues continue to find Hoffa and his crew
disrespectful of the Committee, contemptuous of federal and state law, and impervious to
the public interest.
At the same time across the Capitol plaza in the House Office Building, members of
the House of Representatives are being flooded with telegrams and letters from high
officials in the Teamsters' Union demanding defeat of the Kennedy-Ervin bill in the form
in which it passed the Senate. These messages object strenuously to any restrictions on
the "hot cargo" clauses in labor contracts; they oppose any restriction on secondary
boycotts and organizational "blackmail" picketing.
Teamster Union agents reject legislation in these three areas because "hot cargo"
clauses, the secondary boycott, and blackmail picketing are among their weapons for
achieving terrific economic power.
"Hot cargo" clause: You are a union member employed by Establishment "A." Your
employer has agreed in his contract with the union that should there develop in the
future a strike among any supplier or customer, neither you nor any employees of "A"
will be required to handle the goods ("hot cargo") of the struck company. You and
members of your local are to have no choice in the matter; you are not to have the oppor-
tunity to review the situation at the struck plant. No pickets will have to be thrown
around Establishment "A." You just don't handle goods of the struck plant if the union
officials make that arbitrary decision. If all this means you lose time or your job
because of the cutback in supplies or markets, that's just too bad. The Hoffa-dominated
organization thrives on "hot cargo" clauses but individual workers often are penalized
and hurt. The Kennedy-Ervin bill as approved by the Senate outlaws "hot cargo" clauses
in labor contracts.
Secondary Boycott: You work in a shop in your home town. Parts used in operations
at your shop are supplied by Company "X" hundreds of miles away. Today, an out-of-town
union agent comes to your employer and says, "We're on strike at Company 'X'. You stop
buying from him or we'll make trouble for you." Unless your employer wants the kind of
trouble he knows can be developed, he stops buying parts from Company "X." The
resultant shortage in parts may put you out of work until your employer can find a new
source of supply. But this inconvenience is unimportant to the out-of-town agent.
Furthermore, by using a similar attack with its other customers, the agent forces
Company "X" to sign a contract which its employees may not have wanted in the first place.
This action is now lawful. The Senate-passed Kennedy-Ervin bill does nothing to correct
it.
Blackmail Picketing: You work at a plant which has no union. You and a majority
of your fellow employees want no union. A paid union organizer from headquarters goes
to your employer with an ultimatum: "Sign a union contract with us or we will picket
your plant (by use of strangers) and nothing will be hauled in or hauled out. You will
get no supplies or materials." What does the employer do? He can close up and you are
out of a job. He can sign up and you are in the union either against your will or in
one not of your choice. This is legal today. The Senate defeated 30 to 59 an amendment
to Kennedy-Ervin which would have prohibited such blackmail picketing.
I am confident that the telegrams coming to my office from Mr. Hoffa's representa-
tives do not reflect the views of the rank and file union members in the Fifth District.
I believe that our union members want vigorous and effective unions and union leadership.
But I am equally certain that union members in Kent and Ottawa Counties want their
national leaders, as well as their local leaders, to be honest, law-abiding, fair-minded,
and free from criminal records. They probably agree with Senator Kennedy who told
Hoffa: "You remain the best argument for the passage of the (Kennedy-Ervin) bill." "
I can also report that we have received only a few communications from individual
union members in the Fifth District objecting to the provisions of the Kennedy-Ervin
bill which passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 1. We have had recommendations from a
number of citizens urging that the bill be strengthened. As I have indicated previously
I will support a strong labor reform bill that will get at the basic problems exposed
by the McClellan Committee. I will vote for legislation which will best protect the
interests of the individual union members and the public as a whole.
It has been contended that a strong labor reform bill is not necessary because
most union constitutions and by-laws are adequate to protect individual members, and
most leaders in labor organizations are honest. The answer to this is simple and we
can agree that most labor leaders are honest.
We have criminal laws in every state not to plague law-abiding citizens but to
protect them. Criminal laws in any area are aimed at penalizing only the crooks but
they are essential in order to protect the vast majority of good and dedicated citizens.
As strong criminal laws do not injure the law-abiding citizen, a strong labor-reform
law will not hinder honest union leaders nor will it hamper legitimate union activity.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 29, 1959
During the past week conferees from the House and Senate have been at work on the
appropriation bill for the Department of Defense. The President recommended a 1960
budget of $39.2 billion. The House passed a bill appropriating $38.8 billion which the
Senate raised to $39.5 billion.
The House version of this major money bill was approved on June 3rd while the
Senate took final action on July 14th. But the Senate made 40 changes in the language
and/or dollar amounts. Before the bill can go to the President these differences must
be compromised; all disagreements must be ironed out. The task of developing a single
bill acceptable to both bodies of Congress is delegated to a Conference Committee composed
of members from each House.
Your Congressman has been one of the five House Conferees serving on this Committee
of three Democrats and two other Republicans. Others were Representatives Cannon, Mahon,
Sheppard, and Taber. Among the Senators were such veterans as Byrd, Chavez, Bridges,
and Hayden. It is interesting to note that Senator Hayden was a member of the Congress
from Arizona before your Congressman was born. Coming to the House of Representatives
in 1912, he is now chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate where he
has served since 1927.
The Senate appointed ten conferees but this does not mean that it controlled the
Committee. Decisions in a conference committee are made by a majority vote of the
delegates from each House acting separately. Agreement comes only by consent of a
majority of delegates from each House.
In preparation for this conference the House members met with the civilian and
military heads of the three services for a final review of our military needs and to
receive their last-minute recommendations. In other pre-conference sessions we planned
strategy and outlined our method of attack. As delegates of the House of Representatives
it was our duty to press for acceptance of the House position in each of the 40 areas of
disagreement. We were bound to insist but expected to compromise. Because the Con-
ference Report must be approved by both the House and Senate a conferee must theoretically
at least, subjugate any divergent personal view and urge the official position taken by
the House.
INTEREST ON FEDERAL BONDS: Last month Uncle Sam sold $323 million worth of E and
H bonds compared with $376 million a year ago. During the same month the Treasury re-
deemed $470 million worth of these bonds as compared with $411 million in June, 1958.
Sales were down 14 per cent over a year ago while redemptions were up 14 per cent.
Furthermore, redemptions in June exceeded purchases by $147 million.
These figures point up the problem Uncle Sam presently has in borrowing money.
Paying interest of 3½ per cent when held to maturity, E and H savings bonds are not
attracting a sufficient number of investors in today's money market. President Eisenhower
has suggested increasing the rate to 3 3/4 per cent for those bonds issued after June 1st
and improving the rate for those bonds outstanding.
Marketable Treasury bonds, likewise, are unattractive to most investors because
of the 40-year-old 4 1/4 per cent interest rate ceiling. With the big demand for loans
today in our generally prosperous economy, it is becoming impossible for the Treasury to
market its bonds (securities maturing in 5 years or more).
It must borrow money, however, to fill the gap between revenues and expenditures.
But it cannot offer more than 4 1/4 per cent on 5-year and over bonds, and at 4 1/4 per
cent there are currently no takers. It is necessary, therefore, to go to short-term
borrowing which in today's market must be through the commercial banking system. When
these banks loan money to the government, they--in effect--simply put down a credit to
the Treasury's account in their books. The money flows out into the economy through
government checks and other payments without necessarily increasing the amount of things
that people can buy with it. Result: further inflation, bigger grocery bills, higher
rents, costlier services.
The President has requested the removal of this interest ceiling so the Treasury
can manage the national debt effectively and without further inflationary effects. The
House, Committee on Ways and Means has discussed certain solutions but at this writing
has taken no action to remedy the problem.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM. In our highway construction program, also, vital de-
cisions must be made shortly. When the Federal Highway Act was adopted in 1956 a Highway
Trust Fund was established, additional taxes were levied, and road construction under the
Act was placed on a pay-as-you-go basis. The Byrd Amendment (Sec. 209g) expressly provides
that if expenditures from the Trust Fund exceed revenue, the Secretary of Commerce shall
reduce accordingly the amount of contractual authority to be apportioned to each state.
Last year as an anti-recession measure the Congress waived this provision for
fiscal years 1959 and 1960 and accelerated the road-building program. As a result, it is
estimated that under present law there will be a deficit in the Highway Trust Fund of $241
million by June 30, 1960. By that date in 1962, the deficit will have accumulated to
$2.1 billion.
Suggested solutions include a cutback in or a stretching out of the road-building
program, an increase in the gasoline tax, financing the deficit out of general fund money,
or the issuance of special bonds to be redeemed out of future highway user taxes. Last week
the Committee on Ways and Means opened hearings to find an answer to this difficult problem.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 5, 1959
The House of Representatives has approved legislation appropriating $3.2 billion
for our mutual security program. Last year the final figure was $3.5 billion. In 1951
the amount appropriated totaled $7.3 billion. It is important to remember the cost of
this program has been cut in half under President Eisenhower. While I have consistently
supported the program simply because it benefits the United States by strengthening a
common defense against a common danger, it is gratifying to know that the costs are being
reduced.
A certain amount of justifiable criticism and a considerable amount of unjusti-
fiable criticism has been levied at the mutual security program. That mistakes have been
made, no one can deny. But it is equally as evident that the total costs to the American
people in terms of dollars and military manpower has been substantially reduced by the
expanded efforts of our allies which has been generated by the practical encouragement
we have given them. Their cooperation in providing real estate for highly essential
bases on the periphery of the Communist world alone is invaluable to our own national
security.
LABOR-MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION: Kennedy-Ervin, Elliott's bill, and Griffin-Landrum
are the names about the Capitol this week. Rep. Carl Elliott of Alabama introduced the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (H. R. 8342) as revised and
reported by the House Committee on Education and Labor. It is a considerably watered-
down version of the Kennedy-Ervin - bill passed by the Senate on April 25th
Bob Griffin of Traverse City, representing Michigan's 9th Congressional District,
and Rep. Phil Landrum of Georgia, members of the House Committee on Education and Labor,
have introduced legislation (H. R. 8400 and H. R. 8401) retaining most of the Kennedy-
Ervin provisions. Their bill also deals with some of the problems involved in secondary
boycotts, blackmail picketing, and the jurisdiction of state and federal governments in
labor disputes.
Rep. Griffin has said, "We believe our substitute is a moderate but effective bill.
It is not punitive or extreme, and it will not hamper legitimate union activities." I
intend to support the Griffin-Landrum bill when it is offered as a substitute for the
Committee's proposal. If the Griffin-Landrum version is not adopted, I will support
amendments to strengthen the Committee's bill. We need some legislation this session
to prevent recurrence of such abuses as have been revealed by the McClellan Committee.
KINCHELOE AIR FORCE BASE: Kinross Air Force Base near Sault St. Marie will be
renamed Kincheloe Air Force Base on September 18th. This action is the result of recom-
mendations made to the Secretary of the Air Force about a year ago to honor in such a
manner the late Captain Iven C. Kincheloe, test pilot and aeronautical engineer of
Cassopolis, Michigan who was killed July 26, 1958 while flying an F-104 Starfighter jet
in California. He had been chosen by the Air Force to be one of the first pilots to fly
into space and was a jet ace of the Korean Conflict.
Following the suggestion of a Grand Rapids editor I wrote Secretary of the Air
Force James Douglas on August 6, 1958 recommending that some air base, a research and
development facility, or some other Air Force installation be named in honor of Captain
Kincheloe. This proposal received broad support and was evaluated by a Department of
Defense Board of Meritorious Service to determine whether the services of Captain
Kincheloe warranted such consideration. The Board's decision will be confirmed on
September 18th at a ceremony which I am sure will be applauded by every citizen of
Michigan.
DAYTIME RADIO BROADCASTING: In recent weeks we have received numerous letters
and one petition endorsing H. R. 6676 introduced by Rep. George Shipley of Illinois.
This nine-line bill would authorize radio stations now licensed to operate during daylight
hours (sun-up to sun-set) to braodcast at least from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Its
enactment therefore would lengthen the operating period of the daytime broadcasters in
certain months. Mr. Shipley's bill is with the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce which to date has scheduled no action on it.
CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE: In order to provide an accurate and up-to-date picture
of the changes on the American farm scene, a Census of Agriculture is taken every five
years. The information which is gathered on a county basis throughout the nation is of
great value to the Congress and the Department of Agriculture in formulating and develop-
ing farm policy and programs. The facts found by the census takers are used extensively
by producers of farm supplies and by those who market farm products. State and local
agricultural authorities also follow closely these census figures and their implications.
This census will give us such information as how our land is used (for crops,
pasture, woodlots, etc.) the acreage and production of specific crops, the amount of
livestock being raised, the types of machinery employed, the major farm expenditures,
and the income realized by our farmers. While the totals by counties will be published,
individual farm reports are absolutely confidential.
Thirty-two enumerators in Kent County and 22 in Ottawa will begin work about
October 28th. Paid on a piece-work basis they will earn about $12 a day and will be
allowed 7c a mile for automobile use. Carl J. Tuggle, 542 Ethel Street, SE, Grand Rapids
is the Field Assistant (supervisor) for Southwestern Michigan. He will be assisted by
crew leaders of which there will be one in Ottawa and two in Kent.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 12, 1959
During the month of June contracts involving $11,116,793.92 were awarded by the
Michigan State Highway Department for the construction of 25 miles of roadway in the
Interstate Highway System. Road building is expensive.
Anyone who has traveled U. S. 16 realizes the dangers and inconveniences of the old
road and the relative safety and pleasure of the new construction. New roads are needed.
Michigan presently is planning 1076 miles of new road in the federal interstate
system. On July 1st, 204.2 miles were opened to traffic and 108.6 additional miles were
under contract. Contracts for 763.2 miles must still be awarded. Adequate financing is
essential.
Because the Congress accelerated the highway program last year as an anti-recession
measure it is estimated that by June 1960 there will be a deficit of $241 million in the
special Highway Trust Fund from which the interstate system is financed. By June 1962
this "red ink" figure will have climbed to $2.1 billion.
Letters and telegrams coming into my office during the past week indicate a serious
concern by many of our people with the recent decision of the Committee on Ways and Means
relative to financing the federal government's share of the highway program.
The Committee agreed to a "stretch out" of four years for the completion of the
program. It also recommended a "cutback" in apportionment of federal funds in fiscal
years 1961 and 1962 from $2.5 billion each to $600 million and $1.4 billion respectively.
This means a slow down in anticipated construction.
The Committee proposes the issuance of up to $1 billion worth of revenue bonds to
be paid out of the Highway Trust Fund. These bonds will not be a part of the public
debt subject to the limitation and would bear interest at a 5 per cent rate. The period
for paying taxes into the Trust Fund will be extended from June 1972 to June 1976.
The Committee also would transfer to the Trust Fund 2 per cent of the 10 per cent
excise tax on automobiles for a period of four years.
My good friend, Rep. John Byrnes of Wisconsin, a senior member of the Committee on
Ways and Means, stated that this "financing proposal is a typical resort to expediency
in meeting fiscal problems by the inherently immoral practice of paying for today's
spending with tomorrow's taxes. This Committee action poses a very grave national
question: If in today's prosperous times we are unable to meet current needs out of
current income, when will we pay our own way?"
Rep. Charles E. Chamberlain of Michigan has pointed out that the decision to
earmark part of the 10 per cent excise on automobiles would tend to "assure the
permanency" of a tax which Congressmen from Michigan have been fighting to repeal or
reduce.
I think it is most unfortunate that the Committee has refused to face up to the
primary problems involved in our highway-construction program. It is regretable that it
has not given greater consideration to the recommendations made by the President for a
sound and vigorous attack on the problem. It is imperative that road construction go
forward and that fiscal responsibility be maintained. Your Congressman intends to
vote on this issue with these basic requirements in the foreground.
WITH THE MAIL: The House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has been
considering legislation to strengthen the authority of the Post Office Department to
control obscene, indecent, and/or fraudulent mailings. Hearings have been held on H. R.
7379, a bill empowering the Postmaster General to impound such mail if he finds it to be
"in the public interest" to do SO, Under current law such mail can be impounded only if
it is found "reasonable and necessary" to do SO. Some courts have given such a narrow
interpretation to "reasonable and necessary," that the mailers of obscene or fraudulent
material have a field day at the expense and to the detriment of our children.
H. R. 7379 would require the Post Office Department to go to court within 20 days
in order to extend the impounding order beyond its normal 45-day lifetime. The bill
would also require the mailer to show that the temporary impounding order was issued
"arbitrarily or capriciously" in order to contest it on procedural grounds.
May I reiterate that I will support any legislation recommended by the Committee
to strengthen the power of the Postmaster General to combat obscene, indecent, and
fraudulent mailings.
INFLATION AND THE COST OF LIVING: Recent public opinion polls show that the
American people as a whole want a stable dollar. They want to keep down the cost of
living. It is noteworthy, therefore, that in the past seven years under President
Eisenhower the cost of living has risen only 9.7 per cent or an average of 1.4 per cent
each year.
In contrast, from 1944 through 1952, there was a 50.9 per cent increase in living
costs while from 1932 to 1944, the Consumer Price Index went up by 28.7 per cent.
Sound and responsible federal fiscal policy contributes to a sound economy and a stable
dollar. President Eisenhower has led a vigorous battle against inflationary legislation
and has had to veto proposals that would inevitably increase the cost of living. Your
Congressman has agreed with Ike 100 per cent.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 19, 1959
LABOR-MANAGEMENT REFORM LEGISLATION. Last week the House of Representatives
tackled the labor-reform bill which by any standard of comparison was the roughest le-
gislative problem in this session. Controversy raged all over the place whenever two
people got together. Lobbyists (and I don't use the term in its derogatory sense) on
all sides of the issue talked to members of the House in their offices, in the corridors,
and by telephone. Letters and telegrams swamped Congressional offices.
The debate was sharp but with few exceptions on a very high level. In my judgment
the American people can be proud of the manner in which the proponents of each point of
view explained their position. During the four days' heated discussion the House
galleries were packed with interested spectators. In fact each day the seats were
filled an hour before the House convened. This had never happened before in Your Con-
gressman's eleven years in Washington.
All this simply illustrates the intense public interest in a vital and controversial
domestic issue.
Everyone is familiar with the disclosures of the McClellan Committee in the Senate.
In over two years of public hearings this committee has clearly demonstrated the absolute
necessity for affirmative action in the field of labor-management reform legislation.
All but those who have abused their power conceded the need for effective legislation
by the Congress. The sole question--What legislative proposal would best do the job
to protect individual union members, small business and the public generally?
What were the specific alternatives in the House of Representatives during this
gigantic struggle?
The House Committee on Education and Labor voted out the Elliott bill. Actually
this bill was favored by only five members of the 30 members of the committee. The
remaining 25 committee members were badly split. Some felt it too tough, others con-
sidered it as too weak. It was reported to the House as a whole by a vote of 16 to 14
just to get the issue before the total House membership. Speaker Rayburn endorsed the
Elliott proposal.
The AFL-CIO strongly endorsed the so-called Shelley bill. It allegedly, according
to its sponsors, would have cleaned up some of the abuses which the McClellan committee
has exposed. However, the House of Representatives obviously wanted something better
for it was rejected 132 to 245.
The real test came when the Griffin-Landrum bill was submitted. It was a bi-
partisan effort with Representative Robert Griffin of Traverse City one of the co-authors.
This bill included provisions to protect the rights of the individual union member in
the day-to-day operations of his union. In addition the Griffin-Landrum bill dealt
realistically with the problems of the secondary boycott, "blackmail" organizational
picketing, "hot cargo" problems and the "no-man's land" between federal and state
jurisdiction in labor-management disputes.
The Griffin-Landrum bill, al though cpposed violently by James Hoffa, teamster boss,
and George Meany, President of the AFL-CIO, was likewise considered inadequate by some
who felt any labor-reform legislation should go much further. In other words this bill
was condemned by the extremists on both sides.
However, the Griffin-Landrum measure had some excellent endorsements. Senator
McClellan, the highly respected Chairman of the Senate Committee, approved it as the
best approach. President Eisenhower in his television address urged approval. The
House of Representatives in the real test vote favored it by 229 to 201. Your Congress-
man voted for it.
The bill now goes to the Senate-House Conference Committee where the differences
between it and the Senate-passed Kennedy-Ervin bill must be resolved. The conferees
have a tremendous public responsibility. The House of Repr sentatives has approved a
stronger and more effective "reform bill" than the Senate which earlier this year
considered the problem. It is my hope the conference committee will work out a final
solution more nearly like the Griffin-Landrum bill. It must contain an enforceable
"bill of rights" for union members, it must include provisions to protect the small
businessman from abuses of power by some labor leaders, and above all it must protect
the public interest.
SPECIAL ELECTION: Voters in the 14 northern townships of Kent County with those
in East Grand Rapids have a special privilege and a serious duty on August 31st. We
are to select a man to represent us in the State Legislature. I hope that every eligible
voter will take the required few minutes to register his choice. We want a big vote
not only to encourage the man elected but to demonstrate our faith and interest in our
form of government which we are privileged to enjoy.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 26, 1959
The House and Senate conferees on the labor-management reform bill (7 from the House
and 7 from the Senate) have been meeting daily and working conscientiously to draft a final
version of this important legislation. The periodic "off-the-record reports" one gets from
this conference seem to indicate all parties are striving for a legislative solution to
a problem where the public as a whole demands an effective answer. Admittedly, at this
writing, the conference committee has not tackled the really controversial area where there
are substantial differences between the "strong" Griffin-Landrum bill and the "weak" Kennedy
version. Your Congressman, however, is optimistic that in the final analysis a good law
will result.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION: The following is a photostat of a letter received by me and
the 228 other members of the House who voted for the Griffin-Landrum bill. It is from
Mr. James B. Carey, one of the most prominent labor union leaders in the United States.
INTERNATIONAL UNION
I
OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS
AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR and CONGRESS Of INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
JAMES B. CAREY
President
EXECUTIVE 3-6094
AL HARTNETT
Secretary-Treasurer
1126 SIXTEENTH STREET N. W., WASHINGTON 6, D.C.
Philip Murray Building
August 18, 1959
Dear Congressman:
Only you know, in the privacy of your own conscience,
whether you carefully considered the possible consequences of the
Landrum-Griffin bill when you voted for it on August 13, 1959. If you
did, and realized that it is a punitive, repressive measure intended
to weaken all labor unions and thereby all working men and women, you
have much to answer for. If you did not, and merely yielded to the
pressures of the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of
Manufacturers, your guilt is perhaps even greater.
You should realize now, if you did not during the heat
of battle, that this vindictive assault on the labor movement will, in
the long run, prove to your constituents that you are less interested
in individual rights and democracy than in property rights and the
concentration of power in the hands of big business.
You may believe that you are safe in such action because
organized labor is relatively weak in your District, and cannot call you
to account for the damage you have sought to do to it. You may be right --
at the moment.
We wish to assure you, however, that we shall do all
in our power to prove to the working men and women in your District
that you have cast your lot against them and they should therefore take
appropriate action at the ballot box.
Very truly yours,
President James B. Carey
liu 1746 afl-cio
jm
REACTION--GOOD OR BAD?
Mr. Carey's blast produced a near unanimous reaction--his comments were poorly
timed and ill advised. Such a threatening attitude may well lead the Congress to be
even more firm in its attitude toward labor-reform legislation. It doesn't appear
that Mr. Carey's dictatorial demands scared any of the 134 Republicans or the 95
Democrats who voted for the Landrum-Griffin bill.
In his letter Mr. Carey says, You may believe that you are safe in such action
because organized labor is relatively weak in your District, and cannot call you to
account for the damage you have sought to do to it. You may be right--at the moment."
The facts are that in Kent and Ottawa Counties organized labor does have thousands
of members and does have vigorous and effective leadership. Mr. Carey does not realize,
however, that the individual union members in our area, and undoubtedly elsewhere, make
their own decisions on governmental matters, including the choice of political candi-
dates and political party selection. All our citizens have in the past and will in
the future cast their votes as their conscience dictates without the dictatorial in-
fluence of some self-appointed string-puller at the head of a particular labor union.
In contrast to Mr. Carey's threatening tactics the various labor union officials
from Kent and Ottawa Counties who contacted me prior to the final vote on this issue
handled themselves in a completely fair and proper manner. I had conferences in my
office in Washington with labor officials from Michigan. We discussed all aspects
of the basic problems of labor-management reform. There were no threats, no demands.
The alternative proposals were analyzed objectively. I congratulate our local labor
representatives on their intelligent and fair-minded approach. We may disagree in
certain respects but they are always welcome to submit to me personally their views.
Your Congressman will respect their viewpoint but must look at this issue, or any
issue, from the standpoint of the public as a whole.
Mr. Carey ends his letter by saying that he will urge our citizens to "take
appropriate action at the ballot box." Under our American system he, of course, has
that right to disagree with me and propagandize his viewpoint. However, I doubt if
his threatening and intimidating tactics will win friends and influence people. The
voters of America have the right to expect their Congressman to explain and defend his
decisions on this or any other issue. This I will be glad to do inpersonal interviews,
in group meetings, or by correspondence. After the House and Senate adjourn your
Congressman until January will be in all parts of Ottawa and Kent Counties with my
mobile office. I welcome visits to answer any questions. In the meantime, Mr. Carey's
challenge is accepted.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
September 2, , 1959
Speculation on the date of adjournment runs from September 4th to sometime in
October or November. The most likely date appears to be about September 12th unless the
Senate becomes involved in the extended debate on a civil rights bill. There is sub-
stantial "cloakroom gossip" to the effect that this could happen. The Democratic Party
leadership which controls the House and Senate would like to enact some sort of civil
rights legislation this year and avoid a knock-down-drag-out fight in 1960 when the
presidential nomination and election is on the agenda.
This controversial issue always vividly points out the wide split in the Democratic
Party. A strong civil rights bill would be a "feather in the cap" of the northern wing
of the Democratic Party while no legislation on this subject would be a victory for the
southerners.
The House Committee on the Judiciary has reported out a reasonably good civil rights
bill which is now before the Committee on Rules. On the Senate side the bill is bottled
up in the Judiciary Committee. Proponents of the legislation are threatening to attach
the bill to another non-controversial proposal in order to force the issue to the Senate
floor for consideration. This parliamentary maneuver is permitted under Senate rules.
Such an effort could indicate extended Senate debate which would delay adjournment for
some time.
Your Congressman has always voted for fair and effective legislation in this area.
I hope the Committee on Rules clears the bill for floor action this year. The House
Committee on the Judiciary has recommended legislation which should become law as soon
as possible.
In the meantime there is a pre-adjournment lull in legislative activity. My
Committee on Appropriations has practically concluded its chores for this session.
Fifteen appropriation bills have become law. Two are practically through the mill. The
last one has cleared the House and awaits Senate action which should be forthcoming
shortly.
Action is still awaited on several disputed issues such as housing and highway
legislation and the final version of the labor reform bill.
Your Congressman has strong feelings on each. We need a housing bill but one
more in line with the President's views. Ike has already vetoed an extravagant housing
bill that would help to kayo the federal treasury. The House and Senate can and should
enact a bill that would provide essential FHA authorization, helpful modifications in FHA
terms, sensible urban renewal and adequate college housing funds.
The federal highway construction program must be continued without resorting to
deficit financing. The President has proposed that construction proceed on a "pay-as-you-
go" basis. A few politicians in the Congress have conjured up one "gimmick" after another
trying to build additional roads without providing the necessary funds except by deficit
financing. Speaker Sam Rayburn, apparently a bit disgusted with the purely political
approach to a problem that is simply one of adequate and honest funding for a construction
program, has taken charge of the Democrat majority in the House and demanded action that
may lead to an acceptable compromise.
No more news at this point on what progress is being made in labor-reform legisla-
tion in the House and Senate Conference Committee. Six of the seven sections of the bill
have been agreed to and a bit of headway has been reported on the remaining really con-
troversial issues. With the public demanding affirmative and effective labor-reform
legislation it would be unthinkable to have the Congress approve any weak-kneed compromise.
INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION
Earlier in the session Your Congressman was selected as one of eleven delegates
from the House of Representatives to attend the 48th annual session of the Inter-
parliamentary Union in Warsaw, Poland. Another Michigan member of the House of Rep-
resentatives, Rep. Thaddeus Machrowicz, Democrat from the Detroit area, will also be a
United States delegate to the session which begins August 27th and ends September 4th.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union conference agenda in 1959 lists three main topics:
(1) Problems of international security and disarmament, (2) Elimination of obstacles to
international trade, and (3) the role of parliaments or legislative bodies in protecting
individual rights. The overall object of the IPU is to promote a common approach to
international peace, development of democratic institutions and a better understanding of
national problems.
The United States has been a member of the organization since 1889 when it was
founded. At present 55 nations belong. Special significance is attached to this meeting
in Poland because it is the first IPU conference held in a nation behind the Iron Curtain.
Prior to the departure of the U. S. delegation for the conference several meetings
were held which included full briefings given by State Department experts. We are all
well supplied with comprehensive background material on the agenda's issues. Rest assured
the delegates from nations behind the Iron Curtain will be there in full force. It is up
to the United States delegates from the House and Senate to effectively represent the
American point of view.
On the return trip the delegates will stop in Moscow for a review of the U. S.
exhibit in the Soviet capital where Vice President Nixon successfully took on Premier
Khrushchev in a spirited public debate. While in the Soviet Union I would like to have
a look at some of the military installations which the Soviets put off limits to the Vice
President. As a member of our Defense Committee on Appropriations it would be most
interesting to see and compare some of theirs with ours. Will give you a full report on
my return.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
September 9, 1959
(The following is a summary of experiences in Your Congressman's office prepared by
a Congressional fellow, Henry Simon, who worked in my office during the summer. His
duties ranged from research to running errands, and I was most appreciative of his help.)
REPORT FROM A STAFFER: By way of introduction, I am a June graduate of Yale Uni-
versity, a Texan, and I have been fortunate enough to have worked for your Congressman,
Jerry Ford, during this summer as a college intern. In fact, I may have read your mail.
Summing up in a few words a summer of working in a Congressional office is difficult,
but I'd like to concentrate on Congressional mail because letters are the primary
interest of almost every member of a Congressional staff.
My first lesson in Washington was that the people of Kent and Ottawa Counties were
the most important persons in the world. Requests from the people of the Fifth District
were imperial commands; mail from outside the district went into the dusty "if we get
time" file if, indeed, it avoided a quick trip to the wastebasket.
The mail itself falls into three general categories. The first, and most important,
are opinion letters- "for the following reasons I urge your support for the bill which
does this or that " These are the guideposts before a Congressman's eyes. Second
are request letters, asking for farm bulletins, help with immigration proceedings,
veterans' programs, service academies, and a thousand other things. Your Congressman
can do a great many things for you. I know because it was part of my job to help do them.
Check with him first.
The last group of letters accrue to Mr. Ford because of his position as a notable;
a U. S. Representative The office receives the outpourings of what often seems to be
every organization in the world. We are high on the mailing list of many would-be authors
and poets. We also get detailed reports from many unusual people, such as the gentleman
from Iowa who has been fighting an atteck from death rays for some years. He believes
the death rays are being sent from Mars, but, thus far, he has been unable to get the
Martians to admit it. He perseveres. Of letters of this sort I can only say that we
read them.
My space is up so I will quit with just one last word. To make your views felt,
write your Congressman and write him yourself. Don't just sign your name to a printed
message or even a petition, though these are helpful; the more thoughtful your letter
the more influence it will have. Goodbye it has been interesting working for you.
Henry W. Simon, Jr.
WEEKLY EARNINGS ARE UP: While such economic stability has been achieved by the Eisenhower
Administration that the cost of living has increased only 9.7 per cent since 1952, take-
home pay of workers in industry has gone up substantially in the same period. Since Ike
took office, the real net spendable weekly earnings of a production worker with three
dependents (adjusted to constant 1947-49 dollars and excluding taxes) has increased 14.8
per cent from $56.05 to $64.35. In contrast, comparable earnings from 1944 to 1952
declined 4.3 per cent or from $58.59 to $56.05.
The American laborer has doubly prospered therefore under the sound fiscal policies
of the Eisenhower Administration. His take-home pay is up 15 per cent while the cost
of living has risen only 10 per cent.
RELIEF FOR THE SERVICEMAN: In the past, I have learned of many cases where service-
men in the Army Navy, or Air Force have been financially injured due to demands for
restitution of erroneous payments made them in the past by the Federal Government For
example, one enlisted man in the Navy was recently being transferred from England to
"Operation Deepfreeze" in the Antarctic via the United States, at a cost of $300 for
movement of his family At the same time, the government was demanding that he repay
another $600 which had been tendered him through an accounting error some seven years
before.
In order to provide some administrative relief to cover such cases, I introduced a:
bill in Congress to authorize the waiver, of collection of erroneous payments in certain
cases This past week H. R. 7529 passed the House of Representatives. Though it was a
version introduced by another Congressman, I was pleased to endorse it and testified on
its behalf before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, as my interest was in
granting proper relief in worthy cases and in relaxing the rigidity of present law. Pride
of authorship did not detract from my desire for proper action, which the House has now
taken
FROM THE NEWSLETTER OF CONGRESSMAN BRUCE ALGER (Texas) The first session of the
86th Congress is struggling to a close, many Members think, though in the next breath
some concede the possibility of endless debate ahead. Here's a roundup
"Controversial issues to be carried over include minimum wage, aid to education,
aid to depressed areas, Federal unemployment compensation, Federal health insurance, social
security expansion, interest rate ceiling removal, and others.
"Controversial issues considered earlier and scheduled for further action include
labor reform and the farm program. New items for House debate include civil rights,
highways and gasoline tax increase, and foreign investment tax incentive. (H.R.5)
So Congress struggles on, not all good, not all bad, but just like people. Congress
will improve only as the people force improvement by demanding right action. Adjournment
date is anyone's guess.
Your Washington Review
KENT
OTTAWA
5
Congressman
JERRY FORD
September 16, 1959
The 86th Congress which in January stormed into Washington to remake our economy, to
solve all problems by spending tax money, and to take over the leadership of the government
is now limping homeward. Our economy continues sound and aggressive; total budget expen-
ditures have been held below early estimates, and President Eisenhower is firmly entrenched
as head of the government.
During the first few weeks in January one would have concluded that a balanced
budget was an antiquated and discredited idea and that it is only necessary to meet the
so-called "needs" demanded by this group and that. Fortunately the people of the country
have overwhelmingly supported President Eisenhower's demands for a balanced budget, and
responsible fiscal policies. His leadership has been endorsed and the victory won.
Also at his urging and with nearly universal public support an effective labor-
management bill has been enacted.
Our peoples endorsement of Mr. Eisenhower's demand that the Federal Highway Program
be maintained on a sound financial basis has insured the continuation of needed highway
construction.
By promoting constructive policies which had popular support, and by the proper use
of the veto, President Eisenhower has achieved a good legislative program for the country.
THE ITEM VETO: The necessity for President Eisenhower to twice veto the public
works appropriation bill in an effort to control excessive federal spending dramatizes
the need for the authorization of the "item veto."
The President twice vetoed this bill because it contained 67 new "pork barrel"
projects not recommended in his public works program. Mr. Eisenhower pointed out that
these 67 unbudgeted projects eventually would cost the taxpayers over $800 million. As
the Chief Executive with a major responsibility for the maintenance of a sound fiscal
policy, he could not justify starting work on these 67 projects for which there is no
special urgency.
In order to prevent this wasteful and unsound procedure the President had to veto
the entire appropriation bill which provided funds for many worthwhile and essential
projects.
In passing on any legislation sent to him for signature, the President must approve
or reject the entire bill. He does not have the power of "item veto" which would enable
him to disapprove certain parts or sections of a bill. Many authorities have suggested
a constitutional amendment to permit the "item veto" in federal appropriation bills. Most
state governors now possess this authority and I believe it would work well on the federal
level.
If the President had been authorized to use the item veto there would have been no
general veto of the public works bill. There would have been no occasion for the Congress
to override him and include in the bill funds for the 67 questionable items. Had the
Congress been able to vote on these as a separate vetoed item or items, the outcome might
have been quite different.
Ike's batting average is still pretty good. He has vetoed 146 bills since he became
President. Only one of these (a "pork barrel" appropriation) has been passed over his
veto, and that after his first veto had brought about a 2½ per cent cut.
OUR OWN LEGISLATION: Two bills introduced in this session of the 86th Congress by
your Congressman have already become law. These were private bills. One makes it possible
for a 14-year-old Polish orphan to join her two younger sisters in Grand Rapids and the
other authorizes Federal Judge Thomas McAllister to wear the medal of honor tendered him
by the French Government.
The purpose of a third bill, to make it easier for an individual to collect damages
from the government has been accomplished by the signing of a bill (H. R. 6000) developed
by the Judiciary Committee from my bill, H. R. 5336.
A bill to require railroad cars to be equipped with reflectors or luminous material
so they can be more readily seen at night has been approved by the Interstate Commerce
Commission and the Department of Commerce but has not as yet been considered by the
House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.
GRAND RAPIDS OFFICE: My Grand Rapids office at 518 Michigan Trust Building is now
open all day. Mrs. Sally Rutz has returned from the Washington office, and other members
of the staff and I will be in Michigan within a few days. Our telephone number is Gl.
6-9747 and we hope you will contact us if there is any way in which we can be helpful.
THE MOBILE OFFICE: We plan to make our fifth annual tour of Kent and Ottawa Coun-
ties with the Mobile Office between September 22nd and Novamber 17th. A total of 28 stops
is scheduled in order to bring the Congressman's office to within six miles of the homes
of 90 per cent of our citizens. I will be in the Mobile Office (a two-room house trailer)
from 2:30 p.m. until at least 8:00 p.m. for the purpose of discussing matters of mutual
concern with those who come in. No appointment is necessary and everyone is welcome. We
open the tour at Byron Center next Tuesday and then go to Dutton on September 23rd and to
Caledonia on September 24th.
1959 AGRICULTURAL YEARBOOK: The Department of Agriculture has announced that its
1959 Yearbook entitled "Food," will be available for distribution on September 28th. This
736-page book has 65 chapters, devoted to all aspects of food composition, preparation, and
use. If you can use a copy, write either my Washington or Grand Rapids office.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
September 23, 1959
The final curtain was down on the first session of the 86th Congress in the wee,
small hours of Tuesday morning, September 15th. As I left the House chamber and wearily
climbed into my car a bright, nearly full moon was fading in the sky as dawn with its
morning sun was setting the stage for the arrival of Mr. Khrushchev. During the 30-
minute drive home, for a quick one-hour cat nap and breakfast with the family before
leaving for Grand Rapids, your Congressman had the opportunity to reflect on the record
of the Congress in 1959.
In January when the House and Senate convened it was the consensus that extreme
"liberalism" would dominate the legislative picture. It was also the general view that
inasmuch as Ike was a "Tame-duck President" his recommendations would have little impact
on decisions at Capitol Hill.
Both assumptions were ill founded. President Eisenhower in 1959 actually grabbed
the ball on practically every issue. Through the use of the Presidential veto, or threat
of it, Congress was restrained from going off on a wild spending spree. Reasonable and
constructive housing legislation was enacted after two unsound housing bills were vetoed.
The highway-construction program was maintained on a fiscally sound basis. Because of
the McClellan Committee hearings on abuses of power by some labor leaders, and President
Eisenhower's public appeal for affirmative action, the House and Senate approved remedial
labor-reform legislation. There was a high degree of bi-partisanship between the Congress
and the White House in foreign affairs.
Although the net result was far different from the November post-election forecast,
the Congressional scorecard was definitely on the plus side. Ike's leadership was
the principal contributing factor. The disappearance of the 1958 recession and the
emergence in 1959 of a new period of economic well-being was a factor. A decided change
in public opinion certainly had its impact.
Congress reconvenes January 6, 1960. It will be a relatively short session with
adjournment coming early in July because of the national political conventions. Although
Capitol Hill will be filled with a heavy political atmosphere and Presidential aspirants
will dominate the news, it is my hope Congress itself can objectively approach its res-
ponsibilities, work with the President, and end up its labors with a record good for
America regardless of politics.
POLAND; THE SOVIET UNION: Ten days in Warsaw and its environs plus three in
Moscow left definite impressions on your Congressman.
Poland is a nation that lived under the worst aspects of Stalinism from 1945 until
October 1956. A relatively peaceful internal revolution took place three years ago.
Today, Poland/has partial freedom but is restless. The vast majority of its citizens
want more liberty. Intellectuals, particularly among the younger element, are in the
main disillusioned with Marxism. Religion is a major factor in checking any direct
Soviet re-entry or Gomolka government excesses. The Church and its leaders are a bulwark
of strength for the Polish people.
Everywhere we went, in Polish homes, restaurants, or on the street, the people were
eager to talk with and to express their basic sympathies to Americans. Vice President
Nixon made a most favorable impression in his visit to Poland. Khrushchev had been
in Warsaw several weeks before but the reception was cool compared with that accorded
our Vice President. An experienced and astute observer in Poland quipped (but really
meaning what he said) that if President Eisenhower were to visit Warsaw a real revolution
would result.
Our assistance to Poland since the 1956 change in government has been a wise
investment. We must understand Poland's geographical problems with the Soviet Union next
door and its isolation by land and ocean from the United States. America must carefully
preserve and expand the basic "people to people" friendship with the Poles. We must
nurture Poland's new-born freedom and not roadblock the tide which is running our way.
Moscow was a disappointment in some respects, a revelation in others. The subway
system is far superior to anything in the U. S. in service, cleanliness, and equipment.
In certain areas in rocketry, particularly thrust or propulsion, the USSR exceeds us.
However, in consumer goods such as clothing, automobiles, appliances, etc., the Soviet
citizen is far behind an American. Huge apartment houses have been built in Moscow and
such construction is continuing at an increasing tempo. However, the accomodations are
far below our standards with serious over-crowding as the rule rather than the exception.
I'm no expert on construction methods or results but I'll stick with our American building
tradesmen and contractors.
Our group visited the American exhibit which was held this summer in Moscow. About
3 million Russians paid a ruble each to see this exhibit. The demand for tickets was so
great a black market developed for them. The U. S. funds spent on this project were a
good investment. We could be proud of the planning and management of the Exhibit and
all should be grateful for the outstanding job done by the young Americans who were the
guides for the Russians who came to see our show.
******* This is the last Newsletter-this year Next issue in January, 1960.