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 John F. Kennedy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525460
label
Ford Newsletter, May-Sept. 1961
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525460
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Newsletter, May-Sept. 1961
description
This file contains material relating to John F. Kennedy.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Newsletters
subjects
Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-
Appropriations and expenditures
Armed forces reserves
Berlin Crises
Communism
Debts, Public
Education
Federal aid
Federal budget
Foreign aid
Legislation
Minimum wage
National security
Nuclear testing
Postal matters
Social security
Taxation
Water pollution
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525460
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1961-09-30
month
9
year
1961
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1961-05-01
month
5
year
1961
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9cc2c732721d3d68
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 3, 1961
The last issue of our REVIEW concluded with the statement that the House of Repre-
sentatives during the week would have an opportunity to approve more "backdoor spending"
or demand greater fiscal responsibility as it completed action on S. 1, the Area Re-
development bill. Unfortunately, the House chose to approve more "backdoor spending.'
By a vote of 223 to 193, the House accepted the final version of S. 1 including
the provision added by the Senate eliminating a House requirement for annual appropria-
tions to finance the redevelopment bill. The Congress surrendered to Administration
demands that it be allowed to use all the funds authorized without having to give an
annual accounting or to justify an annual appropriation to the Senate and House Committees
on Appropriations.
Rep. Clarence Cannon, the Democratic Chairman of the House Committee on Appro-
priations in discussing this bill on the floor of the House said: "I ask any of those
gentlemen who are jamming this bill through the House to give us the total amount the
U. S. Government is obligated to pay. Nobody knows. There is no way for anybody to
know. We have been shoveling money out through the back door at such a rate there is
no way to estimate it
And mind you it is not defense money they are spending. It is
non-defense money that is throwing us into the red
It is like money in this bill--
taxpayers money for a few favored spots in the country--that is running up our national
debt--and running down our ability to defend ourselves."
May I emphasize that these are not my words but those are the words of a Democratic
House leader from Missouri who has been a member of Congress since 1923.
This vote in the House has been hailed as a victory for the Administration:
"Congress has capitulated; a strong executive is in control." Truly the House buckeled
under in this instance; certainly the Administration spokesman brought pressure to bear
on many congressmen. This is regrettable. One would wish that Administration leaders
(and I exclude the President here) would be as diligent in halting the spread of foreign
ideologies around the world as they are in winning a victory over the Congress in
domestic affairs. Strong, vigorous, and effective action against the perilous Communist
conspiracy in Cuba, Laos, and elsewhere should be much more in evidence than an over-
whelming desire to achieve domination over the Congress on domestic legislative proposals.
THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE ON TAXES: Today, the House Committee on Ways and Means
opens hearings on the President's recommendations on tax revision outlined in his message
of April 20th. Few will disagree with Mr. Kennedy's purpose of providing a "more
equitable tax structure, and a simpler tax law." While the message promises that a
comprehensive tax reform program will be submitted next year, it makes recommendations
for action this year on tax incentives for modernization and expansion of industry, the
tax treatment of foreign income, and on taxes concerning capital gains, and on coopera-
tives and financial institutions. Mr. Kennedy also requested funds for additional
Internal Revenue agents and suggested that Congress authorize individual "account numbers"
as a means of improving collections. He further recommended a 2c a gallon tax on jet
aviation fuel (now tax free) and the continuation of the present tax rates on corporate
income and excise taxes and on alcoholic beverages, tobacco, automobiles and telephones
which are scheduled to be decreased on July 1.
Of particular interest to individuals were Mr. Kennedy's recommendations that a
20% withholding tax be applied to dividend and interest income, that the $50 dividend
exemption and the 4-percent dividend credit be repealed, and that tax deductions under
an "expense account" be further controlled and curtailed.
Some of the President's recommendations must be adopted; others should be given
sympathetic consideration, while a few appear to be unsound. For instance, I think the
Congress should take a long and careful look at his proposal to repeal the $50 exemption
presently granted on income derived from dividends. In fact, I would extend this exemp-
tion to income derived from interest.
I believe our government should encourage and assist the small investor. To exempt
$50 of dividend income from taxation serves the public interest by encouraging a
broadened base of ownership in American private enterprise. Since 1954 when this exemp-
tion provision became law the number of shareholders in American Corporations has about
doubled. In 1959 about 28 percent of all shareholders in publicly-held corporations
in the United States had incomes under $5,000 a year.
If we believe strongly in the American Way of Life we must encourage private
savings and investments. The Communists would have the dictatorship own the major means
of production. We who reject that theory ought to give all our citizens an incentive
to invest in the American free enterprise system. The $50 exemption is significant to
the small invester; it means little or nothing to those of great wealth.
It is variously estimated that today it requires from $10,000 to $20,000 to provide
a single job in industry. It seems to me thatwe strengthen our economy and help labor
and management alike when our tax policies encourage those in the lower and middle income
brackets to help supply the investment capital needed to provide jobs in industry.
Rather than eliminate the $50 tax exemption on dividends I would extend this provision
to include interest. Then those who place their savings in banks or building and loan
associations would also be rewarded for investing in our way of life.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
May 10, 1961
More federal spending and greater concentration of power in Washington again marked
legislation approved by the House of Representatives last week. A water pollution
control act was passed and the amendments to the Federal Labor Standards Act were sent
to the White House for signature.
Because most of us (including your Congressman) are for pure water and good wages,
it would have been convenient to vote "yes" on both issues. But following a careful
analysis of the specific bills recommended to the House and the alternative proposals
which were suggested, I voted "no" on the final passage of both H. R. 6441, the water
pollution bill and H. R. 3935, the minimum wage amendments.
The pollution bill as passed increases the authorization for federal funds for
sewage treatment plants from $50 million a year to $100 million and the ten-year total
from $500 million to $1 billion. No provision is made in present law or the new bill
for the states to share in financing the construction of any local sewage disposal plants.
Moreover, the new bill (H. R. 6441) changes the law to cover not only pollution in
"interstate" waters but in all "navigable" waters. This greatly broadens the authority
of the federal government and can only result in eventual weakening of the states' anti-
pollution programs. Testimony at the Committee hearings indicated that even under present
law the Federal grant program has tended to slow down local effort while municipalities
waited for their turn to receive a hand-out from Uncle Sam.
The alternate water pollution proposal which I supported reduced the overall cost
from $1 billion to $750 million and required that the states match federal funds
beginning in 1965. Furthermore, it retained the current provisions of law which restricts
federal authority to the coverage of pollution of interstate waters endangering the
health and welfare of persons in more than one state. This means that each state handles
those water pollution problems which exist solely within its borders. This seemed to me
to be sound as did the provision to require state financial cooperation after 1964
If we are to maintain the authority and respect of the states and local governments
we must say 'no" to specific legislation which concentrates more and more power in the
bureaucrats at Washington. If we are to balance the federal budget, reduce the debt and
annual interest costs, and strive for tax reduction, members of Congress must say "no"
to specific legislation which adds to the tax burden. Unfortunately, in many instances
the specific projects in and of themselves are desirable and even laudatory. But the
the larger consideration ought to prevail.
MINIMUM WAGE LEGISLATION: In 1937 when President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked for
the first federal minimum wage law, he said it should cover "those who toil in factories."
FDR also said that "there are many purely local pursuits and services which no federal
legislation can cover." Franklin Roosevelt was right in both instances. Factories in
Michigan produce goods which compete with those made in other states. If Michigan
factories are to provide jobs they must sell their products. Lower wage scales in other
states can mear fewer jobs in Michigan. A federal minimum wage law for those who work
in factories is justified and $1.25 an hour today a justified minimum.
But the legislation sent to the President goes beyond raising the minimum wage for
those in factories or those presently covered. It takes in "many purely local pursuits
and services." Instead of regulating wages of businesses engaged in interstate commerce
or which have retail establishments in more than one state, the bill to be signed by the
President covers employees who handle, sell, or otherwise work on goods that have moved
in commerce. To be sure there is a dollar-volume limitation such as $1 million in
annual sales for retail stores and $250,000 for gasoline service stations. But once this
authority is established, the dollar figure may be reduced so that Washington could
control every corner drugstore and neighborhood grocery.
Furthermore, by setting up a dollar-volume rule the legislation creates the un-
tenable situation wherein a few dollars fluctuation in sales makes the difference between
compliance and non-compliance. And a little juggling of figures can place employees
inside or outside the law.
I sincerely hope moreover that the passage of the new law will not result in loss
of employment by part-time or marginal workers. If small local business can't continue
to employ such help, everyone including the government loses.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ACT: I voted in favor of the third major legislative measure
passed by the House last week, the Federal Aid Highway Act (H. R. 6713). This bill
increases the authorized expenditures for the interstate highway system by $11.56 billion
making a total of $37 billion. This "largest peacetime public works program in the
history of the world" was initiated by President Eisenhower in 1956 and is scheduled to
be completed in 1972.
To help finance the highway spending program the bill included a revenue-producing
tax program. The 4-cent a gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel will continue. The
excise taxes on tires, tubes, and tread rubber are increased slightly as is the use tax
on heavy vehicles. AS you may recall President Kennedy recommended substantial excise
tax increases on these items but the House in the main exercised its own judgment and
rightly so. The bill is estimated to provide an additional $9.8 billion between now
and 1973 for the highway trust fund.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
May 17, 1961
Commander Shepard's recent flight into space was the culmination of years of effort
on "Project Mercury" and the promise of an American in orbit possibly this year.
In March 1956 the Air Force initiated a project concerned with recovering a manned
capsule to be placed in orbit and some basic studies were conducted. By January 1958
seven proposals from industry to develop an orbital vehicle were received by the Air
Force. In August 1958, President Eisenhower ordered implementation of the program and
transferred $30 million to "Project Mercury" whose objective was to achieve manned or-
bital flight.
It is interesting to note that in 1958 the Army proposed to place a man in a re-
coverable capsule which would be boosted through a ballistic trajectory to a height of
about 150 miles, with a recovery by parachute about 150 miles from the starting point.
This was to provide a 10-minute test of man's reaction to weightlessness. In 1961 Cmdr.
Shepard went 115 miles up, 302 downrange and experienced 5 minutes of weightlessness.
In 1958, Dr. Hugh Dryden, Deputy Administrator of NASA, indicated that the U. S.
would achieve a manned orbital flight sometime in 1961. This also now appears as a
likely achievement.
To place a man in orbit required the development of a workable and safe capsule and
the modification of the Atlas missile to an absolutely reliable vehicle for supporting
life.
Cmdr. Shepard's flight demonstrated that most of the capsule problems have been
solved. The Redstone missile at 5,000 miles per hour apparently caused no harm to the
man in the capsule. To put a man in orbit will require speed at 18,000 miles per hour
and an Atlas missile booster will be used for the propulsion. Originally designed to
carry a warhead and to destroy itself, the Atlas had to be modified to carry a manned
capsule.
Two successful orbital shots must be completed before the U. S. orbits a man. The
first will test a capsule in orbit without life to check our tracing and computing
systems, the capsule's return to earth, etc. The second will carry a chimpanzee to test
the missile and capsule's capacity to support life and return it safely to earth. Only
when these tests are completed satisfactorily will U. S. attemptto put a man in orbit.
In the past three fiscal years the United States has put about $293 million into
Project Mercury. It is estimated that the total cost will be about $400 million and it
may go to half a billion dollars. And this is not our entire space program. The U. S.
has additional military and non- military projects in this area.
Some have raised the question of "Why?" Is this a necessary and justifiable ex-
penditure of public funds? In answer I think there are two basic considerations and a
number of practical aspects. The first basic point involves the cold war and the struggle
for the minds of men by the forces of freedom and the forces of Communism. The cold war
is being fought on many fronts of which the technological is of major importance. The
neutral and uncommitted peoples of the world as well as others presently enjoying a life
of freedom are watching our technological development and our space exploration. For many
of them this area provides a test for the strength and merit of Democracy and Communism.
More than our prestige is involved. The affiliations of peoples may be affected by our
technological success or failure. We cannot ignore space exploration and let the Soviets
man the universe.
A second basic consideration involves the natural curiosity of man and his exploring
spirit which through the centuries has paid direct and indirect dividends. Columbus had
to beg funds for ships and supplies to sail west to get east. To many this didn't make
sense. He sailed for the Indies and found a new world. What he discovered far exceeded
what he intended to find. No one knows today what benefits mankind will derive from space
exploration. The final answer won't be available for decades.
But we do know now that men and machines in space will have significant and con-
structive effects on air and surface navigation, on weather prediction and control, on
TV and other communication media, and on the military systems of man including the
defense and security of our country.
SLOWDOWN ON MISSILES: While Cmdr. Shepard was receiving deserved honors in Washing-
ton, Senator McClellan's Permanent Investigating Committee was revealing that during the
past 4½ years 327 strikes occurred at 22 missile bases causing a loss of 162,872 man hours
of work. One-third of the walk-outs were at the Cape Canaveral test center.
Witnesses before the Committee told of walkouts called on trivial grounds to slow
projects so workers could collect overtime, sometimes putting weekly wages to more than
$700 for journeyman electricians. A government contract officer at Canaveral said that
when he refused to authorize overtime on a job which was on schedule, electricians on the
project walked out for eight days. Jurisdictional disputes between unions resulted in
slowdowns and featherbedding as well as strikes. It was reported that at Cape Canaveral
the work productivity was about 40 percent of normal work output. Authorities there state
that had it not been for these delays we would have been six months ahead in our space
program. This may mean that Alan Shepard could have be en the first man in space.
As a result of the McClellan hearings, Secretary of Defense McNamara has directed
the Air Force to take steps to assure that efficient production methods are employed at
missile bases. Secretary of Labor Goldberg has called conferences on the matter. We can
all agree that prompt and effective action is necessary.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
May 24, 1961
Six roll call votes have developed in the House of Representatives since my last
report on specific legislative action. I voted affirmatively with the majority in three
instances, was paired for two measures one of which passed, and was paired against one
bill which was approved.
If a member of the House knows that he will not be present when a vote is to be
taken, he may arrange for a "pair" by which another member holding opposite views is
matched with him. Neither actually votes and their absence does not effect the outcome,
but the views of each may be shown in the Congressional Record at the time the vote is
taken.
On May 11th the first B-52H intercontinental SAC bomber arrived at Wurtsmith Air
Force Base at Oscoda, Michigan. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations for the
Department of Defense, I was invited to the ceremonies marking this occasion. Michigan
will serve as home for the first squadron of SAC's newest and most formidable bomber and
I was pleased to participate in the event. I therefore was "paired" on three votes
scheduled for that day.
I am recorded as being for the extension of the Mexican farm labor program for two
years. The use of Mexican nationals as farm labor in Western Michigan has proved
generally satisfactory, supplying a much needed demand for efficient and skilled agri-
cultural labor.
I am recorded as opposed to a bill raising the limit on the total amount to be paid
officers and staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisors from $345,000 to $2
million. The limitation was originally set in 1946 specifically to prevent "empire
building" by this agency. While some increase undoubtedly is justified and I was "paired
for" a motion to place the limit at $700,000, there is no good reason for upping the
limit to $2 million.
Two votes came on the question of setting up an Office of International Travel and
Tourism in the Department of Commerce to encourage foreign residents to visit the United
States. The first vote came on a Resolution to consider the bill. I voted "yes" in
order to give the House an opportunity to pass on an issue approved by the Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce and cleared by the Committee on Rules. While I had some
reservations about the need for this new office and program, I did support the bill
(H. R. 4614) on final passage because additional foreign visitors to America can help
business at home and have a favorable impact on the "dollar-gap" problem.
I also endorsed House Concurrent Resolution 226 which indicates Congressional
support of U. S. cooperation with the Organization of American States against Castro's
Communist government in Cuba.
POSTAL RATES: For the past three weeks the House Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service has been conducting hearings on Postmaster General Day's proposals to increase
postal rates. President Kennedy estimates the postal deficit this year at $827 million
or over $2.2 million a day. The basic question involves the degree to which the taxpayers
are to subsidize the users of the mail. Congress gave its theoretical answer to this
question in the Postal Policy Act of 1958 when it said: "Postal rates and fees shall be
adjusted from time to time as may be required to produce the amount of revenue approxi-
mately equal to the total cost of operating the postal establishment less the amount to
be attributable to the performance of public services "
As a practical matter the Congress has not implemented the basic principle it es-
tablished. This is not to suggest that postal revenue should immediately be increased
by over $800 million annually. The Congress however, according to President Kennedy,
should take steps promptly to reduce the gap between postal receipts and expenditures.
Postmaster General Day and the President want to raise the 4-cent postage on letters
(first-class mail) to 5 cents and the 7-cent airmail rate to 8 cents. This would mean
that first class mail would be paying 125 percent of its costs. The Postmaster General
justifies a rate in excess of cost on the basis of the Postal Policy Act which holds that
rates on first-class mail must be sufficient to cover costs plus the value of preferred
handling. He further points out that first-class accounts for one half of all mail volume
and therefore to make any real dent in the deficit, the rate on letters must go up. To
demonstrate that 5c is still a bargain, Mr. Day reports that since 1932 when the 3-cent
letter rate became effective, the Consumers Price Index has risen 118 percent and the cost
of handling a first-class letter has increased 130 percent. But letter rates have gone
up only 33 percent.
Postmaster General Day told the Committee that newspapers and magazines (second-
class mail) will account for $340 million of this year's postal deficit. Now paying only
23 to 25 percent of its way, third-class mail will assume 41 percent of its costs under.
rates proposed by Mr. Day. This means that the average general-interest magazine now
paying about 2 cents per copy for postage would be charged 3.3 cents.
Third-class mail, largely advertising material, presently pays 67 percent of its
way and contributes about $250 million to the annual deficit. The proposed increases
would bring in $212 million and put the cost coverage at 94 percent. The rate on bulk
advertising circulars, for instance, would go from 2½ cents each to 3½ cents
Until hearings have been completed and the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service has made its recommendations, we cannot pass final judgement on the new Adminis-
tration proposed rate increases However, the Congress does have an obligation to weigh
most carefully whether the Post Office Department annual deficit of $827 million should,
be paid for by all taxpayers or whether the Department's deficit should be reduced by
additional charges against the users of mailing services.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 7, 1961
Little activity was in evidence on the floor of the House of Representatives during
the Memorial Day week. Committee work did continue and one appropriation bill was approved
by the House. On Monday the Committeeron Appropriations reported a bill appropriating
$751,300,050 for 1962 to operate the Departments of State and Justice, Federal Judiciary,
U. S. Information Agency, and Commission on Civil Rights. The Committee cut over $54
million from the amount requested by the Administration yet the appropriation was $4.5
million more than was approved for fiscal year 1961. The House endorsed the Committee's
recommendation on Thursday.
On Friday the full Committee on Appropriations met to ratify the work of its sub-
committees concerned with the budgets of the Department of Agriculture and of the Inde-
pendent Offices (agencies in the Executive Branch not under the jurisdiction of a cabinet
officer). The Department of Agriculture was allocated $5.9 billion while the Independent
Offices will cost $8.4 billion in 1962. In the bills as approved, the Committee cut a
total of $342 million from the President's request but the overall appropriation for 1962
will exceed that for 1961 by $1.8 billion.
In the appropriating process, the initial request for funds by various offices and
agencies is reviewed and revised by the Department or agency heads. Their budget requests
then go to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget who, as the coordinating officer
appointed by the President, decides what items and what expenditures are "in accordance
with the program of the President.' " The President then sends his requests for funds to
the Congress. In the House of Representatives subcommittees of the Committee on Appro-
priations (50 members) conduct hearings at which administrative officials explain and
defend their requests. In subsequent executive sessions the subcommittee "marks up" a
bill, deciding the dollar amounts to be allowed each item. Action by the full committee
and the House of Representatives follow; the bill then goes to the Senate for further
consideration.
For five hours last Wednesday my subcommittee on defense appropriations, headed by
Rep. George Mahon of Texas, heard Secretary of Defense McNamara and Gen. Lemnitzer on
behalf of the President's request for new spending authority for certain aspects of the
big booster project related to the "moon-landing" program, some new procurement for the
ground forces and additional personnel for the Marine Corps.
THE TAX BILL: The Committee on Ways and Means plans to conclude its hearings this
Friday on the recommendations for tax revision made by President Kennedy. In most part
the testimony heard has been in opposition to the specific proposals which would sub-
stantially change existing law. It is too early to predict the nature of the final bill
but we do know that approval has been given to an extension of the current corporate and
excise taxes which are due to expire or be reduced on June 30. Republican members of
the Committee attempted to effect the repeal of the taxes on transportation but were
defeated.
EDUCATION AND LABOR: The Committee on Education and Labor has voted 18 to 13 to
report H. R. 7300, the Kennedy Federal-Aid-to-Education bill. Pegged to cost $2.5
billion in three years, it provides federal subsidies for school construction and teachers'
salaries. Once such a bill becomes law, it means a permanent program of federal grants
which will cost the taxpayers billions of dollars a year. I am 100 percent opposed to
the bill as reported.
This same Committee on May 26 reported H. R. 7215, a bill authorizing grants and
loans to help colleges expand academic facilities and to provide scholarships for capable
students who could not otherwise go to college. The Committee bill varies considerably
from that proposed by the new Administration, a development which helps to account for the
fact that only five members of the 31-man committee actively opposed the bill as reported
Its cost over a five-year period will equal $1.8 billion which is considerably less than
that recommended by President Kennedy.
This committee initiated hearings Thursday on a bill (H. R. 6774) to extend the
National Defense Education Act of 1958. This measure provides for loans to college
students, fellowships for graduate study, and financial assistance for improving in-
struction in science, mathematics, and modern languages. It would continue and expand
the present program at a cost which will become evident only after hearings have developed
all aspects of the proposal.
It is apparent that student assistance provided under H. R. 6774 overlaps that
authorized in H. R. 7215 but the subcommittee majority refused to review the operation of
the present NDEA student-loan program before acting on the new scholarship plan provided
in H. R. 7215.
If all three bills of this committee are passed by the House and become law, Uncle
Sam will be building college facilities and elementary and secondary schools as well as
paying teachers in every school district in the country. Under such programs the federal
government will be sending high school graduates to college, training their teachers, and
supplying graduate fellowships for advanced study. All of this--and not a word about
paying the bill. Not one of these proposals includes a method of financing the cost. Many
of these projects sound fine and helpful---but let's also be practical: who pays the bill?
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 14, 1961
Because it proposes a NEW and UNCHARTED federal program costing BILLIONS of dollars,
the Aid-to-Education bill presently before the House of Representatives is a most vital
piece of legislation. Should this proposal be enacted into law there will be no turning
back; our federal government will be committed for generations to subsidies for school
construction and teachers' salaries in every state regardless of need, and the Federal
bureaucracy will extend its authority and power into every primary and secondary class-
room in the country. I am absolutely opposed to H. R. 7300, the "School Assistance Act
of 1961" recently recommended by the House Committee on Education and Labor. I am equally
opposed to a similar bill, S. 1021, passed by the Senate on May 25th.
The House bill, which is endorsed by President Kennedy and his administration as
in the Senate bill, should NOT be enacted for many sound and compelling reasons:
1. Although this bill is limited to three years, any program which subsidizes
thousands of school districts and hundreds of thousands of individuals throughout the
country cannot be halted after three years. Secretary Ribicoff and other proponents,
including Senator Wayne Morse who guided S. 1021 through the Senate, acknowledge that this
legislation initiates a permanent program of federal subsidies for all public grade
schools and high schools in the 50 states. We are not dealing, therefore, with a tempo-
rary emergency program to meet a special crisis in school construction.
2. Uncle Sam will hand out tax money to every state at a mínimum of $12 per pupil
whether the state needs help or not. New York State will get nearly $45 million in fiscal
1962; California is allocated over $44.5 million, and Texas is to get over $47 million
($17 69 per pupil). I cannot understand why taxpayers in Michigan must contribute their
substance to these and other wealthy states who are well able to meet their own educa-
tional obligations.
3. The bill authorizes a federal expenditure of $2.4 billion in three years but
neither it nor its sponsors suggest any means whatsoever of raising the revenue. With the
national debt at $290 billion, the deficit anticipated for fiscal 1962 already at $4
billion, the interest charges in 1962 in excess of $8.5 billion, it is only being practical
and honest to inquire as to where the money is coming from. Will proponents of this bill
also sponsor new or increased taxes, or will they be content to add to the deficit and
pass greater interest charges on to our children and grandchildren? This vital question
deserves an immediate and constructive answer. The first $2.4 billion is just the
beginning, the down payment on a perpetual federal obligation. The $12-per-pupil minimum
LIBRART
will not last. Some of the bills introduced relative to school aid have called for the
allocation of $100 per pupil--this is a manifestation of things to come.
4. Federal funds are to be distributed to the states for use by the public schools
basically in proportion to the school age population (5 through 17) without consideration
to the number of pupils in actual attendance in the public schools. This means that those
states and communities in which a relatively large number of students attend non-public
schools will receive "bonus" benefits while educating fewer students. Likewise, those
states and communities in which there are a relatively high number of "drop-outs" before
age 18 will receive more money for doing less.
5. That there can be federal subsidies without federal control is an illusion. The
bill says that no officer or employee of the United States shall exercise any direction
over any operation of any school system. In other sections it provides penalties for
states which do meet certain federally determined standards of state and local support,
sets forth procedures for fiscal control and fund auditing, gives the U. S. Commissioner
of Education the power to require "reports," and outlines labor standards for those
employed in school construction. Furthermore, every taxpayer has the right to expect that
the Congress which levies a tax on him will at the same time insure that his tax money is
properly spent. The Congress has a legal and moral responsibility to do so. As a mini-
mum this will mean making sure that buildings are "properly" constructed and that only
"qualified" teachers are subsidized. As the program develops and expenditures increase,
those who foot the bill will demand investigations on how well these teachers teach and
exactly what is being taught. Washington bureaucrats will then dictate and our locally
elected school boards will have less and less to say about how the community's children
are educated.
6. The states and local communities are meeting their classroom needs without
federal subsidies. President Kennedy said we will need 600,000 new classrooms in the next
ten years. This means 60,000 classrooms a year. Over the past ten years, average annual
construction has been 62,600 classrooms per year. We have ample evidence in Kent and
Ottawa Counties of this willingness of local communities to provide excellent school faci-
lities. There is no reason to believe this highly commendable attitude and trend on the
local level will not continue. However, the promise of federal aid may well weaken local
effort and slow down overall school construction.
7. Teachers have been obtained and their salaries increased without federal sub-
sidies. Since 1900 the number of pupils in public schools increased 140 percent, the
number of teachers 250 percent, and the number of pupils per teacher was reduced by 11.2
percent. During the past seven years, the number of pupils increased 29 percent, the
number of certified teachers 40 percent, and the number of pupils per certified teacher
dropped by 2.4 percent to 26 pupils per certified teacher. Over the past 30 years
(1929-59) teachers' salaries improved 106 percent while the earnings of all wage and
salary workers went up 91 percent. Although the teaching profession has not been as well
compensated as its educational requirements and responsibilities warrant, the evidence
indicates that states and local communities have made commendable strides toward correcting
this situation without federal interference.
THIS DISCUSSION WILL BE CONTINUED NEXT WEEK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS OF THE ISSUE
WILL BE CONSIDERED.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 21, 1961
Federal-Aid-To-Education is on the agenda for the House of Representatives. Last
week I outlined seven reasons why the bill (H.R.7300) sponsored by President Kennedy and
recommended by the House Committee on Education and Labor should NOT be adopted. This bill
establishes a new, permanent program costing billions of dollars without indicating any new
or additional source of revenue; it distributes funds for public schools to the states re
gardless of need basically in proportion to total school population and not according to
public school attendance; the bill presently provides for some federal control and will lead
to extensive dictation over all schools by Washington bureaucrats. I pointed out further
that states and local communities have been meeting their school construction needs and have
been obtaining and paying teachers without federal subsidies.
In addition to these seven points which were discussed last week, there are other ob
jections to H.R. 7300, the specific Federal-Aid-To-Education proposal before the House of
Representatives:
8. Michigan is scheduled to receive $30.7 million in fiscal year 1962 under the pro-
visions of the bill, but Michigan will PAY OUT for this project next year a total of $32.2
million With a net state loss of $1.5 million, I can't understand how Michigan taxpayers
or Michigan schools will benefit.
9
While Michigan is to be paid $14.30 per pupil, Arkansas for example will get $22.52
per pupil. At the same time the average property tax on homes in Michigan is 2.9 percent of
the average owner's income. In Arkansas this percentage is only 1.6 to 1.7. Most of the
states scheduled to receive the highest per pupil allotment have the lowest property tax on
homes in comparison to average owner income in that state. For instance, Mississippi will
receive $24.03 but pays only 1 to 1.2 percent in local property taxes. Massachusetts, on the
other hand, will receive the minimum ($12 per pupil) while her home owners pay 4.4 to 4.5
percent of their income in property taxes. The evidence shows that some states with the
greatest alleged need have been putting forth a limited and below-average effort locally to
raise money for schools.
10. Five of the states to receive the highest per pupil allotment ($19.72 to $24.03)
are among the seven states which exempt various new business from taxes. These (Alabama,
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina) are also among the states which "steal
industry from Michigan and other areas by offering great tax advantages. Michigan is a
victim of this piracy and is now being asked by H.R. 7300 to help pay the pirate.
11. Nothing in this bill prevents federal funds from being used to construct segregated
schools or to pay salaries of teachers in schools refusing to comply with the decision of
the Supreme Court on segregation. Anyone sincerely interested in civil rights and in
support of the U. S. Constitution will have serious reservations on a bill which does not
encourage compliance with the Supreme Court decision of 1954.
12. H.R.7300 contains a second part (Title II) providing for continuation for another
three years of the special financial assistance for school districts in so-called "impacted
areas," i.e., areas populated by families brought into the community because of federal
service or employment. This is an entirely different matter than subsidies for every school
district in the country and concerns a question which should be decided on its own merits.
It is obvious that Title II was inserted to obtain votes for the bill from Congressmen from
impacted areas. Such action borders on legislative sleight-of-hand.
To oppose 7300 is not to oppose the development of the best possible system of
American education. Some will accuse the opponents of 7300 of "putting dollars ahead of
human values" and of "denying to each American child his birthright." The question before
the House of Representatives is not, "Do we favor a good education for every American child?"
Rather the question is: "Should the federal taxpayers take on a new and uncharted spending
program under the specific terms of 7300?" As I have indicated by the above anayysis
of the bill, the answer to the latter question must be "NO."
We who oppose 7300 do want every child to have the best possible training that
school can offer. The Report of the Committee on Education and Labor pointed out "that on
the average a man with a grade school education can expect to earn but $161,000 during his
lifetime, while the high school graduate can expect to earn $231,000 during his lifetime,
and a man with a bachelor's degree has a reasonable expectation of $382,000 of lifetime
earnings. Education does pay not only in monetary returns but in personal satisfaction
and community service. Education is certainly essential to "good government and the happiness
of mankind" as was so well stated in the Ordnance of 1787.
We who oppose 7300 as reported by the Committee want each state and local community
to operate good and effective elementary and secondary schools in accordance with the com-
munity's wishes and without federal bureaucratic control. Let's use our tax funds directly
at home without siphoning them off to Washington where too much shrinkage occurs.
There are certain limited areas in our country which undoubtedly need financial assis-
tance to construct adequate school facilities. These areas have children to educate but
lack a sufficient tax base to build schools. If the local citizens have truly demonstrated
their interest and concern by the maximum local effort, I believe some federal assistance
for school construction under a tightly drawn formula is justified. I would vote to support
such legislation.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 28, 1961
Since my last report on specific legislative action there have been 16 yea-and-nay
votes in the House of Representatives. Four of these involved appropriations bills:
$751.3 million to operate the Departments of State and Justice, and the judiciary in
fiscal 1962; $5.9 billion for the Department of Agriculture, and $88 million as a 1961
supplemental appropriation for a number of agencies. Except for the Agricultural appro-
priation, I supported these bills. Prior to final passage of the $5.9 billion grant to
the Department of Agriculture, the House refused 184 to 196 to reduce the amount by $100
million. I supported this proposed reduction and when the $100 million was left in the
bill, I voted against the $5.9 billion appropriation.
The $100 million pertained to a part of the total agriculture conservation program.
President Eisenhower's 1962 budget recommended $100 million for this program. President
Kennedy increased the request to $150 million. But the Subcommittee on Appropriations
for the Department of Agriculture added another $100 million for a total of $250 million.
Although all of us are proud of the achievements of the soil conservation service
program, there was no justification presented to the House for the expenditure of $100
million more than requested by President Kennedy for outright cash payments. Much of
the $100 million is not to go for true or typical soil conservation but primarily for
short-range subsidies, such as fertilizer to expand agriculture production. With the
government's current dilemma over farm surpluses, there can be no justification for an
expanded subsidy program to increase productivity. Rep. John Dingell, Democrat of
Michigan, said on the floor of the House, "If this House of Representatives today votes
this extra $100 million we can go home and look our taxpayers in the eye and say 'I was
a party to waste; we wasted, we shot, we blew $100 million of your money in a program
which goes far beyond the needs of the country. to I agreed and voted against both $100
million and the overall appropriation.
Other recorded votes concerned a $12.5 billion authorization (not appropriation)
for a long-term program of procurement of aircraft, missiles, and naval vessels for the
armed forces, a bill which was unanimously approved. I also voted for a technical change
in the law involving the Post Office Department and the ICC, for a technical change in
the agreement of the International Finance Corporation, and for a bill which would permit
confessions to be accepted in District of Columbia courts even though there is a limited
time lag between arrest and confession.
TAX EXTENSION: While most of us personally would welcome a substantial tax re-
duction, we know as responsible citizens that adequate revenue is essential to sound
government We know that the present state of the federal treasury and the current
demands made upon it preclude any general tax cut. It was imperative, therefore, that
the House vote to extend the present income tax rates on corporations and to continue
those excise tax rates which are scheduled to be reduced on July 1. Prior to the final
vote I did, however, favor the repeal of the 10 percent transportation tax on bus, rail,
and air travel: but this proposal was defeated 189 to 196.
REORGANIZATION PLANS. The President to date has submitted seven governmental re-
organization proposals which will become effective unless vetoed by one of the houses
of Congress. I joined a House majority (323-77) in voting to disapprove the plan con-
cerning the Federal Communications Commission and voted with the minority (178-221) in
an attempt to disapprove the plan relative to the Security and Exchange Commission.
(The Senate subsequently disapproved the SEC plan by a vote of 52-38) In essence the
plans would permit these Congressionally created regulatory agencies to delegate certain
of their functions to subordinates, would increase the power of the chairman, and would
give the White House staff greater influence over these quasi-judicial bodies. The plans
flow from the recommendations of Dean James M. Landis, Special Assistant to the President,
who wants the White House to exercise more control over the Commissions to which Congress
has delegated some of its authority. All of this led Rep. John Bennett, Republican of
Michigan, to say, "I am sure that if Sherman Adams as a weight thrower around the White
House was regarded as influential; before Dean Landis gets through, if these reorgani-
zation plans are approved, Sherman Adams will look like a shrinking violet."
THE HOUSING BILL: The House has passed a $9 billion hodge-podge "Housing Act of
1961" containing nine titles with numerous provisions, some good, but mostly bad. While
I voted against this fiscally-irresponsible bill on final passage, I voted for a Repub-
lican-sponsored substitute housing bill which would have preserved and extended the good
features of present housing legislation.
FHA, for instance, has served a good and useful purpose. It has assisted almost six
million citizens to acquire homes at no cost to our taxpayers and has accumulated reserves
of nearly $850 million to protect taxpayers against future losses on the $32.6 billion of
mortgage insurance liability outstanding at the close of 1960. The bill passed by the
House weakens the self-interest of both the borrower and the lender in the FHA program.
Its liberalized terms shift most of the risks to FHA. As reported the bill established
a virtual no-money--down-40-year-payment plan but this was changed to 35 years and a 3
percent down payment. The bill authorizes millions for parks (open space), public
housing, community facilities, etc.
The substitute bill which I supported eliminated the "backdoor-spending" provision
which applies to 97.2 percent of the financing provided in the bill as passed. This means
that $8.8 billion of tax funds have been authorized for expenditure without an annual
review by the Congress of the manner in which the money was spent during the past year nor
an explanation of what will be done with your tax money in the ensuing year.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 5, 1961
The House of Representatives has approved a $42.7 billion defense appropriation bill.
Considered by the House last Tuesday and Wednesday, this approval represented the culmi-
nation of the work in which our subcommittee on military appropriations has been engaged
since January. We heard over 4,430 pages of testimony from scores of top civilian and
military leaders and spent about 20 hours a week for 4½ months in hearings. As the ranking
minority member of the 15-member subcommittee, I assisted in explaining and defending the
bill on the floor of the House last week. Our recommendations were accepted by a vote of
412 to 0 and the bill was sent to the Senate for further consideration.
I am convinced that we have in our combined services completely adequate military
strength to meet any contingency, provided we have the will and the leadership to take
advantage of the power at our disposal. The military forces for which the $42.7 billion
expenditure is to provide are competent to handle our worldwide responsibilities whether
they be deterrence, a limited type of military action, or all-out war.
Rep. George Mahon, Democract of Texas, the highly competent, responsible and re-
spected chairman of our subcommittee stated that "the passage of this bill will be an
indication to the people of the whole wide world that this great country has the will and
determination to stand strong and firm in days of threat and challenge. We have a great
defense force, the greatest in the world. We are strong. This bill will help make our
country more secure."
While I have some reservations about a few specific items in the bill and do not
agree 100 percent with every decision being made at the Pentagon, I believe the money
programmed in the bill as passed provides the men and "hardware" to adequately meet our
needs. Our greatest requirement today is to take this hardware and to utilize it in
connection with a policy of firmness and action. Hardware in and of itself will not solve
our current problems. To maintain American prestige we need a will, a determination, and
an effective leadership.
PUBLIC DEBT LIMITATION: The Congress has approved legislation increasing the
national debt limit for one year to $298 billion. This is a $5 billion increase over the
past year's limit and a $13 billion increase over the permanent debt limit of $285 billion
which would have become effective June 30 had Congress not approved the temporary increase.
Congress has been asked to increase the limitation before but never to the extent
of $298 billion. Some have argued that the only way to prevent excessive federal spending
is to refuse to raise the debt limit. Others have said that we should abolish the limit
entirely because it means nothing and is increased whenever the debt approaches the limit.
There is merit in both positions but I voted for the bill as a means of attaining a prac-
tical solution to a given problem at the present time. I don't think any responsible
citizen wants to see the U. S. government embarrassed financially, and the Treasury De-
partment must have some leeway in debt management. This legislation will prevent the
embarrassment and permits a proper flexibility in fiscal management.
The Secretary of the Treasury expects the public debt to reach $294.9 billion on
December 15th. (On June 26 it was $288.7 billion). To stay under the permanent $285
billion limit the Treasury would have to reduce spending to the extent of achieving a debt
reduction of $10 billion by December 15. Conceivably this could be a healthy thing but
it seems to me that more basic issues are at stake here than the specific amount of the
debt ceiling.
Deficit financing, an increased public debt, and greater interest costs raise grave
questions of fiscal responsibility and of the moral and ethical right to enjoy benefits
to be paid for with interest by our children.
The public debt limit has been raised simply because Uncle Sam is spending more
money than he collects in taxes. He is doing this during a period of economic prosperity
when no great national emergency exists. A certain brand of "economists" justify such
deficit financing by some strange kind of "economic theory." I reject their ill-conceived
and, erroneous advice.
Then the Kennedy Administration comes to the Congress with the demand that Uncle Sam
supply the "needs" of every special-interest group. On January 16, 1961 President Eisen-
hower's balanced 1961 budget called for expenditures of $78.9 billion. Under Mr. Kennedy
this has grown to $80.7 billion. Ike's balanced 1962 budget listed expenditures at $80.9
billion. The present estimate, based on five months of the Kennedy Administration is
$85.1 billion in fiscal 1962. This is an increase of $4.2 billion and the Administration
anticipates a deficit of $3.7 billion in the same year. Until the President, the Congress,
and the country will say NO to new and expanded federal spending programs, we will have
deficits and increased debt. Of course, the Administration and the spenders could re-
commend new and increased taxes but there is a pronounced stillness in this area. There-
fore, I am voting NO on the Kennedy spending programs except those directly related to
national defense.
While there are persuasive economic and social reasons against deficit financing, I
think we must give more attention to its moral and ethical aspects. It has been tra-
ditional in America for parents to work and save SO their children may have a better place
to live. Parents paid their way and aimed to have something good to pass on. A federal
policy of deficit financing means we pass on to our children and grandchildren the cost
of that which benefits us plus interest charges, I do not think this practice is morally
or ethically right.
Interest charges on the national debt in 1962 will exceed $8.2 billion or 11 percent
of the budget. Those who urge additional spending without supplying necessary revenue are
advocating a policy of "soak the kids The only way to stop this unethical practice is
to reduce expenditures, halt new spending, or drastically increase federal taxes. I would
curtail spending on the domestic or non-defense programs.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 12, 1961
The Fourth-of-July holiday last week slowed activity in the Congress to a standstill.
Pending during the legislative recess were all the regular appropriation bills for the
operation of the Federal Government in the new fiscal year which began July 1st. These
bills represent the minimum essential legislation which must be enacted by the Congress
annually. They provide funds to operate the government. Of the 13 regular appropriation
bills, the House has passed nine and the Senate has acted on four but none have gone to
the President for his signature.
In order to legalize the expenditure of funds during July and August before the 1962
appropriation bills become law, the Congress adopted a joint resolution making "continuing
appropriations" to carry on the functions of government.
Some of the delay on these bills stems from a slow start in January due to a change
in administration and to the scrap in the House over the power of the Committee on Rules.
RULES AND LEGISLATION: You will remember that at the opening of the 1961 session,
the liberal Democrats in the House demanded a change in the Committee on Rules to weaken
the power of Chairman Howard Smith and other conservative Democrats on the Committee. The
liberals contended that the Committee "bottled up" legislation which had been approved by
a legislative committee thus preventing the House from "working its will." They insisted
that measures be taken to prevent such "obstructionist tactics." As a result the Committee
was enlarged from 12 to 15 (10 Democrats and 5 Republicans) by the appointment of one
Republican and two liberal Democrats giving the "liberals" an 8 to 7 majority on the
Committee.
It is now apparent that we have some "new obstructionists" on the Committee who
steadfastly refuse to let the House "work its will." During the first six months of this
session, the new liberal majority has refused to release 44 measures for House action.
During the same period in the last Congress only 34 proposals were killed by the Committee
on Rules. During the first six months of the 86th Congress (1959), the Committee sent 55
bills and resolutions to the House for action; the new liberal-controlled Committee has
cleared only 39 measures for action in a comparable period. The evidence indicates that
the liberals can be and are as obstructive as conservatives; it all depends upon the
nature of the legislation under consideration.
INDEPENDENCE DAY - OUR FLAG: We have celebrated the 185th anniversary of the Decla-
ration of Independence. Many of us remember when July 4th was primarily a day for
patriotic celebration. Fortunately we have not lost all of this but we can understand the
feelings of the Congressman who remarked on the floor of the House, "It is becoming in-
creasingly lamentable when you drive through the cities and villages and the countryside
of America on the 4th of July to see the complete absence of the American flag being dis-
played except on public buildings." Those of us who grew up in homes which displayed the
flag on every possible occasion share his view that it would be good "if the American
people would go back to the old habit of displaying with pride the American flag.'
Many of you know that your Congressman is able to obtain for you a new American flag
accompanied by a certificate attesting that the flag has been flown over the U. S. Capitol.
Prices of the flags are: 3x5 foot, $2.91; 5x8 foot, $6.25. They may be ordered from my
office, 351 House Office Building, Washington
The Architect of the Capitol reports that currently an average of 1100 such flags are
flown over the Capitol each month. A special pole has been erected on the Capitol to
handle these special flags which fly for only a few minutes. The regular flags over the
east and west fronts of the building are flown 24 hours a day in accordance with law. The
flags over the House and Senate Chambers are flown only when the respective body is in
session.
POLISH CLAIMS PROGRAM: The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, Washington 25, D.C.
will receive until September 30 claim applications of U. S citizens who lost property in
Poland through nationalization by the government. The present Polish government has agreed
to pay to the United States $40 million in 20 years to settle these claims. Any person
who was a U. S citizen at the time his property or property rights were taken over by the
Polish government is urged to contact the Settlement Commission promptly.
CON CON PRIMARY ELECTION: I cannot stress too strongly the importance of the special
primary election to be held on Tuesday, July 25 for the selection of candidates for
election to Michigan's Constitutional Convention. Any primary election is significant
because there the official candidates for the general election are selected from among all
those who have made themselves available. In the general election the voter chooses only
from among the party nominees.
In a primary election for candidates to be sent to a Constitutional Convention it is
doubly important that persons of broad experience, deep perception, and noble purpose be
selected. They are to write the fundamental law and create the basic structure of
Michigan's state government for years to come. I trust that every voter in Kent and
Ottawa Counties will conscientiously analyze the qualifications of all CON CON candidates
and will take time to vote on July 25th
YEARBOOK OF AGRICULTURE: The 1961 Yearbook of Agriculture entitled "Seeds" has been
released. Its 550 pages contain authoritative articles on the production, processing,
testing, marketing, and the life processes of seeds. Each Congressman is allotted 400.
Interested persons may have a copy upon request to my Washington office.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 19, 1961
Decisions on the Mutual Security Program are among the most significant to be made
by the Congress in the remaining weeks of this session. The controversial issues involve
mainly the dollar amount to be granted and the method of obtaining the funds from the
Treasury. There is general agreement by most Democrats and Republicans on the basic
necessity of maintaining some type of mutual security plan in the critical days ahead in
order to meet the world-wide atheistic communist threat.
I am convinced that the military assistance aspects of the program are not only
sound but make a valuable contribution directly to our own national security. By supply-
ing guns, other military equipment and training to our allies on the periphery of the com-
munist-held territory, we extend our own lines of defense close to the potential enemy's
camp and far from our shores. By improving the fighting forces of our allies, we cut down
on the amount of tax money needed for our own direct defense expenditures and on the
demands made upon our youth by the selective service system. The President has requested
$1.8 billion for military assistance during this fiscal year.
Financial assistance in the form of loans or grants for economic development and sta-
bilization is also an essential element in our struggle against the atheistic communist
conspiracy. I do think, however, that in view of changing world conditions and certain
revelations concerning the administration of some foreign aid projects, this aspect of
the Mutual Security Program must be constantly reviewed and reevaluated. The Congress
must insist that those who administer this program be held strictly accountable for each
project and that those who make mistakes or exercise poor judgment be dealt with effectively.
The most controversial issue in the Mutual Security legislation this year involves
this congressional control and review of expenditures. President Kennedy has requested a
five-year authorization and funding commitment totaling $8. 8 billion for economic aid and
assistance. These billions under the Kennedy plan would be available to the administrators
without further appropriation by the Congress and without a bona fide annual review of the
past year's expenditures nor any real justification of the next year's spending plans.
This is another White House request for more "back-door spending. Instead of coming into
the front door of the Treasury with a regular, annual appropriation, President Kennedy
wants to take $8.8 billion out of the back door without any further check on the adminis-
trators through the traditional appropriating process in the Congress
I am absolutely opposed to this method of financing for either domestic or inter
national programs. Those who spend the taxpayer's money, at the very least, should explain
and defend their activities each year to the taxpayers representatives in the Congress.
While I favor justifiable funds for economic assistance, I must agree with Rep. Otto
Passman (Dem., La.), Chairman of our Subcommittee on Foreign Aid appropriations who said
that to adopt the plan recommended by the President for non-military aid would "be some-
what of a mockery of budgetary procedure and the orderly appropriations process."
Realizing that a long-term plan with Congressional approval is helpful in many mutual
security projects, it would be wise to enact legislation authorizing funds over a term of
years but to couple this with a requirement for annual appropriations by the Congress.
RECENT RECORDED VOTES: Since my last report on yea-and-nay votes, the House has
voted down a resolution authorizing a special flag for its members. I joined with the
majority; the proposal lost 108 to 270. I voted to recommit to committee a resolution
granting congressional consent to the Delaware River Basin Compact in order to eliminate
certain federal control and cost sharing in the project involving four states. I was in
the minority on this one as the House voted 92 to 257 against recommital.
The House has passed H.R. 187, a bill to speed up the judicial process in cases in-
volving the deportation of undesireable aliens. The House Committee on Judiciary in support
of this bill cited the case of an alien ordered deported on February 20, 1953 for viola-
tion of the narcotics law who in June 1961 was still here having used legal technicalities
for over eight years to escape deportation. I supported H.R. 187 which is designed to
prevent such abuses of the American judicial process.
While I have generally supported legislation to improve our national park system, I
voted against a bill to establish the Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts. The
bill called for an initial expenditure of $16 million but the total cost of the project is
unknown. It is estimated that land acquisition alone may amount to $60 million. A new
and different concept for park development also is involved in that the land concerned is
highly developed and very valuable and the present owners are to be permitted to remain
on it during their lifetime. The bill passed, however, 278 to 82.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES: As of December 31, 1960 there were 2,372,580 civilians employed
by the Federal Government in the United States. Of these 42,399 worked in Michigan,
1,361 in Kent County and 282 in Ottawa. The Post Office Department accounted for the
major portion of these employees in the Fifth District: 1,013 in Kent County and 195 in
Ottawa,
The Department of Defense employs 134 civilians in the District, Treasury and Housing
and Home Finance 49 each, HEW 44, Agriculture 40, and the judicial branch 31.
PICTORIAL MAP: I have a limited supply of a privately printed pictorial map showing
the historic shrines and battlefields of the Civil War. This is an attractive and helpful
item produced in connection with the centennial celebration of the Civil War. Copies will
be sent upon request as long as the supply lasts.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 26, 1961
The increased flow of Communist propaganda into the United States is being reflected
by the amount of this material delivered in the Fifth District. Our correspondence indi-
cates that individual recipients of this propaganda are deeply concerned that communist
literature is being delivered to them by the U. S. Post Office Department.
One piece being received is a pamphlet out of Communist Germany entitled, "Prevent
War!' The subtitle is, "Arguments and material on the question of a peace treaty with
Germany and a solution of the West Berlin Problem. It presents the Khrushchev case on
West Berlin. It is addressed to individual persons or business concerns.
From 1958 until March 17, 1961 this sort of Communist propaganda could not have been
delivered to individuals without their approval. Under the policy maintained by President
Eisenhower and Postmaster General Summerfield, persons to whom the propaganda was addressed
were asked whether they wanted the publications: Only if they replied affirmatively was
this insidious material delivered to them.
All of this was changed on March 17, 1961 when President Kennedy ordered this policy
discontinued. The General Counsel of the Post Office Department has issued a statement
explaining this action. He points out that the screening program with limited distribution
"gave rise to sharp controversy and, on June 29, 1960, a Committee of the Planning Board of
the National Security Council reviewed this matter and recommended that the program be dis-
continued. The recommendation was accepted by the Planning Board, but was not carried
forward. (By this is meant that President Eisenhower and Postmaster General Summerfield
did not agree with the recommendation and refused to approve it.)
The General Counsel continued: "The Government's policies regarding this matter were
carefully considered by President Kennedy, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Attorney General and the Postmaster General. They concluded that the pro
gram had no intelligence value and that it interfered with efforts to improve East-West
relations On March 17, 1961, the President ordered the program discontinued. The
President's decision in no way affected the method of handling publications addressed to
libraries, universities, and the like, which have been receiving them all along. The only
effect of the decision is that such mail is no longer detained or the addressee asked
whether he wants it.
The General Counsel also said that figures disclosed by a recent survey of the move
ment of mail during one year show that this country exported 87 million pounds of mail,
and imported approximately 55 million pounds. Thus it is clear that the United States is
not subsidizing mail originating in foreign countries." However, every attempt on our part
to determine from the Post Office Department what portion of this exchange of mail was
with countries behind the Iron Curtain was unsuccessful. We were told that figures were
unavailable, that those on hand were "statistically unreliable," and that it was practi-
cally impossible to secure an accurate account of the amount of mail coming from Communist-
dominated countries and the amount going into these countries. I do not believe that the
U. S. Post Office Department, operating with a deficit of $2 million per day, should be
required to deliver Communist propaganda mailed from behind the Iron Curtain unless it can
be demonstrated that a fairly equal amount of American material mailed in the U. S. is
being freely delivered by the Communist governments to their subjects. I believe, too,
that our Post Office Department should not deliver Communist propaganda to individual
Americans or business concerns without their specific approval.
DOLLARS AND DEBTS: Senator Williams of Delaware has pointed out that during its first
five months the Kennedy Administration has spent $2.3 billion in excess of the Government's
income. This means that every hour of the day the new frontiersmen are spending $650,000
more than the Treasury receives in revenue. In the current fiscal year, the American tax-
payers will pay almost $10 billion in interest on the expected new high in national in-
debtedness. This averages more than $26 million a day, more than a million dollars an hour,
and about $18,000 a minute, These elementary but significant facts must be kept in mind
when we consider the various non-defense spending schemes recommended by the Kennedy Ad-
ministration. With greater defense expenditures imminent, it is time the new frontiersmen
get off the horses that are riding madly in all directions and concentrate on the essentials
of national security, national solvency, and national solidarity.
THE YEAS AND NAYS: During the past week I voted for a bill to authorize the Depart-
ment of Agriculture to celebrate the centennial of its establishment (passed 367-12) and
for a bill (approved 285-86) concerning the payment of salaries and allowances for certain
federal employees in case of emergency evacuations for military reasons.
Because there were differences in the House and Senate bills authorizing funds for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a Conference Committee composed of Senators
and Representatives had to iron out the difference and propose a version of the bill which
both Houses could accept. I joined in approving their proposal known as a "Conference
Report" which calls for an authorization of $1.78 billion. The final vote was 354 to 59.
The House disapproved the President's reorganization plan for the National Labor
Relations Board by a vote of 231 to 179. I joined the majority in disapproving the plan
largely because it would have diluted the power of the Board by an unwarranted delegation
of authority to its trial examiners. I also opposed the reorganization plan for the
Maritime Administration, but by a vote of 184 to 215 the House refused to take action on
this plan.
Inoda
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
30
JERRY FORD
August 2, 1961
President Kennedy's address last Tuesday night was an impressive analysis of the
gravest problem facing the American people. His speech reemphasized the fact that Com-
munism is waging total war against the United States and all free nations of the world.
The President clearly stated our position, explaining our rights, summarizing our con-
victions, and outlining our plans. I know that he will have the wholehearted support
and cooperation of all Americans in his efforts to halt the Communist aggressors. The
masters of the Kremiin are dedicated to world domination and to the attainment of abso-
lute power by any means. We know that these men are engaged in day-to-day operations
to destroy us and all we cherish. It is imperative that the United States and all its
allies develop and maintain the military, diplomatic, economic, and moral strength
necessary for the preservation of our rights and for the recovery of those lost by the
captive nations I pledge my complete support to the President of the United States in
the exercise of his responsibilities in providing for the national defense. I am certain
that the Congress will supply all the money needed to maintain the security of our
country but the House and Senate have a responsibility to make certain that our military
strategy is sound and the money will be spent wisely.
SACRIFICE AND ADJUSTMENT: The initial price tag on Mr. Kennedy's new defense
measures is $3.4 billion. He expects to add 217,000 more men to the armed forces.
Personal and family adjustments will be called for. The federal budget will be further
out of balance; the public debt will be increased. Mr. Kennedy said that new or additional
taxes may be recommended in January.
It seems to me that rather than impose an additional tax burden on our people,
Mr. Kennedy should first eliminate or curtail non-essential, non-defense expenditures
in order to effect sufficient savings to meet the additional defense obligations. By
executive order or by recommending legislation, he should halt all "luxury spending" until
the present crisis is resolved. His administration can win overwhelming support by re-
versing its present policy of endorsing the pet spending schemes of so many pressure
groups. It is time we pull in our belts at home in order to strengthen our forces abroad.
This is not a matter of butter versus guns. It is a question of a double banana split
and a powerful defense within a sound economy. I am convinced that all Americans would
applaud the efforts of the President in cutting out luxuries in federal spending in order
to maintain our security in this emergency without deficits, inflation, or more taxes.
Let me add that the Department of Defense should not construe Congressional approval of
extra military funds as a license to spend wastefully; in fact a $47 billion budget should
warn them of the gravity of their fiscal responsibilities.
CASTRO AND THE ELECTRA: Many listeners were disappointed that in his discussion
of international law and our rights, President Kennedy did not mention Communist Castro
and the piracy of a $3.5 million U. S. airliner. At this writing Dictator Castro has
refused to release the plane. He ignores international law, flaunts moral obligations,
and humiliates our country. Yet not a word from the President on this disturbing situa-
tion less than a hundred miles from our shores. Most Americans would have welcomed
some assurance that the Kennedy Administration is as eager to recover the Electra from
Castro as it was to supply Bulldozers to Castro.
A DEPRESSED AREA FIRST: The first "area redevelopment" project approved by the
Secretary of Commerce under the Kennedy 'depressed area" legislation was a $129,000 gift
to the town of Gassvile, Arkansas (population 233) for the construction of a water system
vitalato shirt plant to be located there. Gassville will also get a $31,000 loan from
Uncle Sam
Federal taxpayers, including those from Michigan, are building Gassville's water
system. But Gassville will get a $470,000 shirt manufacturing plant employing 1,000
people from thearea and providing an annual payroll of $2.5 million. Those who are to
benefit from this development in Gassville should build their own water system. But
under present law it was much easier; Uncle Sam will do the job This is one type of
federal program that should be curtailed in the present emergency confronting the U. S.
It is also one of the Kennedy legislative proposals that I did NOT vote for
The two-county area around Gassville did vote a bond issue of $535,000 to PROVIDE
a NEW FACTORY for the shirt company (Mar-Bax). But these are tax-free municipal bonds
No tax is paid to Uncle Sam on the interest received from these bonds. (If you own U.S.
savings bonds, you pay a tax on the interest obtained) Mar-Bax gets a new factory in
Arkansas built by a municipality with tax free bonds. The Norge Division of Borg-Warner
left Muskegon to go to Fort Smith, Arkansas to occupy a new plant financed with this kind
of tax-exempt bonds. Michigan municipalities under state law, can bond only for a public
purpose and not to build a factory to be rented to a private manufacturer
Rep: Bob Griffin has introduced a bill to discourage pirating of industry from
one state to another by this method. His bill would prohibit a company from deducting,
for income tax purposes, rental paid on an industrial plant financed through tax-exempt
municipal bonds I endorse this legislation
WHEAT, BEANS, AND CHERRIES IN THE FARM BILL: The democratic-controlled Committee
on Agriculture refused to accept Secretary Freeman's farm proposals It reported a less
controversial omnibus bill containing both commendable and objectionable provisions
Michigan wheat producers and processors were opposed to the mandatory 10-percent cut in
acreage at a time when the type of wheat grown in our state (soft winter) is not in
surplus. Bean and cherry folks objected to ot her provisionsof the bill. When remedial
amendments failed, I opposed the bill on final passage.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 9, 1961
Several weeks ago President Kennedy in his nationwide address to the American people
presented his analysis of the international crisis, including Berlin, and within the next
several days submitted to Congress his legislative proposals to meet this new Communist
threat. The President asked for new legislative authority for regulars and reserves in
the Armed Forces plus an additional $3.4 billion for the military budget.
Subsequently Secretary of Defense McNamara and General Lemnitzer, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared before the Defense Committee on Appropriations of which I
am a member to justify these additional funds. During the course of the intensive inter-
rogation two basic questions were fully covered. First, in the future was there to be any
change in our military strategy as it related to Berlin or U. S. worldwide responsibilities.
The Committee was assured there was no such change contemplated.
With the assurance that our basic military strategy was unchanged, the Committee next
wanted to know what prompted the new increase in funds and personnel for the Army, Navy,
and Air Force. In response Secretary McNamara stated that in the last month the Soviet
Union had substantially increased its military budget and taken other specific steps to
indicate a bolstering of military preparedness.
The Congress under the circumstances will give the Commander in Chief the tools (money
and legislation) needed. It is my fervent hope that President Kennedy will meet this Berlin
crisis with the same calm firmness that Eisenhower exhibited in a similar situation when
Khrushchev chalèenged Ike in 1958. Eisenhower three years ago convinced the Soviet Union
we meant business and that we had the military hardware, personnel and will to win. The
United States can and will prevail in 1961 with similar leadership.
LEGISLATION: On Mr. Kennedy's recommendation the Congress has passed S. J. Res. 120
authorizing the President to order units and members in the Ready Reserve to active duty
for twelve months and to extend for a period up to one year the obligated duty of some ser-
vicemen who would otherwise return to civilian life between now and July 1, 1962. Chairman
Carl Vinson, whose Committee on Armed Services recommended the Resolution, told the House of
Representatives that "this resolution signifies our willingness to make additional sacri-
fices in the cause of freedom. But let no Member of this House, nor any citizen of America,
be lulled into a sense of complanency that this may be the end of secrifices. This may be
the first of many sacrifices yet to come
We will not retreat from Berlin
The onslaught
of Communism must be met by the determination of the free world."
Rep. Les Arends, ranking minority member of the Committee, emphasized that the Committee
acted unanimously that the new forces were to supplement an already powerful military
machine and that our country must preserve its economic strength. He told the House that
"we cannot be strong on the foreign front and weak on the home front. We will support our
President in his policy of firmness in dealing with the excesses of international Communism.
We ask the President to support us by a policy of firmness against the excesses of govern-
ment spending that enslave us with debts and taxes."
MEN UNDER ARMS: In his speech to the House, Chairman Vinson described the present and
proposed personnel strength of our armed forces. On July 1 the Army had 858,000 men in 14
divisions made up of 11 combat and 3 training divisions. About half of our Army is in this
country while five divisions are in Europe, two in Korea, and one is split between Okinawa
and Hawaii. The present authorized strength of the Army is 875,000. The President would
increase this number by 133,000 for a total Army strength of 1,008,000 men.
At present we have an air force of 825,000 men, consisting of 88 combat wings and 119
flying support squadrons. The President proposes to increase the Air Force by 63,000 to
880,000 men.
The Navy today has a strength of 628,000, operating 817 ships as well as supporting
shore establishments. Under the President's program, Naval personnel would be increased
by 29,000 to 657,000 men.
The Marine Corps has three combat divisions (two in the U. S. one in the Pacific) and
three air wings and is in the process of increasing its force from 175,000 to 190,000 men.
THE RESOLUTION AND THE READY RESERVE: Today the Ready Reserve Forces of the U. S. are
composed of 2,440,000 members. Basically, the law imposes a Ready Reserve obligation of
five years upon every person who enters the armed services. This can be met by serving on
active duty or by a combination of active duty and Reserve participation. Six-month
trainees acquire a 7½-year Ready Reserve obligation.
The Resolution adopted by the Congress authorizes the calling up for active duty of not
more than 250,000 of the 2.4 million Ready Reservists. However, others can be ordered to
spend more time training than is currently required. The tour of duty under the resolution
in each instance is not more than a year, although according to President Kennedy and Secre-
tary McNamara there is no present intention of calling Reservists to active duty for train-
ing for such a period.
PRIORITIES IN SELECTION: The Resolution also authorizes the President to extend en-
listments and appointments for those currently on active duty: We have already received
letters from servicemen's families desiring to know how this will affect individuals. It
is too early to predict this, but Secretary McNamara has stated that the following priority
would be observed as much as possible in obtaining the additional personnel for the armed
services: (1) by encouraging voluntary enlistments. or voluntary extension of enlistments;
(2) by recruiting; (3) by the draft; (4) by involuntary extension of enlistments or by
calling the Ready Reserve. Among the ready reservists, drill-paid reservists will be
called normally prior to nondrill-paid reservists.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 16, 1961
The Mutual Security Act of 1961 is being considered by the House of Representatives
this week Known variously as the 'foreign aid program" or the "giveaway program," our
mutual security set-up is an essential element in our national defense system. Through
it we have obtained the use of about 250 military or naval bases on foreign territory.
This means that we have extended our line of defense far from our shores and close to
the potential enemy: in some cases, 10 minutes from base to target by jet bomber.
Our military assistance helps to insure better equipped military personnel in the
most economic manner. Our economic assistance helps to promote economic and political
stability and to encourage certain social improvements. Our mutual security program is a
basic element in our all-out effort to combat the world-wide Communist conspiracy
Since its inception the mutual security program has been subject by-and-large to
annual authorizations and an annual appropriation bill. This means that each year the
Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations examine the administra-
tion of the program and decide how much of the taxpayers' money should be made available
during the next year to continue the program. The issue before the House this week is
whether this system of checks and balances should be maintained.
President Kennedy has requested authority to tap the U. S. Treasury for $8.8 billion
during the next five years without further bona-fide scrutiny by the Congress. This
means that appointed officials in the Executive Branch of the Government could use $8.8
billion of the taxpayers' money without further review and affirmative action by the
elected representatives of these taxpayers. I am unalterably opposed to this type of
"backdoor" financing for any project and especially for a program in which too many
instances of waste and inefficiency have been uncovered. The proper Committees of the
Congress must retain their constitutional duty of protecting the tax dollars by an annual
review of past and proposed expenditures.
The Administration contends that it needs the five-year authority for effective
planning purposes, for providing assurance to cooperating governments that we will meet
our commitments, and to be more effective in encouraging fundamental reforms in certain
countries. Yet the record will show that during the past ten years the Congress has
appropriated about 92 percent of the funds authorized for foreign aid. Moreover, during
that same period the Congress has appropriated (made available for use) over 88 percent
of the funds requested by the President for mutual security purposes. The Executive
Branch has been able to get its money by the annual appropriation process when it
presented a good program to the Congress. There is no reason to believe this condition
will not continue.
Moreover, the revelation of obvious cases of poor planning and mismanagement in
our economic assistance program would argue for more congressional scrutiny and super-
vision rather than less. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that to adopt backdoor
financing at home would encourage any constructive social reforms abroad. The issues
in social reforms are more fundamental than a commitment of certain American dollars.
The basic question involved in "backdoor" financing, such as demanded by President
Kennedy in the Mutual Security Act, goes to the very essence of free, democratic govern-
ment The question is this: "Shall the elected representatives of the taxpayers control
the expenditure of tax-collected funds or shall this responsibility be taken over by
appointed bureaucrats?" The history of man's struggle for freedom has been a story of
his fight to gain the right to control the expenditure of funds collected by taxation.
This is a right worthy to be retained. Federal expenditures must be carefully and wholly
controlled by those elected representatives who every two years must go to the voters
for a public endorsement.
WORK STOPPAGE AT MISSILE SITES: Recent mail indicates a renewed interest by Fifth
District citizens in the record of work stoppage at missile sites. The revelations of
Senator McClellan's investigating committee (mentioned in YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW of May
17) resulted in a great public demand that prompt action be taken to prevent strikes and
walkouts at Cape Canaveral and similar establishments. It appears that the publicity
generated by the Senate revelations has brought some desirable results. In June 1961
there were 312 man days of work lost at missile sites due to work stoppages. A year
earlier in June, 1960 the total was 26,217 man days. June is contract renegotiation
month but substantial improvement was evidenced in 1961 over 1960. It is most encouraging
to note that in a time of crisis labor and management in cooperation with government
officials can achieve results for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
HANFORD REACTOR POWER FACILITIES: The House of Representatives removed from the
bill authorizing projects for the Atomic Energy Commission a $95 million item designed to
install electric power generating facilities at a reactor plant for the production of
plutonium located at Hanford, Washington. There was no objection to the new reactor to
supply additional plutonium for nuclear weapons. The House objected to the $95 million
expenditure for the production of electricity. This action was taken on the basis that
additional public power was not needed; that to produce electric power was contrary to
the original purpose of the Hanford plant; that it would not aid the national defense;
that it could only lead to additional federal subsidies for a public power system, and
that it would be used to attract industry from other regions. When the Senate included
this plant in its version of the bill, the House voted 235 to 164 to instruct its
conferees to insist on eliminating the Hanford electric facility. I voted with the
majority.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 23, 1961
All of us are concerned about developments in Berlin. President Kennedy has
announced our country's intention of maintaining its rights and position there. I believe
that most of our citizens are behind the President 100 percent. Yet last week I received
a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Kennedy in which he was asked, "How many American
cities would you be willing to sacrifice to maintain our access to Berlin?"
The writer of this letter recognizes in Berlin the potentialities of nuclear war.
But is this the voice of appeasement, 1961 model? Of course appeasement will not be ad-
vocated under its proper name; it will be dressed up under such respectable terms as
"flexibility," "realism," taking into account legitimate Soviet interests," and other
appealing phrases. In discussions of this problem these questions must be considered:
Have those who hold these views grasped the lessons of history we must learn about mili-
tary aggressors and preservation of the peace? Do they comprehend the nature of the
present controversy?
In a recent address Secretary of State Rusk pinpointed the nature of today's under-
lying crisis, of which Berlin is one manifestation. Secretary Rusk said: "The under-
lying crisis is not an ideological conflict between 19th century capitalism and 19th
century Marxism. It does not result from a bilateral conflict between the Soviet Union
and the United States. The central issue of the crisis is the announced determination
to impose a world of coercion upon those not already subjected to it. At stake is the
survival and growth of the world of free choice and of free cooperation "
This
is
a
clear, forthright, and accurate analysis of the current international scene.
In Berlin today Dictator Khrushchev is daring the free world to take a stand. We
can capitulate; we can sacrifice Berlin--but then we need only ask, "What will be our
next sacrifice to the Kremlin?"
In 1948 President Truman took a courageous stand on Berlin, with the dramatic and
successful air lift that supplied that city with food, coal, and the wherewithal to live
for 15 months, and Stalin relented. In 1954 and again in 1958 President Eisenhower stood
firm on Quemoy and Matsu and the Communists stayed on the mainland. In 1958 Ike sent
troops to Lebanon and there was no Communist take-over. In Berlin, today's hot spot,
Khrushchev challenged Eisenhower in 1958. America was calm and steadfast. The Soviets
withdrew. In Korea we waivered momentarily before the Communist invasion and there was
war. History tells us that firmness and strength prevent war. You don't avoid conflict
by capitulation. Strength, force, power firmness -- these things the Kremlin understands.
I hope and trust that no show of weakness on Berlin endangers the peace which we all
earnestly seek.
BILLIONS OUT OF THE BACK DOOR: As explained last week, the major issue in the
mutual security bill was "back-door" financing (withdrawal of tax funds from the Treasury
by the Executive Branch without Congressional review and appropriation). Rep. Clarence
Cannon, (Democrat of Missouri) Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations recently
stated that "according to the compilation, which is the most authoritative available, the
back-door provisions thus far requested (by President Kennedy) in this session in con-
nection with 11 bills, including the pending foreign aid bill, amount to at least $28.6
billion. That is the minimum
Even that total underestimates the situation by an
amount not now authoritatively ascertainable. That is but one of the reprehensible
features of the ever-growing back-door practice."
Because I agree with Chairman Cannon that back-door financing is conducive to waste
and inefficiency in the use of your tax dollars, I shall continue to vigorously oppose
this method of financing domestic or foreign federal projects or programs.
SURPLUS FARM COMMODITIES TO IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES: The Congress has taken action
to countermand the order of the Kennedy Administration permitting the shipment of
surplus farm goods to Iron Curtain countries. The Agricultural Act of 1961 which became
law on August 8th declares it to be the policy of Congress to make subsidized agricul-
tural products available only to "friendly nations." This statement became necessary
because on June 22, 1961 Secretary of Commerce Hodges issued a directive authorizing
export licenses for price-supported agricultural goods to be shipped to any Communist
country (Russia included) except Red China, North Korea, and North Viet-Nam. This order
of the Kennedy Administration made U. S. tax-subsidized products available to nations
committed to the destruction of our private and tax-supported institutions.
Fortunately the Congress rebelled and stated its policy position clearly. It
wanted no surplus food and fiber sent into enemy territory. Fortunately also, not a
large amount of surplus farm goods have gone behind the iron curtain recently and none
since June 22.
FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT AND PUBLIC DEBT UP: During its first five months (Feb. 1 to
June 30) in office the Kennedy Administration has added 66,844 persons to the federal
payroll. According to Senator Harry Byrd, federal employment rose from 2,352,837 to
2,419,681 from February through June. This is at the rate of 445 additions a day for
every day during the five months.
According to the Treasurer of the U. S. the national debt has increased $2.4 billion
since Feb. 1 and $4 billion over a year ago. On August 14, 1961 the debt totaled $292
billion; on Feb. 1 it was $289.7 billion, and on August 14, 1960 it stood at $288 billion,
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 30, 1961
The primary issue in the foreign aid authorization bill this year concerned the
Administration's request for over $8 billion to be spent during a five-year period without
further effective review and scrutiny by the Congress. This "backdoor financing" rele-
gates the elected representatives of the people to a secondary position and enhances the
power of appointed functionaries in the Executive Branch of the Government.
While the discussion of this issue was going on in the legislative chambers, dis-
tinquished economists were telling the Joint Economic Committee that the Executive Branch
should also have the power to raise or lower federal tax rates. It was suggested, for
instance, that the President be given the power to raise or lower the 20 percent tax on
the first $2000 of income by as much as 5 percent for periods up to six months. This
power is proposed as a quicker and more efficient means of heading off inflationary or
deflationary trends in the economy. But here again we are chipping away at the authority
of the people's elected representatives. The achievement of our free, democratic way
of life is the story of a struggle of all the people to gain control through their
elected representatives of the power to tax and the power to spend tax money. While it
may not be as fast or as efficient as dictatorship, the legislative process is basic to
our freedoms.
About this same time a Washington, D. C. newspaper featured the following headline:
"Kennedy Aides Frustrated by Ill-Informed Congress." The inference being that on the
one hand the Executive Branch of the Federal Government has a monopoly on wisdom while
on the other hand the Congress and the voters are lacking in this important attribute.
The writer of the article went on to say that Congressional hearings are often wasteful,
ineffective, and that they "are now frustrating eager Kennedy Administration officials."
He insists that often Congressmen "fail to do their homework," and that Administration
officials have to explain and defend their requests for money or administrative power and
authority over and over again to different committees and congressmen. While many Con-
gressional hearings can no doubt be improved, I am deeply concerned with the implications
of this criticism of the Congress, its methods, and its members. It carries the same
overtones as the requested authority for "backdoor financing" and the proposal to let
the Executive set the tax rate. "Bigwig bureaucrats" aim at downgrading the Congress so
the Executive can work its will in a free-wheeling manner without effective public
control. Yet in the Congress we have 437 elected Representatives of the people who must
obtain popular endorsement at the polls every two years and 100 elected Senators who
face the voters every six years. In the Executive Branch only one man, the President,
is selected by the people. Members of the President's cabinet and thousands of other
federal employees, including those who are allegedly frustrated by Congressional
hearings, never face the voters. The people's control of their government through their
elected representatives may sometimes lack efficiency and may frustrate eager-beaver
Administration officials, but it is the price we pay to be free "from chains and slavery!!
In my book it is a fair and reasonable price.
STRENGTHENING THE GAMBLING LAWS: The House last week approved three bills to
strengthen the power of the federal government to assist the states in dealing with
organized crime, especially gambling syndicates. One bill prohibits the use of telephone
and telegraph lines for the transmission of bets or wagers and gambling information.
The second bill was designed to close loopholes in existing law concerning the inter-
state transportation of wagering paraphernalia including tickets, slips, records, or
devices used in bookmaking, wagering pools, or in any numbers game. The third bill will
assist local law enforcement by making it a federal offense for any person to travel
from state to state or use the means of interstate transportation or communication to
carry on illegal gambling, liquor, or narcotic activities.
STRENGTHENING THE CRIMNAL CODE: The House also approved legislation making it a
federal of fense to flee a state to avoid prosecution or punishment for all felonies or
offenses punishable by more than one year in prison. At present the Fugitive Felon Act
applies only to specified major crimes.
Aircraft piracy or an attempt at hijacking was made a federal crime with the death
sentence made discretionary with the judge or jury. Other illegal actions committed
upon airplanes in flight were made federal offenses mainly to clarify jurisdiction over
such cases.
COLLECTION OF ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS: The House has passed a bill permitting heads of
departments or agencies to cancel the debt an individual may owe the U. S. Government
when such debt was incurred without the knowledge of the individual and its collection
would be against equity and good conscience. This is an issue in which I have been
interested for some time, having introduced similar legislation in the past and present
Congresses.
We have had a number of instances in which servicemen had been overpaid erro-
neously and without their knowledge, and years later, upon completion of an audit, were
called upon to repay the Government. In some cases this unexpected indebtedness becomes
a real burden. In other cases the amount involved is small but the issue aggravating.
Under the act passed by the House, the Comptroller General and/or the head of the de-
partment involved may cancel such a debt if to colject it would be unjust.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
September 6, 1961
The House of Representatives by a vote of 242 to 169 resoundingly disapproved of a
comprehensive federal aid to education bill that was conceived by its proponents in des-
peration and endorsed wholeheartedly only by a few extremists who demand eventual federali-
zation of America's schools at any cost. Even the National Education Association, a nation-
wide organization of teachers and school officials that strongly supports federal aid to
schools, including federal funds for teachers' salaries, could not swallow this proposal or
the attempted methods used by the proponents to ram the proposal through the House. Here's
what happened.
The members of the Committee on Education and Labor were notified late on Monday of a
committee meeting the next morning. A copy of the bill was not available to the Committee
members until the group convened at 10:00 a.m. At 10:15 a.m. a motion to have the bill
read was denied by a roll-call vote--17 members of the Committee, all Democrats, voted
against even reading the bill. Then by another roll call, 17 to 13, the Committee decided
to limit all discussion on the new bill to 70 minutes. Approximately 50 minutes of this
time was spent discussing a major amendment to the bill. At the conclusion of the time
limitation the Committee voted to report the bill to the House with all minority party
members voting against the hybrid proposal. After the final Committee decision, those who
opposed the proposal were given one hour to submit their minority views in writing for the
Committee Report that was to be printed that day. This was an unconscionable and unheard
of limitation on the right of the minority to have their separate views reported.
On the following day, Wednesday, the bill was brought to the floor of the House where
the Administration's efforts to ramrod this far-reaching federal aid to education was badly
defeated. No one who believes in the American legislative process could defend such
shocking procedural tactics on a vital issue involving controversial and uncharted areas
of federal participation. I voted against the proposal for two reasons: 1) The procedure
used to seek the objective was indefensible; 2) Many of the provisions in the federal aid
to education bill were unsound and unnecessary.
TAX REVISION: The House Committee on Ways and Means has put off until next year any
action on the Administration's recommendations for changes in the federal tax laws. On
April 20th President Kennedy sent to the Congress his message on tax revision. Between
May 3 and June 9 the Committee held 24 days of public hearings on the various proposals. On
June 12 the Committee under the chairmanship of Rep. Wilbur Mills (Democrat of Arkansas)
went into executive session to examine these proposals in light of the evidence presented.
It made some tentative decisions on certain items but on August 23rd announced that it
would submit no tax legislation this year
Our mail would indicate that the Kennedy proposals causing the greatest concern were
those which would eliminate the present $50 dividend credit, withhold income taxes on in-
terest and dividends, alter the rules on "business expenses," and the method of providing
additional incentives for industrial modernization.
Rep. John Byrnes, senior Republican member of the Committee stated that 'almost with-
out exception the Treasury Department proposals were disclosed to have serious and basic
defects. He pointed out that the proposals to withhold a tax on dividends and interest
would impose an unconscionabbe burden on many persons not having any tax liability whatever.
He also said that the Committee's hearings revealed that the original Administration invest-
ment credit proposal involved a nightmare of tax complications and tax discriminations.
Congressman Byrnes stated that the Treasury's proposals were not "based on thorough study"
and were "not thought out in sufficient detail. As a result Chairman Mills announced that
the Committee on Ways and Means would wait until next year to decide what, if any, tax
changes to make. Personally, I would like to see greater restraint exercised by both the
Administration and the Congress in appropriating public funds before any tax increase.
APPROPRIATIONS, 1962: Essential legislation which must be adopted annually by the
Congress includes the appropriation bills for the fiscal year beginning July 1. By the end
of August only seven of the 13 regular appropriations bills for this fiscal year, now two
months along, had received final approval. Over $68.4 billion had been allocated, but six
more bills must be enacted to provide funds for governmental operations through June 30,
1962. At this writing two of these bills are in conference to iron out differences between
the House and Senate versions, two have passed the House but not the Senate, and two must
still receive original approval in the House
No appropriation bills have been reported for "Public Works" or "Mutual Security" be-
cause necessary legislation authorizing these expenditures has not been approved. As Chair-
man Cannon of the Committee on Appropriations told the House, "We cannot under the rules
(of the House) appropriate a single dollar until it has been authorized by law. The dif-
ference between an "authorization" and an "appropriation" is often misunderstood. Before
any appropriation of funds can be authorized by Congress or expenditure made by the Execu-
tive Branch of the federal government, a law to approve such spending must be enacted by
the House and Senate. Once such legislation is enacted then Congress has authority to app
propriate the funds up to the authorized ceilings. The Committees on Appropriations for
both the House and Senate have the responsibility to review the budget requests submitted
by the President under the authorizing law. In most instances the amount appropriated is
less than the authorized ceiling principally because the facts presented by witnesses donot
justify a larger expenditure. At times the Committee on Appropriations is severely criti-
cized for limiting appropriations below the authorized ceilings, but I can assure you this
check rein on expenditures has saved many hundreds of millions in tax dollars over the
years without any serious curtailment of progress or policies.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
September 13, 1961
The resumption of atmospheric nuclear testing by the Soviet Union underlines the
belief of many authorities in Washington that Russia has been testing nuclear devices
clandestinely for many months. These authorities feel that underground and other tests
had been completed and the Kremlin decided that atmospheric experiments were necessary.
The devices being tested are undoubtedly tactical nuclear weapons of a type which the
United States has had a decided advantage and superiority. Khrushchev apparently needed
to carry out atmospheric testing, with all its dangers from fall-out, in order to over-
come his disadvantage in this area.
This decision emphasizes Khrushchev's complete disregard for his cwn pronouncements,
for the health of people everywhere, and for any so-called "world opinion."
As you will recall I had recommended several months ago that the United States
undertake limited nuclear testing if no decision could be reached at Geneva. Consequently,
I do not object to President Kennedy's decision to resume underground testing under
present circumstances. However, it might have been to our advantage to hold off the
announcement of our intentions for a few weeks while preparing for the test in order to
capitalize fully on the propaganda advantage which flowed from the unilateral action of
the Soviet Union.
Some authorities here believe that after Khrushchev gets what he wants from the
current series of tests, he will make another big propaganda push by proposing a new ban
on nuclear testing. This only emphasizes the basic problem in dealing with the Communists
a complete lack of faith and trust in their word or any of their commitments.
MUTUAL SECURITY: The Congress rejected the "backdoor financing" aspect of the
mutual security authorization bill. We will have an annual appropriation giving the
Congress an opportunity to review the administration of the foreign aid program and to
scrutinize all proposed spending. With this major issue satisfactorily resolved, I
supported the $4.2 billion authorization bill which included $1.7 billion for military
assistance. When the Democratic-controlled Committee on Appropriations, against the
wishes of President Kennedy, cut the military assistance grant to $1.3 billion, I made
the motion which the House approved to raise this amount by $300 million to $1.6 billion.
In my judgment the Administration justified its request for the larger amount for mili-
tary assistance which goes to improve the fighting capabilities of our allies. President
Kennedy had requested $1.885 billion for this purpose, an amount slightly more than that
recommended by President Eisenhower before he left office.
COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA IN THE MAILS: In YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW for July 26 I dis-
cussed the March 17th Executive Order of President Kennedy calling upon the Post Office
Department to deliver Communist propaganda sent from behind the iron curtain to American
citizens whether they wanted this insidious material or not. Prior to March 17, 1961
under the regulations maintained by President Eisenhower this sort of propaganda could
only be delivered to Post Office patrons who said they wanted to receive it. Rep. Glenn
Cunningham (Republican of Nebraska) has introduced a bill, H. R. 9004, which would "deny
the use of the United States Postal Service for the carriage of Communist political
propaganda. 11 Mr. Cunningham is a member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service
to which this bill has been referred. He is confident that the Committee will hold ex-
tensive hearings on this vital subject in the near future. I am certain that legislation
of this nature to override the Executive Order of March 17th issued by the Kennedy Ad-
ministration will be widely supported.
ORPHAN ADOPTIONS: The House approved an immigration bill last Wednesday containing
provisions in which many persons in the Fifth District were deeply interested. For some
years proxy adoptions of orphans residing abroad were authorized by special legislation
which expired on June 30th. Under this legislation a large number of Korean orphans were
adopted by American families through the Holt Adoption Program.
The bill reported last week by the Committee carriesout the recommendations of
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Abraham Ribicoff, and alters the procedure
under which these adoptions may take place. The bill as passed provides that the pro-
spective parents must see and observe the child before he leaves his native country or
that the adoption procedure be completed in accordance with the law of the state in which
the prospective parents reside. This procedure suggested by Secretary Ribicoff and the
Committee on the Judiciary will not eliminate the Holt Program, but it will require quite
a change in its method of operation. It will mean as a practical matter that Korean
orphans must be brought to this country and adopted under the laws of the state in which
they are to live. There will be no "proxy adoptions."
REFLECTORS ON RAILROAD CARS: A renewed interest has been shown lately in a bill
which I introduced in the present and in the past two Congresses. It would require that
railroad cars be equipped with reflectors or luminous material so they can be readily
seen at night. Serious accidents at unprotected grade crossings have prompted this
interest. The bill is presently with the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce which has requested the views and recommendations of the Interstate Commerce Com-
mission and the Department of Commerce.
The ICC, the special agency established to regulate interstate transportation,
stated that it is "our opinion that provision for this type of protection at unguarded
grade crossings would be worth the expense involved." The Department of Commerce said
that it "does not feel that the benefits derived from the use of these reflectors would
be commensurate with the expenditure required for their installation and maintenance."
So the matter rests with the Committee where I am hoping affirmative action will be
taken.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
September 20, 1961
A quick review of the record of this session of the Congress reveals certain accom-
plishments. The Congress (1) provided a sound defense program for the country substan-
tially as recommended by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy; (2) supported an adequate
mutual security program without the "backdoor financing" provisions; (3) continued its
opposition to any diplomatic recognition of Red China or its admission to the UN; (4)
indicated its disapproval of Secretary Hodge's order authorizing the disposition of
surplus agricultural products to communist-dominated countries; (5) approved the tempo-
rary program to provide 13 weeks' additional unemployment compensation for those who had
exhausted their regular benefits at a time when economic situations seemed to show a
need for this, and (6) amended the Social Security Act to increase minimum benefits and
payments to widows, and giving men the option to retire at 62 with reduced benefits.
Some of the things the Congress refused to do are equally significant. The Congress
did not (1) endorse the "Bulldozers for Castro" deal supported by President Kennedy; (2)
accept the Kennedy-Freeman farm bill with its illegal transfer of power and unworkable
provisions which could only mean higher prices for consumers, greater control by the
bureaucrats, and more restriction on our farmers; (3) put the federal government into
the position of subsidizing teachers' salaries and school construction in every school
district in the country. However, neither did the Congress do all it could to eliminate
or reduce federal expenditures for numerous non-essential spending schemes which are a
factor in increasing this year's deficit to over $6 billion.
SOCIAL SECURITY EARNING LIMITATION: Since 1956 I have introduced legislation to in-
crease from $1200 to $3600 per year the amount a widow with minor children may earn
without losing her benefits under social security. It has always seemed unfair to me
that a widowed mother with minor children who sought employment to support her family
should be penalized if she earned more than $1200 a year. Under present law while payments
for the children may continue, benefits which would come to her based upon her deceased
husband's earning record are reduced or eliminated when she earns over that limit. My
bill (H. R. 356 in this Congress) would raise the limit to $3600, an amount which appears
to be more realistic in view of current living costs and more equitable in view of the
mother's additional responsibilities and her willingness to work outside the home to
support her family.
It was surprising, therefore, to learn recently that the Kennedy Administration
opposes this bill and has recommended to the Committee on Ways and Means that H. R. 356
not be enacted. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare stated that "payments
to a widow with young children are based on the presumption that she will have to stay
at home to care for the children." True, but with the breadwinner removed, few families
with growing children can live on social security benefits, and we should not penalize
those who show a commendable degree of self-reliance by going to work.
HEW also argues that if the earning limit is raised for widows with growing children,
it should be increased for all beneficiaries. This may be true but many will not accept
HEW's conclusion that "in general, the economic situation of aged beneficiaries who work
is no better than that of younger widows, and there is no basis for making the terms upon
which benefits are payable more advantageous for young widows than for older people."
Furthermore and most significant, Mr. Kennedy's HEW also objects to an increase in the
earning limitation for these retired older persons. Is this another indication that the
"New Frontier" is off limits for any expression of individual initiative or self-reliance?
INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION: As one of 11 official delegates of the House of Represen-
tatives to the Interparliamentary Union, I left for Brussels on September 13 to attend
the 50th annual conference of the Union. Organized in 1889 and composed of representa-
tives of the national legislative bodies of 59 nations, the Interparliamentary Union
brings together legislators from all over the world for discussions of mutual problems
and for the improvement of international relations. Among the items to be considered at
Brussels are the current effect of world trade on various countries, the problems of new
and developing nations, methods of enforcing UN decisions, and the parliamentary control
of international organizations.
MOBILE OFFICE TOUR OF FIFTH DISTRICT: I am planning to bring our Congressional office
to 24 Fifth District communities between October 2 and November 11 when we undertake our
seventh annual mobile office tour of Kent and Ottawa Counties. Opening at Standale on
Monday, October 2, at 2:30 p.m., I will be at each community for the afternoon and
evening until at least 8:00. In the past many of you have come in for a visit, and I
hope to meet more of you this year. You will soon be seeing announcements giving the
specific time and place for each stop.
DISTRICT OFFICE IN GRAND RAPIDS: My district office at 425 Cherry Street, S. E.,
Grand Rapids, is open every working day during the year with Mrs. Eleanor Todish in
charge. Her telephone number is GL 6-9747. During October and November staff members
from Washington will also be in the district office. I will be there mornings and any
afternoon on which no mobile office stop is scheduled. We welcome your personal visits
and telephone calls.
"YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW"SUSPENDS: The Congress is expected to adjourn this week or
next. Therefore, this will be our final weekly report until the second session of the
87th Congress convenes in January. If you know of others who would like to be on our
mailing list, please send me their names and addresses. If the address on the envelope
in which this letter arrived is incorrect, please let me know. Thanks!