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 Lyndon Johnson.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525466
label
Ford Newsletter, June-Oct. 1964
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525466
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Newsletter, June-Oct. 1964
description
This file contains material relating to Lyndon Johnson.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Newsletters
subjects
Appalachian Region
President (1963-1969 : Johnson). President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. 11/30/1963-9/24/1964
Apportionment
Appropriations and expenditures
Coffee
Debts, Public
Education
Federal budget
Food aid
Foreign aid
Government salaries
Grain
Health
Legislation
Local transit
Money
Obscenity (Law)
Postal matters
Poverty programs
Social security
Taxation
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525466
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1964-10-31
month
10
year
1964
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1964-06-01
month
6
year
1964
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
1558d42454ec0224
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
June 3, 1964
President Johnson has asked the Congress to raise the national debt limit to
$324 billion from the current ceiling of $315 billion. The debt today stands at
$308.7 billion, up by $5.7 billion over one year ago. The President has announced
that the deficit for this fiscal year ending June 30 will be $8.8 billion while the
estimated deficit for next year is set at $5.8 billion. We can't forget that an
increase of $1 billion in the public debt means an increase of $33.3 million in the
annual interest charges, payable each year from federal revenues.
Despite all the "economy talk" by Mr. Johnson, the "spending activities" go on
and on. During his first three months in office (December-February) President
Johnson spent more money than any President in history during a comparable period, a
total of $24.3 billion. This is $2 billion more than the late President Kennedy's
peak December-February quarter of 1962-63. In fact, the spending rate under Mr.
Johnson was $22 million more per day than during Mr. Kennedy's comparable peak quarter
and $48 million more per day than during President Eisenhower's most expensive
December through February period of 1958-59.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS: In adopting the tenth of the twelve
regular appropriation bills which must be approved annually, the House of Representa-
tives cut President Johnson's request for money for military construction by $279.9
million. This bill provides funds for housing, administrative and medical facilities,
shipyards, maintenance shops, communications stations, and the like for the armed
forces. The appropriation for this year (1964) amounted to $1.58 billion; the
President requested $1.87 billion for 1965. The House allowed $1.59 billion which is
$13 million over this year's allocation but $279.9 million under the President's
request. Despite President Johnson's so-called economy drive, in this bill as in
others the Congress found legitimate and effective ways to save the taxpayer's money.
Furthermore, it will be noted that Mr. Johnson's request for 1965 funds in this
specific bill was $294 million more than the 1964 appropriation.
The Committee on Appropriations eliminated or reduced funds where costs
appeared excessive or plans were too elaborate, where plans and designs were inade-
quate, where existing facilities were not being fully used, and where the project was
not clearly essential to the strengthening of our military position. It was this
Committee's work which exposed the waste of funds on elaborate quarters for the
commanding officer at the Ordnance-Tank and Automotive Command at Warren, Michigan.
All of this reemphasizes the need for a strong, independent legislative branch of
government to check on the executive. While the President may prefer a "rubber stamp"
Congress, our citizens and taxpayers benefit when their representatives act in accor-
dance with their own best judgment.
Four Air Force bases in Michigan were provided with funds by this bill: K. I.
Sawyer at Marquette ($499,000); Kincheloe at Sault Ste. Marie ($1.4 million);
Selfridge at Mt. Clemens ($299,000), and Wurtsmith at Oscoda ($392,000).
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL FACILIT IES: The Hill-Burton Act under which federal funds
are supplied for hospitals and related facilities is to be extended for five years
under legislation (H.R. 10041) passed by the House last Monday. Initially enacted in
1946, the program is due to expire on June 30th. If 10041 becomes law, $252 to
$285 million will be authorized annually for five years to continue grants for the
construction of public or non-profit hospitals, nursing homes, and health centers in
cooperation with states and local communities.
From its inception in 1946 through June 30, 1963, a total of 6,810 Hill-Burton
projects involving $6.1 billion were approved. The federal government's share of the
cost amounted to $1.9 billion. These projects created 290,000 beds in various types
of hospitals and nursing homes. According to the Committee Report, "In 1948 we had
only 59 percent of the general hospital beds we needed, whereas 83 percent of the
general hospital beds needed are in existence today. At the same time, however, State
agencies report that we still need 133,000 additional new general hospital beds
"
The extension of the Hill-Burton program was unanimously recommended by the
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and was passed in the House of Represen-
tatives by a voice vote without opposition.
INSURANCE COVERAGE ON DEPOSITS IN BANKS AND IN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS:
A proposal to increase from $10,000 to $20,000 the insurance coverage on deposits in
banks and in savings and loan associations was referred back to the Committee on
Banking and Currency by a roll call vote in the House last Wednesday. This was done
primarily because a majority of House members felt that the Committee had not given
sufficient attention to the recommendations of the Treasury Department and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation. These agencies have no objection to increasing
coverage for each depositor beyond $10,000. But both the Treasury and the FDI6 sug-
gest that the increase in insurance coverage be combined with legislation to strengthen
the supervision exercised by federal authorities over the insured institutions in
order to better protect the insurance fund and the depositors. Unfortunately the
Committee never had any hearings on this aspect of the proposed legislation.
The bill under consideration (H.R. 5130) would have only increased coverage.
By a vote of 197 to 142 the House recommitted the bill to Committee for further study
of the Administration's recommendations. I voted with the majority on this issue.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 10, 1964
When last week's newsletter was written our national debt stood at $308.7
billion. The latest report of the Treasury Department received in my office (dated
May 27) lists the public debt at $310.7 billion. This is an increase in the debt of
$7.1 billion over the same date a year ago. This much growth in indebtedness means an
increase of $233 million in annual interest charges, payable each year from federal
revenues. In his budget message, President Johnson predicted a public debt of $317
billion by June 30, 1965 and said that interest charges during the next fiscal year
would total $11.1 billion. Here is a tabulation of our interest payments per year
and the national debt starting with 1953:
Fiscal Year
Interest
National Debt (June 30)
1953
$ 6.5 billion
$266 billion
1954
6.4
271
1955
6.4
274
1956
6.8
273
1957
7.3
271
1958
7.6
276
1959
7.6
285
1960
9.2
286
1961
9.0
289
1962
9.1
298
1963
9.9
306
1964
10.7 (est.)
312 (est.)
1965
11.1 (est.)
317 (est.)
WHO ARE THE CREDITORS? Often we are asked, especially by students, to explain
to whom the government owes these billions. The Treasury Department tells us that
the $310.4 billion indebtedness as of March 31, 1964 was distributed as follows among
those who owned bonds, treasury notes, etc.: the federal social security and other
trust funds, federal agencies, and the Federal Reserve Banks 29.5%; individual citi-
zens 21.8%; commercial banks 19.7%; state and local governments 7.1%; corporations
(except banks and insurance companies) 7.1%; foreign and international owners 5%;
insurance companies 3.5%; savings and loan associations 2.2%; mutual savings banks 2%,
and miscellaneous 2.2 percent.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZATION: Scheduled for consideration by the House of
Representatives early this week is the bill authorizing appropriations for our mutual
security or foreign aid program. The Committee on Foreign Affairs recommended $2.04
billion, the full amount requested by the President. This amount plus authorizations
previously enacted, provide the basis for appropriations of $3.5 billion for foreign
aid during fiscal year 1965.
It is well to point out, however, that in addition to the $3.5 billion in this
bill there are other funds available to the Johnson Administration for foreign aid.
During 1964 the Administration requested $2.2 billion for the "Food for Peace" program,
$1.1 billion for the Inter-American Development Bank, $373 million for the Interna-
tional Development Association, $115 million for the Peace Corps, and $60 million for
its tax credit proposal. Including the $3.5 billion in the foreign assistance bill
we have a total of about $7.4 billion to be spent on "foreign aid" under President
Johnson. In a true analysis of our mutual security program we must include all these
items and possibly also our expenditures in excess of $2 billion to maintain U. S.
troops overseas and the trade and tariff concessions which benefit other nations.
Over the years I have supported the basic objectives of our mutual security
programs under both Democratic and Republican presidents. But I have differed with
each from time to time on specific items in the program and in the dollar amounts to
be spent. It has seemed to me that as the Congress reduced the amount of money
available, it has forced the administration to be more selective and efficient, and
we have had a better program overall.
The military assistance aspect of the program is vital to our own national
defense. I would not reduce the $1.05 billion request of the President and recommen-
dation of the Committee. This money goes to strengthen the military forces of coun-
tries on the periphery of the Communist bloc of nations. Two-thirds of all military
assistance funds requested for next year are earmarked for Greece, Turkey, Iran,
Pakistan, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, the Philippines, the Republic of China, and
Korea. Together, these nations maintain 3½ million men under arms, not Americans but
manpower from other nations for our common defense. Secretary McNamara has said that
"it makes no sense whatsoever to spend $50 billion a year on our own mititary forces
and refuse to spend a mere 2 percent of that amount to provide that critical margin of
assistance required to insure the military effectiveness of the forces of our allies
who stand behind us in the collective defense of the free world."
However, based on the testimony received by our Subcommittee on Appropriations
for Foreign Operations, I am convinced that substantial reductions can be made in our
expenditures for "economic assistance." A cut in the $1 billion requested and recom-
mended in this bill would not weaken substantially those programs in foreign lands
which really serve to promote our interest and the welfare of the local populations.
In fact there is a wealth of evidence to show that the impact of our assistance fails
to reach the grassroots level and that we are trying to do too much for too many too
soon. To put it another way, the U. S. should make available what our nation can
afford and the recipient nations can absorb.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 17, 1964
The latest report from the Treasury Department (June 5) puts the national debt
at $312.8 billion. You will remember that last week it was $310.7 billion and that
two weeks ago it stood at $308.7 billion. The debt goes "up and up" as the current
philosophy of "borrow and spend" supplements the tottering philosophy of "tax and
spend." With economic conditions as they are today, a responsible fiscal policy
demands a "pay as you go" policy. This could be achieved by higher taxes but far more
appropriately, I believe, by a reduction in federal spending. A true determination on
the part of the Johnson Administration to promote "economy" could bring about a
balanced budget. The Administration expects to collect in taxes next year $91.5
billion which is an average of $1,946 for every family in the United States.
DEBT LIMIT TO GO TO $324 BILLION: The Democratic majority on the Committee on
Ways and Means has recommended legislation (H.R. 11375) to raise the public debt limit
from $315 billion to $324 billion. In opposing the enactment of this legislation the
Republican minority on the Committee pointed out in its Report that such a limit will
represent an increase of $31 billion over the size of the debt ($293 billion) when
this Administration took office. The Republicans asked for defeat of the bill "in
order that the Administration will be compelled to absorb at least a part of the
revenue loss resulting from the Revenue Act of 1964 through a reduction in Federal
expenditures."
They showed further that "the level of Federal spending by the Johnson Adminis-
tration during the months of May and June 1964 will reach the highest point in our
history, an annual rate of $105 billion." During this month of June Mr. Johnson will
spend $1.1 billion more than did Mr. Kennedy during the same month a year ago.
The Report emphasized that while the Administration has adopted a "ceiling" of
about 2.5 million Federal employees for this year, this so-called ceiling provides for
140,000 more employees than there were when President Eisenhower left office.
The Republicans on the Committee concluded by saying, "We reaffirm our belief
that it is fiscally irresponsible to continue the excessive rate of Government
spending in the face of an $11 billion tax reduction, a $9 billion deficit for 1964,
a further deficit of $6 billion for fiscal 1965, and an increase of $15 billion in
the public debt."
SALARY INCREASES FOR FEDERAL OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES: For the second time
this year the House of Representatives considered legislation (H.R. 11049), strongly
supported by President Johnson, to raise federal salaries. This bill which was
approved last Thursday differed only slightly from that defeated on March 12. For
99 percent of the almost 2 million employees covered by the bill the salary rates are
identical to those in the bill the House rejected.
Instead of raising salaries of top Administration officials by about $10,000 a
year, the new bill ups the pay by about $7,500 a year. Judges now paid $25,500 will
get $33,000 instead of $35,500 a year proposed in the defeated bill. Under the
rejected bill members of Congress were to get $32,500 annually effective when the bill
became law. Under the new bill congressmen will be paid $30,000 a year beginning in
January with the new 89th Congress. This deferred effective date was added to answer
the argument that members of Congress were voting themselves a salary increase; the
new salary would not be paid until after the November election.
The new bill will cost the taxpayers as a minimum an additional $533 million
per year. Even though I could benefit personally from the enactment of this legisla-
tion, I could not in good conscience vote for it when it contributes to the annual
federal deficit and the growing public debt. In effect I would be voting myself and
others a higher salary to be paid out of borrowed money. This is inconsistent with
fiscal responsibility and I opposed this bill as I did the one in March.
FOREIGN AID AUTHORIZATION APPROVED: By a vote of 230 to 175 the House approved
the foreign aid authorization bill which I discussed in last week's newsletter. The
full amount of $2.04 billion in new money as recommended by the Committee was
accepted. This amount plus authorizations previously approved provide a basis for
the appropriation of $3.5 billion for foreign aid during fiscal 1965.
A motion to cut $222 million from the "economic assistance" program was
defeated 211 to 193. I supported this reduction in line with my comments of last
week. On final passage, I voted for the bill. The House will have another oppor-
tunity to reduce the expenditure for foreign aid when it acts on the appropriation
bill scheduled for consideration this month.
WORKSHIP IN WASHINGTON: For the second season four college students from the
Fifth District will be in my Washington office from two to four weeks this summer.
Selected by their college officials these students will participate in the work of
the office and will have an opportunity to observe many aspects of the federal govern-
ment in operation.
Mr. Paul Bierens of 906 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Grand Rapids, and Mr. Glenn
Litton, Jr. of 1203 Edna Street, N.E., Grand Rapids will be with us in June. Paul
just graduated from Calvin where he was a political science major. He expects to
ealist in the Army in July. Glenn has completed his work at Grand Rapids Junior
College and will be continuing his education this fall.
During August we will have with us Mr. Frank D'Amico, 1934 Woodcliff Avenue,
Grand Rapids, and Miss Mary Alice Klute of 1666 Belden Avenue, Wyoming. Frank has
completed his junior year at Aquinas College. Mary finished her sophomore year at
Hope College and expects to enter nursing school in September.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 24, 1964
When the House of Representatives voted last Wednesday to extend certain
federal excise taxes for another year, the major issue involved the retailers tax on
cosmetics and toilet articles, jewelry, furs, and on luggage and ladies' handbags.
The Republican members of the Committee on Ways and Means recommended that the 10 per-
cent tax on these items be reduced to 5 percent for fiscal year 1965 and that the
entire tax be removed on July 1, 1965. President Johnson and the Democrats on the
Committee urged a continuation of the 10 percent tax on these items.
The Republicans pointed out that these taxes were originally adopted in 1941
to produce revenue but also to discourage the purchase of cosmetics, jewelry, furs,
and handbags, so-called "luxury items" during war time. They argued that many of
these articles are not luxuries and that there is now no good reason to restrict con-
sumption of them; in fact, to remove the tax would benefit the industry and the ladies
of our country who make most of the purchases. The Republicans insisted further that
the tax is discriminatory against these items, their manufacturers and those who use
them, and creates serious administrative problems. For instance, if a shampoo is ad-
vertised simply to wash your hair, it is not taxed. But if the manufacturer claims
that it adds a glint of some kind then it becomes taxable. Or take a cloth coat, a
simple one or a fashion model, if there is no fur there is no tax. But add some fur,
on goes the tax. This confusion and the collection of the tax adds to the burdens of
the retail merchant.
There is one more basic objection to these retailers excise taxes; they should
be reserved for the use of the state. Local communities have the property tax as a
major source of revenue; the federal government has the income tax; we should in
general reserve the retailers excise tax to the states.
For these reasons I voted for the reduction in these taxes. I did vote against
the income tax reduction last September and in February. But as long as the Adminis-
tration argues that tax reduction is good for the country, I believe that it is better
to start with the retailers excise tax rather than the general income tax. Under the
Republican proposal the revenue loss for next year would be only $226 million compared
with $11 billion under the Administration's cut.
The proposal was defeated, however, by a vote of 207 to 185. All Michigan
Republicans voted for the reduction except Mr. Bennett who was absent. They were
joined by Rep. Ryan of Detroit. All other Michigan Democrats (except Mr. Lesinski,
absent) opposed this tax cut.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATION BILL: With House approval of the $4.3 billion
public works appropriation bill last Tuesday, only one regular appropriation bill
(foreign operations) remains to be sent to the Senate. But at this writing the Senate
has acted on none of the 11 bills passed by the House. These bills supply the funds
for the operation of the government and should be enacted by the beginning of the
fiscal year, July 1.
The House cut $46.4 million from President Johnson's request for funds for
rivers, harbors, and flood control, for the Atomic Energy Commission, the TVA, and
other public works projects. It is significant also that the funds for fiscal 1965
are $75.5 million under the appropriations for the current year.
Included in the bill are funds in the amount of $175,000 to continue the com-
prehensive survey of the Grand River Basin designed to obtain information on water
use problems, water needs, flood damages, need for drainage, and desired water and
related land resource for the Grand River and surrounding area.
THE POVERTY PACKAGE: A new anti-poverty bill, H.R. 11377, to replace
President Johnson's bill (H.R. 10440) has been recommended by the Democratic majority
on the House Committee on Education and Labor. The bill was considered by the
Committee on Rules last week. The new legislation makes about 100 changes, some of
major significance, in the President's bill. Most of the amendments were submitted
by the Democrats on the Committee. Every major amendment offered by Republicans was
rejected.
Rep. Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), senior minority member of the Committee, told the
House recently that "this is a bill which will inevitably create great expectations
but without the substance to satisfy such hopes." He pointed out that the $1 billion
expenditure proposed for the first year is "roughly the same amount as the city of
New York spends in a 12-month period to alleviate the poverty of its citizens. The
State of California alone spends more than $800 million annually to alleviate poverty
in various forms."
Yet Sargent Shriver who is to command the war against poverty said that the
Administration's program would eliminate the problem in ten years. On a radio-TV
program on May 17, Mr. Shriver said, "I would say that if Congress gave us what we
are asking for and did not reduce it in future years, that we could look forward in
the foreseeable future, let's say ten years or so, to the elimination of poverty in
the United States."
If that statement is true, we are about to witness greater magic than the
original Houdini was ever able to perform, in fact the greatest marvel in the history
of mankind.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 1, 1964
A new multi-billion dollar spending program, urged by President Johnson, was
approved by the House of Representatives last Thursday. In adopting the Urban Mass
Transportation Act (H.R. 3881), the House committed the American taxpayers to at least
a $20 billion program for federal subsidies for bus and rail transportation, primarily
in the major metropolitan areas. However, with urban areas of 2,500 population or
more eligible for federal aid, it is obvious that any amount authorized will be
inadequate to satisfy all potential demands for subsidies.
The bill as passed authorizes $375 million for a three-year program of federal
grants to states and local public bodies to assist public and private transit systems.
The money could be used to supply terminal facilities, rights-of-way, buses and other
rolling stock, as well as other property needed to operate the transportation system.
The grants will go only to a public body which could operate the system itself or
could provide for private operation under a lease or other arrangement. The federal
government would bear two-thirds of the net cost.
Proponents of this new spending scheme point to the need for rapid, inexpensive
transportation in urban centers. They stress the loss of local bus service in many
areas and insist that the problem can't be solved by the construction of more highways
and parking lots. The sponsors of the bill conclude that because local bus transpor-
tation is weak in many communities throughout the nation, we have here a "federal
problem" which must be solved from Washington. Their solution consists of federal
subsidies from the U. S. Treasury (deficit this year $8 billion; national debt $312
billion).
The opponents of the legislation stressed the enormous cost over a long period
of years of a program designed primarily to help a few large metropolitan areas which
have the wealth, and should solve their own transportation problems. They insisted
that this is a local problem for New York City, San Francisco, New Orleans, and
similar cities and is not one which should be foisted upon all the nation's taxpayers.
Over 96 percent of the nation's transit systems consist wholly of buses and involve
problems of routes and schedules, one-way streets, reservations of lanes for bus
travel, property and franchise taxes -- all questions to be decided locally.
The opposition pointed out that in most urban areas over 85 percent of the
total daily travel is by private automobile. It also showed that 95 percent of all
transit companies today are privately owned and operated. But under President
Johnson's proposal federal subsidies would go only to state and public agencies, a
fact which could lead to more and more public ownership of local bus lines. This
will mean a loss in local tax revenues and a tendency to continue unprofitable bus
routes at the expense of federal subsidies paid by all taxpayers.
I opposed H.R. 3381 on the strength of the opposition's logical arguments and
because the federal government should not take on new and extensive spending programs
while the annual deficits for the federal treasury go on and on and the national debt
increases without abatement. All Republicans from Michigan (except Mr. Bennett,
absent) voted against the bill. They were joined by Rep. O'Hara but all the other
Michigan Democrats, including our Congressman-at-Large Neil Staebler, supported the
new spending scheme.
APPORTIONMENT OF STATE LEGISLATURES: The House Committee on the Judiciary will
commence hearings on July 22 on a number of proposals relative to representation in
state legislatures. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that both houses of a state
legislature must be apportioned according to population, even though a majority of
voters in the state themselves in an election have approved a different plan. Tradi-
tionally, in most states one house in the legislature has been elected on a basis of
population while in the other, different factors, including area, were considered.
The Judiciary Committee will consider proposals to amend the Constitution to
overrule the Supreme Court. Generally the proposals would legalize the composition
of the state legislature if one house is apportioned according to population. The
senior minority member of the Committee has stated "it is correct to say, as the
Supreme Court does, that legislatures represent people, not trees or acres. But, the
people who reside in States are not mere numbers. They are people with dissimilar
and sometimes conflicting needs, with conflicting hopes and aspirations, with ever
changing problems that sometimes fail to yield to computer logic."
I hope the Committee recommends a constitutional amendment which I have
joined others in sponsoring to overrule the Court and to enable the people of each
state, if they 80 desire, to have at least one house of their legislature based on
factors other than population.
CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING: A subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary
has recommended legislation relative to congressional districts. This action was
inspired also by recent decisions of the Supreme Court. The bill would require con-
gressional districts to be compact in form, composed of contiguous territory, and as
far as practicable vary in population not more than 15 percent either way from the
norm or average for the state. The 15 percent deviation permitted in the bill is sig-
nificant. It presents congressional guidelines for the "one man, one vote" theory
espoused by the Court. The bill is sponsored by Chairman Celler (Dem.-N.Y.) who
said, "it is far better to permit the States rather than the courts to draw the
district lines."
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 8, 1964
A $3.7 billion foreign aid appropriation bill was adopted by the House of
Representatives last Wednesday. After two days of debate, the House accepted the bill
as recommended by the Committee on Appropriations. I have been a member of the sub-
committee on foreign aid appropriations for twelve years and participated in the
hearings and in the subcommittee and committee action. This year I could not go along
with the dollar amount recommended by the subcommittee and full committee, and there-
fore worked with the minority (both Democrats and Republicans) to reduce the appro-
priation. Our motion to cut an additional $247.8 million from the bill was defeated
by a vote of 198 to 208. I did support the bill on final passage because I believe
that the overall program, and especially the military assistance aspect, contributes
to our own security and to the defense of the free world.
In January President Johnson announced that he was cutting the request for
foreign aid funds and that he was presenting a "bare bones" mutual security budget.
But an analysis of his request reveals that in every one of the individual programs he
asked for more new funds for 1965 than were made available for fiscal 1964. For
example, the new obligational authority (right to spend funds) in 1964 for development
loans was $687.3 million. For next year President Johnson requested $922.2 million or
an increase of $234.9 million. Taking the foreign assistance items as a whole,
President Johnson requested $694 million MORE in new spending authority for the coming
year than the Congress granted for the past year. The respective totals are $3.2
billion in 1964 and $3.9 billion in 1965. This is not budget cutting nor is it
economizing. It must also be remembered that when the expenditures of all the
agencies handling "foreign aid" are totaled we find Uncle Sam spending over $7 billion
a year in this area.
The Committee majority did cut the President's request by $219 million. We of
the minority suggested further reductions for a total cut of $510 million. This still
would have left the Administration with an amount $200 million greater than the 1964
appropriation. We were suggesting no reckless, unreasonable reductions. Our cuts as
well as those of the majority were entirely in the area of "economic assistance." No
reduction at all was made in the "military assistance" request of $1.05 billion. I
have always supported a sound military assistance program to help our allies
strengthen their military position and thus contribute more effectively to the defense
of the free world.
But there have been sufficient examples of poor planning and mismanagement to
warrant a careful evaluation of our "economic assistance" (public works, technical
advice, educational projects, etc.). Many results have not been as encouraging as
they should be. And in any program of this nature, the American taxpayer must receive
consideration. Too often he is the forgotten man in our desire to be helpful through-
out the world. Likewise, we must consider the recipient country's ability to use
effectively the help we offer. Too often U.S. funds have been wasted because the
recipient was not ready to use our help. We must strive for that happy medium between
what they can absorb and we can afford. While I supported the bill on final passage,
I did everything I could to affect savings of an additional $247.8 million.
COFFEE PRICES UP - CONSUMER PROTECTION DOWN: With more coffee available for
the world market than a year age, housewives may legitimately ask why coffee prices at
the grocery store are going up. The Department of Agriculture has reported that world
coffee stocks today are greater than they were a year ago when 70.6 million bags were
on hand, enough to meet world requirements for 18 months. Yet a year ago a pound of
coffee in a Washington retail store sold for 70c. Now it costs 90c, an increase of
28 percent.
Rep. Derwinski of Illinois in an address to the House of Representatives last
week pointed out that this increase in consumer costs stems from the Administration's
position at the International Coffee Agreement meetings in London. When President
Kennedy asked the Congress to approve legislation relative to the International Coffee
Agreement he said, "The purpose of the agreement is to check the disastrous decline
in coffee prices and to bring stability to coffee markets." He went on to say that
"there are adequate safeguards in the agreement to protect fully the interests of the
American consumer; export quotas will not be set below the level of estimated demand!'
Rep. Derwinski reported that "the State Department has approved the setting of
export quotas below estimated demand, and has made it clear to the producing countries
that it will not use its voting power to 'stabilize prices' in the manner that the
President had pledged to the Congress." Mr. Derwinski stated that this action of the
Johnson Administration is costing the U.S. consumers a minimum of $600 million a year.
The Coffee Agreement permits member countries to fix export quotas. The total
quotas established have been below the known demand. The result has been the price
increase presently being reflected at the retail level. The Democratic Administration
has an advisor on "consumer problems" but she has done nothing, and I repeat nothing,
to protect the consumer against the Administration's aid to coffee producing countries
at the expense of the American coffee drinker.
NEXT ISSUE JULY 29: Because of the recess called by the House of Representa-
tives for the Republican National Convention, there will be no "Washington Review"
during the following two weeks. The next issue will be dated July 29.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 29, 1964
The federal government closed its books for the fiscal year on June 30th and
some in the White House spoke as though Uncle Sam's finances for the previous twelve
months had been all to the good. The facts are there was a deficit of $8.3 billion.
This is a greater deficit than in any one of the three previous years under former
President Kennedy. The last surplus was in 1960.
Here are the figures:
1960
-
surplus
$1.2 billion
1961
-
deficit
$3.8 billion
1962 -
11
$6.3 billion
1963 -
"
$6.2 billion
1964 -
"
$8.3 billion
The four consecutive federal deficits have necessarily increased the national
debt. If Uncle Sam on an annual basis operates in the "red" (spending more money
than it takes in) the federal debt goes up and up.
Here are the figures from the U. S. Treasury:
National debt June 30, 1960 - $286 billion
"
"
1961
-
$288 billion
"
"
1962
-
$298 billion
"
"
1963
-
$306 billion
June 30, 1964 - $312 billion
President Johnson himself estimates the national debt by next June 30th will
be approximately $318 billion.
The recent increases in the debt and the annual deficit result solely from an
increase in federal expenditures recommended by President Johnson's administration.
This Administration, despite its economy propaganda, is spending federal funds faster
by $2 million a day than President Kennedy, faster by $50 million a day than President
Eisenhower.
Another fact seldom mentioned but one we should not forget is that from the
federal taxes all of us pay a great deal goes to finance interest payments on the
national debt. Approximately $1.00 in every $10.00 each of us pays in federal taxes
is for interest charges.
Here are the annual interest charges which are caused solely by the ever-
increasing burdens of the obligations owed by the U. S. Treasury:
Fiscal year 1960
-
$9.2 billion
"
"
1961
-
$9.0 billion
"
"
1962
-
$9.1 billion
"
"
1963
-
$9.8 billion
"
"
1964
-
$10.6 billion
"
"
1965
$11.1
"
-
(estimate)
It is interesting but tragic to note that in 1965 there will be a $2 billion
annual increase over 1960 in interest payments. This is a continuing load that will
get worse not better unless Americans demand that the federal budget be balanced.
The responsibility for federal expenditures is not solely on the shoulders of
the President. The Congress, under the Constitution, shares this burden. It is true
that no President can spend more money than the House and Senate appropriates. But,
let me point out the record of the Congress in trying to hold the lid on federal
expenditures.
A year ago the legislative branch in Washington reduced the budget submitted
by the President in January 1963 by six and -half billion dollars. These reductions
if not made by the House and Senate would have given the President more spending
authority than needed and would have added that much more to the actual deficit of
$8.3 billion in the past year. In other words the Congress by bona fide economy
action saved the taxpayers over $6 billion.
In this session of the Congress President Johnson's so-called economy budget is
being given the same careful scrutiny by the House and Senate Committees on Appropria-
tions. To date reductions total approximately $3 billion and I can assure you no
essential programs have been hurt. It is my view that greater reductions can and
should be made. I pledge continued efforts to have our government in Washington live
within its income.
LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE: It is the hope that Congress will adjourn prior to the
Democratic National Convention or about Saturday, August 22nd. The Senate is
gradually catching up on its backlog of bills that piled up during the lengthy Civil
Rights debate. The Congress can finish its legislative business and it should by the
time the Democrats gather at Atlantic City for their convention.
"THE INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF John Fitzgerald Kennedy": A very limited supply of
the late Presddent Kennedy's address on January 20, 1961 has been delivered to my
office. The publication is 201/2" X 15" and suitable for framing. Copies are available
on a first-come-first-served basis by request to my Washington office, 351 House
Office Building.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 5, 1964
The House of Representatives this week is considering the so-called "anti-
poverty bill." Inasmuch as there is some individual or family poverty throughout
the land and because there are geographical areas in America that have local
economy problems the federal government cannot ignore the facts of life and do
nothing.
However, I agree with Congressman Bob Griffin of Michigan who recently
said,
"The whole history of America has been a record of spectacular and sustained
accomplishment in an age-old 'war on poverty.' In this struggle, our principal
weapons have been a free society and a competitive economy. More than 70 million
Americans are now gainfully employed. Our people earn more, possess more,
consume more and live better than any other people on the face of the earth.
Thirty-five years ago, more than 50% of all American families had an annual income
of less than $3,000 (using 1962 dollars as a standard). By 1947, this figure had
dropped to 30%, and by 1962 only 21% had incomes less than $3,000."
Compared to other nations, our citizens as a whole are better off. Americans
have been able in the last 15 years to improve markedly their standard of living
and at the same time help substantially with billions of U. S. dollars millions
of people in underdeveloped lands throughout the world. However, it is wrong to
exaggerate the extent of America's poverty. Our prestige abroad is not enhanced
when Administration spokesmen distort statistics in an attempt to make their case
or for legislative action.
In a recent report, Minority members of the Joint Economic Committee
said,
"A war on poverty will not be won by slogans; nor by shopworn programs
dressed up in new packaging; nor by the defeatist relief concept of the 1930's;
nor by the cynical use of poverty for partisan political ends; nor by overstating
the problem and thereby inexcusably lowering America's prestige in the eyes of
the world
The war on poverty will cruelly deceive the poor and their children
unless it is new in concept and embraces programs which hit at root causes of
poverty rather than its symptoms."
The basic question before the Congress is whether or not the Administration
bill will really solve the problems or is it unsound legislation that among other
things will disrupt and weaken such sound programs as Vocational Education and
Manpower Retraining. Frankly, I am thoroughly convinced it is probably the worst
thought-out and most poorly drafted bill to come before the House in the last 16
years. It is a hastily contrived mixture of federally financed and dominated
programs that too often duplicate existing programs that are working well with
local, state, and federal participation. The bill also contains some thinly
disguised "make-work" schemes.
The first year cost of the "election year" proposal is $1 billion dollars
with an annual cost thereafter of approximately $5 billion dollars. The record is
clear this program of President Johnson will add thousands of additional employees
to Uncle Sam's payroll.
To win the struggle against poverty the highest priority must be given to
the acute needs of the very young and the aged. These two categories in our
population comprise more than one half of the poor in this country and the Johnson
Administration's proposal neglects sound solutions for both groups.
One suggestion, which President Johnson opposes, would be to permit higher
earnings without loss of social security benefits. The average social security
recipient today loses all benefits before he can reach a $3,000 total annual income
level.
For our youth the expansion and improvement of existing programs would be
good where there has been partnership between local, state, and federal agencies.
Vocational Education is a prime example of what can be successful and it is so
because it is tailored to meet local needs and not rigidly dominated by power-
hungry politicians and bureaucrats in Washington.
In my judgment the current bill before the Congress should be defeated for
the reasons stated and for many others. If rejected by the House, a new start on
a non-partisan basis can be developed that will really do the job.
REDUCTION IN FLAGS: I am happy to announce that there has been a reduction
in United States flags when purchased through our Stationery Room in the House of
Representatives. The 3 X 5 flag, which was formerly $2.80, may now be obtained for
$2.60. The 5 X 8 flag, for which we used to pay $5.75, may now be purchased for
$5.60. Anyone who may wish to have an American Flag that has been flown over the
Capitol Building in Washington, may write me enclosing a check and designating the
size of the flag desired. I will be happy to purchase a flag, have it flown over
the Capitol Building, and forwarded to you. Just address your request to me here at
351 House Office Building, Washington, D. C.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 12, 1964
The House of Representatives July 29th by a roll call vote of 388-8 passed the
Social Security Amendments of 1964 giving 20 million Social Security beneficiaries a
5 percent increase in monthly payments. The increase in benefits was designed to
offset the increase in the cost of living since 1958 when the last general increases
in Social Security benefits were enacted by the Congress. This 5 percent increase in
benefits will become effective two months after it has been enacted by the Congress
and signed by the President. The bill is now before the Senate where the Johnson
Administration is pushing to add on a provision which would be a "foot in the door"
for socialized medicine.
The Old Age and Survivors Insurance Program, commonly called "Social Security,"
has assumed an important and vital role in the lives of all Americans. It is the
basis upon which most Americans plan, in part, their financial security in their old
age. Generally the Congress has attempted to keep this program responsive to current
needs, to remove inequities when possible whenever they occur, and to keep the system
financially sound (which includes guarding it against ill-advised costs) so that it
will continue to pay benefits.
By this proposed legislation, the wages upon which the Social Security tax is
paid will be increased from $4800 to $5400. In other words, the first $5400 earned
income will now be taxed -- instead of $4800. At the same time, the family maximum
benefit will be increased to $300 when this increase in the earning base has its full
effect.
These Social Security amendments which passed the House, and which I supported,
will also liberalize the eligibility requirements of people who are 72 years of age
or older. To put it another way, the bill will make it somewhat easier for people
who are 72 or over to qualify for benefits. Widows especially will benefit by this
provision. For example, a maximum benefit of $35 a month will be provided for those
aged 72 and over with a minimum of 3 quarters of coverage since 1937.
The House bill includes a provision which I consider extremely important. It
provides that benefits to a child still in school or college will continue to the age
of 22. Under the present law, a child's benefits end at the age of 18, unless the
child is disabled. Generally speaking this provision will apply to a child who is
going to any accredited school or college.
The Committee on Ways and Means which drafted the bill included a provision
under which a widow may, if she chooses, receive benefits at the age of 60 rather
than at the age of 62 as under existing law. However, if the widow makes the choice
to receive benefits at the earlier age there will be an actuarial reduction on the
benefits she will receive.
In one specific respect the existing law has been somewhat unfair to farmers
and the Committee on Ways and Means sought to remedy this inequity. Under the bill
approved by the House farmers will be permitted to report more of their gross
earnings in order to build up wage records entitling them to higher benefits.
The exclusion in existing law with reference to firemen and policemen under
local retirement systems is removed by the bill so that firemen and policemen are
placed on the same basis as other state and municipal employees except that policemen
and firemen must be considered as a separate coverage group. Thus, firemen and
policemen under local retirement systems can be brought into the Social Security
system as coverage groups if the referendum provisions of existing law are met. In
other words, the absolute bar to coverage for these two groups would be removed and
the coverage of policemen and firemen in local retirement groups would be up to (1)
a decision on the part of the state and/or the municipality that coverage is desired,
and (2) a vote of the group itself on coverage under existing referendum provisions.
The initiative as to whether such groups should be covered is, as under present law,
left up to the states and cities involved. The firemen and policemen in the City of
Grand Rapids, and I presume elsewhere, are particularly interested in this provision.
The legislation also removes the exclusion in existing law with respect to
self-employed doctors of medicine and interns. Thus, about 170,000 such individuals
who are presently excluded will be covered under the Social Security system effective
with taxable years ending after December 31, 1964.
Number of Persons and Amount of Benefits
It is estimated that the benefit provisions of the bill will affect persons with an
outgo of the Trust Funds in 1965 as follows:
5% benefit increase -- 20 million persons, $900 million
Child's benefits to
age 22 if in school -- 275,000 children, $175 million
Reduced age for widows -- 180,000 widows, $150 million
Reduction in eligibility
requirements for certain
persons aged 72 and over -- 600,000 persons, $250 million
ADDITIONAL COPIES OF INAUGURAL ADDRESS: We have an additional supply of the late
President Kennedy's address at his Insuguration on January 20, 1961. Because of this
we can take additional requests for these documents that are suitable for framing.
Address your requests to my Washington office, 351 House Office Building.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 19, 1964
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AT THE SERVICE ACADEMIES: Five academies
operated by the U. S. Government offer a free college education to boys of the
Fifth District who are interested in a career in military or naval service.
Kent and Ionia Counties will be entitled to three appointments to the U. S.
Military Academy in 1965, one appointment to the Naval Academy at Annapolis, and
two appointments to the U. S. Air Force Academy.
In addition, young men from the Fifth District will be eligible to compete
for 12 appointments from Michigan to the U. S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings
Point, New York, and for some of the 250 nation-wide appointments to the Coast
Guard Academy at New London, Connecticut. Graduation from any of these academies
leads not only to a bachelor's degree but also to a commission in one of the
Services.
Candidates for these appointments must be high school graduates or in their
senior year, single, between 17 and 22 years of age. Candidates for West Point,
Annapolis, and Colorado Springs are nominated by the Congressman. To assist in
selecting the best qualified individuals your Congressman utilizes the Civil Service
Designation Examination which covers "Vocabulary and Reading," "Spatial Relations"
and "Algebra," The scores are tabulated by the Civil Service Commission and for-
warded to me for the selection of the nominees. This examination will be given on
October 31st this year for selection of those interested in entering the classes
beginning in July, 1965. Anyone desiring further information on these opportunities
should write me at 351 Old House Office Building, Washington, D, C. before
September 30th.
A congressman may also nominate candidates for the Merchant Marine Academy,
which offers a four-year course leading to a license as an officer in the U. S.
Merchant Marine, a commission as Ensign in the U. S. Naval Reserve, and the
Bachelor of Science Degree.
Application to be considered for appointment as a cadet at the U. S. Coast
Guard Academy is made directly to the Commandant, Coast Guard Headquarters in
Washington, D. C. We will be pleased to supply forms and further information to
anyone interested in a free college education and service as a Coast Guard officer.
THE BREAD TAX: The Administration's new wheat program has already begun
SIGNARY
reaping a harvest of higher costs to the farmer and to the consumer. For the con-
sumer, these costs take the form of a "bread tax." The authorities in Chicago,
for example, report that the cost of bread has gone up two cents a loaf there as
it has in many major American cities. This was predicted at the time the legis-
lation was before Congress and was one of the major reasons for my voting against
the Wheat-Cotton Bill signed by President Johnson on April 11, 1964. Under the
new law, millers must pay the Department of Agriculture for each bushel they turn
into flour. The millers in turn have passed this cost along to consumers in the
form of higher prices, which in fact constitutes a "bread tax." The total costs
per year to the bread-buying public will be approximately $350 million more than
if Congress had taken no action at all.
In addition the wheat farmers themselves stand to lose considerably more
in farm income, under the same wheat control program they overwhelmingly rejected
in a national referendum in May 1963. Michigan agriculture experts have charged
that the new program is extracting more than 17 million dollars in income from
our wheat growers' pockets this year alone. Michigan farmers will pay over $10
million to the government this under the law, according to figures which show
that the Michigan farmer is selling his wheat at prices ranging from $1.16 to
$1.30 a bushel while last year most of his crop sold at prices of between $1.90
and $2.00. It is evident that wheat farmers are not gaining anything from this
new program. Although backers of the bill originally thought that the money from
the millers and the 25¢ a bushel paid by exporters to the Department of Agriculture
would be returned to the farmer, this has not been true. Because only a third of
Michigan's 1964 crop was signed into the program, our farmers will send from ten
to twelve million dollars to Washington to fill government tills.
Moreover the Secretary of Agriculture intends to force the remaining wheat
farmers into his plan by having rigid government controls over the Nation's
economy. In July of this year Secretary Freeman deliberately depressed market
prices by dumping 7.5 million bushels of government-owned wheat on the market.
This move was well planned to force more farmers into his control programs because
the new crop of wheat was just coming to market at that time.
In the past American farmers have rejected mandatory controls not only on
wheat but also on other commodities. Our Michigan farmers overwhelmingly voted
for FREEDOM over FREEMAN. I agreed and for that reason voted against the Johnson
Administration program which is proving to be bad for the farmer, the taxpayer
and the consumer.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
August 26, 1964
One week ago today the House of Representatives by a vote of 218-175 passed a
bill designed to remove the jurisdiction of the Federal courts over State legislative
reapportionment. This action comes in the wake of a 6-3 Supreme Court decision in
June which declared that the seats in both houses of a bicameral State legislature
must be apportioned mathematically on a population basis. In that decision the Court
posed a basic question: Whether the people of the respective States shall themselves
determine how they will be represented in their own State legislatures. At the time
of this extraordinary decision Senate Minority Leader Dirksen issued a statement on
the decision and spoke of the structure of our Federal Constitution and its balance
of powers.
"One of its wondrous features" Senator Dirksen said, "was modeled on a consti-
tutional practice of certain states themselves--a legislative body divided into two
branches, one, the Senate, based on geographic representation, the other, the House
of Representatives, based on population. It represents one of the delicate balances
which brought about the union of the states." There is a close analogy here between
the structure of the Congress and the legislatures of the States. Not only did all
of the original States have legislatures in which at least one body was selected on
factors other than population, but the drafters of the Constitution recognized the
value of this plan and clearly intended that no action of the Federal government
should overturn it.
Justice Potter Stewart of the U. S. Supreme Court in his dissenting opinion
said the decision "finds no support in the words of the Constitution, in any prior
decision of this Court, or in the 175-year political history of our Federal Union."
It is clear that the framers of the Constitution believed that factors other than
population alone should determine the strength of the voice of States, regardless of
wealth or size.
In its majority decision the Court embraces the so-called "one person, one
vote" doctrine. It is true, as the Supreme Court has said, that legislators represent
people, not trees or acres. However, these people are not mere numbers. Such folks
have diverse and sometimes conflicting needs that require a representation of their
own in one body of a legislature in contrast to the representation of general
interests in the other body. Within one State we may find wide differences in the
needs and interests of various geographic areas.
In one area unemployment may be the problem of highest concern and it may be
the determining factor in the economic development of that portion of the State. Yet
who can ask the people who may live in areas of high employment to share that concern?
Their interests may be directed towards rapid transit systems or super-highways. In
this situation, a temporary majority may determine the economic potential of the
whole State. We know the majority must have effective rule, but the minority is also
entitled to effective representation.
It would not be fair to apportion both houses of a legislature on the basis of
selected interests or local needs but conversely it is not fair that both houses
should be apportioned strictly on population alone. This would lead to the desertion
of the rights of the minority entirely. Apportionment according to population must be
tempered by other considerations of equal importance. This was done in the new
Michigan Constitution.
In the case of Baker V. Carr (March 26, 1962), the Court struck down the appor-
tionment in one house of the Tennessee Legislature. There, reapportionment had not
taken place in more than 50 years in violation of the State's Constitutional provi-
sions. In addition, the people of Tennessee had little or no means to initiate or
vote upon a plan of reapportionment. However, many of the States do provide the means
through constitutional authority whereby every qualified citizen may vote on the
apportionment provisions of their constitutions. The Supreme Court could have issued
a decision in the Baker case without causing damage to the whole concept of State
sovereignty. But in recent years the Court, with some frequency, has been assuming
the role of elected officials and substituting its judgment for that of the people in
matters of this nature. In one case the voters of Colorado had a clear choice between
a plan which would have apportioned both houses on a population basis, and a second
plan which would take factors other than population into account in the apportionment
of one house. A majority of the voters in every county rejected the first plan by a
vote of 2 to 1 and by nearly the same margin adopted the second plan. Yet two years
later the Supreme Court threw out the legislative apportionment plan which had been
adopted by the people of Colorado. This means that a bare majority of the 9-member
U. S. Supreme Court has totally disregarded the decision of the voters themselves in
Colorado and elsewhere.
The future of the State government as we have known it for over a century may
depend on maintaining the status quo or changing it if the people of any State want to
change their government. But that right should be reserved to them and not to any
interpretation by a Federal court which tells them what to do. In Baker V. Carr,
Justice Frankfurter protested the right assumed by the Court in getting involved in
the thicket of State politics. In his dissent he said "It will add a virulent source
of friction and tension in federal-state relations to embroil the federal judiciary
in them."
The Supreme Court is guilty of a power grab by exercising political rather than
judicial power. For this reason I voted for this legislation to restrain the Federa 1
courts and leave jurisdiction over legislative reapportionment where it should remain
--with the voters of each State.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
September 9, 1964
Public Law 480, often called the Food-for-Peace Act, was originally enacted in
1954 on the recommendation of President Eisenhower. Last week the House of Represen-
tatives debated a bill to extend the provisions of the law for three years and to make
certain changes in the Act. There was general support for the overall program as a
means of sharing our food abundance with hungry people at home and abroad. More than
$11 billion worth of surplus agricultural commodities have been distributed since
Public Law 480 was adopted. Under the Law these commodities may be sold abroad for
dollars or for foreign currency which must be spent within the country received, or
they can be traded for materials needed in the United States. The farm products can
be sold on credit or given away whenever a bona fide need can be shown anywhere in the
world. It was contended by some members of the Committee on Agriculture who proposed
changes in the law that the United States actually donates "a lot of food and U.S.-
owned foreign currency, but we conceal that fact by calling the transactions sales."
The significance of the overall program is emphasized when we realize that
during this past year 45 bushels of wheat out of every 100 produced in 1963 found a
use abroad through this program. Rice shipments under Public Law 480 are equivalent
to 30 bags out of every 100 harvested by U.S. growers last year.
While the program itself had general support in the House of Representatives,
there were two major proposals for change. Contending that "Public Law 480 is essen-
tially a foreign aid program" and pointing out that the bill authorizes the expendi-
ture of $6.8 billion over a 3-year period, many of us felt that a congressional appro-
priation should be required before any grants of U.S.-owned foreign currencies can be
made to the recipient country. Presently in many instances the United States "sells"
its commodities to a given country for that country's currency which can be spent only
in that country. Often the United States has no way of spending all of the funds in
the country and consequently in effect gives away the money.
The Senate has already taken action to require congressional approval of the
distribution of such currencies in the same manner as required for the distribution of
funds under the foreign aid program. The Senate pointed out that from 1954 through
1963 approximately 25 percent of all the foreign aid currencies obtained from sales of
these farm commodities have been given away, "all without Congressional appropriation
sanction."
The second significant proposed change would have prohibited all further aid to
the United Arab Republic (Nasser and company). Proponents of this amendment pointed
out that since 1954 we have bailed out the economy of the United Arab Republic to the
tune of $1.1 billion in American taxpayers' dollars. Egypt has received more than $700
million in Public Law 480 shipments. The proponents went on to say this program has
enabled Nasser to sell cotton to Communist-bloc nations and to buy huge supplies of
Soviet arms and weapons. Nasser is presently carrying on aggressive warfare in Yemen
and has played a major part in forcing the United States to evacuate the huge Wheelus
Air Force Base in Libya.
While I favored cutting off this aid to Nasser, the Johnson Administration
browbeat enough Democratic members of the House to pass an amendment leaving the
question of giving aid to any "aggressor country" solely up to the President.
Likewise, I supported the Senate action to require the actual appropriation of funds
to be given to foreign countries under Public Law 480. But pressure from the White
House changed enough Democratic votes in the House that nothing was said on this
point; so the matter goes to conference with the Senate.
NO 1965 U.S. COINS: Under a bill sent to the President last Tuesday all coins
minted in 1965 will carry the date "1964." Although the legislation is permissive, it
is expected that all coins minted in 1965 will bear the 1964 date.
This action was taken because of the serious shortage of pennies, nickels,
dimes, quarters and half-dollars, although in the fiscal year ending June 30th over
four billion coins were manufactured at the Philadelphia and Denver mints. The mints
are presently operating around the clock, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and are
expected to continue on this schedule during the current fiscal year.
The House Committee on Banking and Currency which considered the legislation
pointed out that the tremendous increase in the use of vending machines, the growing
population, the expanded business activity, and "the amazing development in recent
years of popular interest in coin collecting as a hobby" have all contributed to the
present shortage of coins. The Committee, however, places no blame on the hobbyist
himself but rather on the "coin merchants" who apparently have acquired vast quanti-
ties of new uncirculated coins for speculation. The Committee states that "the
hobbyist alone is not a serious factor in the shortage," but alleges that those who
want to capitalize on his hobby have played a major role in the problem.
For instance, many have never received a Kennedy half-dollar in the ordinary
course of exchange. Yet, since last February nearly 100 million Kennedy half-dollars
have been manufactured and distributed by the mints through the Federal Reserve Banks.
The Committee concludes that "undoubtedly millions of these coins are now stored away
for their future numismatic (collector's) value."
The bill was introduced at the request of the Treasury Department to discourage
further speculative accumulation of new coins of all denominations and to make it
uneconomical to those holding large amounts of 1964 coins to keep them out of circula-
tion any longer.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
September 16, 1964
The House of Representatives on July 29 passed H.R. 11865, a bill which I sup-
ported to increase benefits and extend coverage under the social security program.
This week the House is scheduled to consider the Senate amendments to that bill,
amendments which are mislabeled "medicare," The Senate proposal does not cover
doctor bills or the cost of medicine. It includes limited hospital and nursing care
benefits only for those 65 years of age or over who qualify for social security bene-
fits. Social security payroll taxes on all employed persons will be increased both as
to rate and base. Instead of paying tax on the first $4,800 of wages as at present,
the Senate proposal increases this base to $5,600. The tax rate on wages goes from
3.625 percent to 4.2 percent. In other words, the payroll tax for any individual
earning $5,600 or more per year will go from the present $174 to $238 in 1965, an
increase of $64 a year. It will be $246.40 in 1966 and 1967. Under the bill passed
by the House the base would be $5,400 with a rate of 3.8 percent for a maximum tax in
1965 of $205.
The payroll tax is a "regressive tax," placing the greater burden on those less
able to pay. In contrast, the Kerr-Mills program recommended in 1960 by President
Eisenhower and currently helping needy persons with their doctor bills and hospital
and nursing home costs is financed through the general fund whose main source of
revenue is the federal income tax which is based on the ability to pay.
The Senate's so-called "medicare" provision, endorsed by President Johnson, is
compulsory, "foot in the door" health insurance, extending grants to social security
beneficiaries whether they need the aid or not, and can only lead to higher and higher
payroll taxes on all employed persons.
APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: Originally scheduled for consideration by
the House of Representatives two weeks ago, the "Appalachian bill" was not taken up
because too many Democratic members were away from Washington. This bill, the second
installment in the Administration's anti-poverty program, is aimed at doing something
for "Appalachia," a roughly defined area encompassing 355 counties in 11 states from
Pennsylvania to Alabama. Whether the bill, another Johnson spending program, will
alleviate any poverty in Appalachia is questionable, but it definitely will impoverish
American taxpayers initially by more than $1 billion.
Appalachia has rich mineral deposits, two-thirds of the nation's coal supply
and beautiful landscapes that lend themselves to recreation and tourism. However the
Administration alleges this area to be underproductive in relation to the rest of the
United States in times of general prosperity. To alleviate this, the bill carries an
initial authorization for a new $1.07 billion spending scheme to prime the pump in the
area. Over $1 million a year is provided solely to pay for the bureaucracy needed to
organize the program.
The Federal treasury would contribute well over one-half of the funds required
for the various programs which include highway development, mineral exploitation, a
demonstration program in multi-county health centers, pasture improvement, timber
development co-operatives, a survey of water resources, reclamation of land damaged by
coal mining, supplements for the construction of Vocational Education Facilities,
Sewage Treatment Control, Urban Planning Grants, supplements to enable State or local
governments to meet matching-money requirements of existing grants-in-aid, and grants
to aid districts that have already started local development programs. Funds will
also be available for research and development projects on the utilization of Appa-
lachian potentialities such as the possibility of expanding tourism.
In a comprehensive minority report which was filed by eleven members of the
32-member Committee, strong objections were raised to passage of the bill. While
these Committee members fully support the objective of alleviating social, educational,
and economic poverty wherever it exists throughout the country, they oppose the pre-
ferential treatment the program would give to Appalachia over other regions of equal
need. They deplore the lack of need standards for determining the eligibility of
areas within Appalachia for grants-in-aid. Some 67 counties in the area are so pros-
perous they cannot qualify for the other federal programs such as Area Redevelopment
or Accelerated Public Works. The minority expressed opposition to enactment of far-
reaching legislation that ignores up-to-date information and is based on 1960 statis-
tics and data in determining conditions of poverty in 1964. The minority report
protests that State and local governmental agencies which normally administer the
Federal-Aid programs contained in the bill will be totally by-passed by the new federal
Appalachian Regional Commission.
The dissenting report also points out that the Highway Program, comprising 80%
of the money authorized, entails a sum nearly as large as the annual program to build
Federal-aid primary and secondary highways and their urban extensions throughout the
50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, including Appalachia itself.
Admittedly these roads will not be constructed to ease traffic congestion but as the
report of the Committee majority states, "They will be built to generate traffic where
none presently exists." I will support any true and constructive program to alleviate
poverty but I cannot vote for a massive road-building program which will feature roads
looking for traffic. This is more a program to impoverish the taxpayers of the U. S.
than to combat poverty in Appalachia.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
September 23, 1964
The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (the Warren
Commission) on which I have been serving for the past ten months presented its report
to President Johnson on Monday. The White House will decide when the 700-page report
is to be made public but it is my understanding that copies will be available from the
Government Printing Office at a cost of about $2.50.
During the past few weeks I have been spending many hours in Commission sessions
helping to develop the final conclusions to be included in the report, discussing the
exact words to be used and reading drafts of the various chapters as well as the
galley proofs prepared by the printer. Since last December our Commission has inter-
rogated over 100 witnesses and read thousands of pages of depositions of other indi-
viduals interrogated by staff members. The Commission heard everyone who could in any
manner shed some light on the tragic event. To the very best of our ability we have
investigated every charge and traced down every rumor. I trust that the report will
explain as best as it is humanly possible to do so, all factors involved in the assas-
sination. The Commission realizes that it has prepared a document to serve not only
the present generation but historians of the future who perhaps will attempt to
analyze the event from a different perspective. The Commission has, therefore, not
only prepared its report but is publishing all of the hearings and interrogations in
a set of about 24 volumes of approximately 500 pages each.
While service on the Commission increased enormously the work load of each
commissioner it was a unique and invaluable experience for each of us. However, we
also had to carry on our normal responsibilities. I made every attempt to attend as
many meetings of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations as possible as well as
sessions of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations. In addition I had to answer roll
calls in the House of Representatives when votes were taken. So far during this 1964
session of the Congress there have been 257 quorum or roll-call votes. I have missed
only 27 for an attendance record of 90 percent.
THE CONGRESSIONAL WEEK: Although it was expected that an important vote would
be taken last week on the so-called "medicare" amendment added by the Senate to the
Social Security Amendments of 1964, the measure was sent to conference by unanimous
agreement. Five members of the House of Representatives were delegated to meet with
representatives of the Senate to iron out the differences between the House and Senate
versions of the bill. The major difference involves the "medicare" provision. If the
conferees can agree on a compromise proposal the bill will go to both the House and
Senate for further consideration. This compromise version known as a "Conference
Report" may come before the House this week.
Other important conference reports which may be considered this week concern
Public Law 480 (the Food-for-Peace Act) and the bill which would extend and amend the
National Defense Education Act.
The only major legislation definitely scheduled for passage this week is the
Supplemental Appropriation Bill. This bill provides funds in the amount of $998
million to finance activities and projects during the current fiscal year whose
financing was not sufficiently or not at all supplied in the regular appropriation
bills. Included in this bill is $750 million as the initial appropriation under the
so-called "anti-poverty" bill. The Johnson Administration had requested $947 million
for this activity but the House Committee on Appropriations agreed that it could not
effectively spend that much between now and June 30, 1965.
ON OBSCENE AND INDECENT MAIL: Presently resting in the Senate is H. R. 319
passed by the House of Representatives in June to protect American families against
those who would force upon them obscene and indecent material. This bill should be
passed by the Senate and become law. It is designed to permit a parent to remove the
names of any member of his family from mailing lists used commercially. It recognizes
that the right of an individual to prevent forced entry of mail into his household is
equally important as the right of another individual to send him unsolicited mail.
Legislation as passed by the House permits any family receiving morally offen-
sive mail to ask the Postmaster General to notify the sender not to send any more such
material. The Postmaster General must notify the sender of this request and direct
him to cease the mailing. If the mailing is not stopped, the Postmaster General files
a formal complaint against the offender. If violations continue the Postmaster General
may ask the Attorney General to apply to a federal district court for an order
directing compliance with the law. Violations then are punishable as a contempt of
court. The Attorney General can apply for such an order either where the mail is
being sent or being received. As the Committee pointed out, "What is needed is a new
law with teeth in it; one with a preventive rather than a punitive provision which
will enable the public to effectively participate in achieving the needed protection
of its own interest." I supported this bill when it passed the House and hope that
the Senate will take affirmative action on it this session.
"THE FARMER'S WORLD:" The 1964 Yearbook of Agriculture, entitled "The Farmer's
World," has been released for distribution. I have a limited number of copies of this
annual publication and will be pleased to supply a copy upon request to 351 House
Office Building, Washington, D. C.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
September 30, 1964
The House of Representatives last week passed its last appropriation bill for
the session. This was the "1965 Supplemental" providing an additional $998.6 million
during the current fiscal year for a number of executive departments. The largest
single item was $750 million for the newest "anti-poverty" program. The House reduced
President Johnson's request for "anti-poverty" funds by $197.5 million. Defending
this reduction the Democratic-controlled Committee on Appropriations said in its
report: "Several factors indicate to the Committee that the full amount requested
could not be utilized in fiscal year 1965 without undue haste and pressure which
would endanger the success of the program It is going to take considerable time to
recruit all the staff necessary to carry out this program if only qualified persons
are hired
(The Committee was told) that 4,518 Federal employees would be necessary
(but) the Committee has only allowed 4,000. In addition, thousands of non-Federal
employees will be required to conduct those parts of the program that will be carried
out by state and local governments."
While the Committee expressed the hope that an efficient program would be
established, in its report it quoted the Office of Economic Opportunity which will
administer the program as stating: "There is an extreme shortage of qualified per-
sonnel to operate both Federal and local programs of the Economic Opportunity Act."
So we know that a huge new bureaucracy of questionable competence is to be established
to fight the "war on poverty." Because I know there are better ways of solving the
poverty situation and having voted against the poverty bill initially, I joined 102
other House members in opposing this expenditure of your tax money.
Another unjustifiable item in the bill, $77.6 million as the first payment for
a massive program of buses and railways for metropolitan areas, constituted a second
reason for my "no" vote.
In spite of a $100-billion-a-year budget and a $6-10 billion annual deficit,
President Johnson insists on these enormous new spending schemes. While the President
talks "economy" and "frugality," his actions betray his true New Deal-New Frontier
"tax, borrow, and spend" ideals.
CONGRESS CUTS THE BUDGET: President Johnson's so-called bare-bones, austerity
1965 budget has been reduced $4 billion by action of the Congress. This savings to the
taxpayer results from the careful examination of the budget requests by the Committee
on Appropriations. This $4 billion savings points up the advantage and necessity of
maintaining an independent-minded Congress to check on the executive department. It
clearly illustrates why we can't afford a "rubber stamp Congress" whose members
blindly assert their support of the President.
The President requested $97.6 billion of your tax money during this session of
Congress. The House approved 14 appropriation bills totaling $93.6 billion. The
Senate must still act on one of the bills but it is safe to say that the reduction in
appropriations this year will approximate $4 billion.
THE EXTENDED SESSION: Consideration of the foreign aid appropriation bill by
the Senate has been the cause of the extended session of Congress which most members
had expected to adjourn prior to the Democratic National Convention. Liberals in the
Senate have been conducting a filibuster against any rider (amendment) to the bill
restricting the federal courts' interference in the apportionment of state legisla-
tures. Finally last Thursday the Senate passed the appropriation bill after agreeing
to an amendment expressing the "sense of Congress" (without force of law) that the
states should have sufficient time to comply with the Court's decision and that the
next election of legislatures should be conducted in accordance with state law
presently in effect.
Anyone who is familiar with the gerrymandering required to make the election of
our state legislature comply with the Supreme Court's decision realizes the necessity
of a wiser arrangement. The ridiculous results of the Court's position are also seen
in Illinois where 177 members of the legislature are to be elected at large. To ask
each voter to select over 100 members of the legislature destroys any semblance of
representative government.
Efforts had been made in the Senate through an amendment to the foreign aid
bill to delay action on reapportionment in the states until the legislatures or the
Congress could act further. I supported the Tuck bill, passed by the House, to remove
legislative reapportionment cases from the jurisdiction of the courts. I have also
introduced a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right of any state to apportion
one house of its legislature on factors other than population. The House Committee on
Rules has favorably reported such an amendment to the House for consideration.
WARREN COMMISSION REPORT: The Report of the President's Commission on the
Assassination of President Kennedy was presented to Mr. Johnson last Thursday. It was
released to the public by the White House on Sunday evening. Copies are available
from various sources but I want to mention only the edition published by the Governe
ment Printing Office.
Copies of the Report may be ordered directly from the Superintendent of Docu-
ments, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. The 900-page illustrated book
sells for $2.50 in paper-back and $3.25 for the cloth-bound edition.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
October 7, 1964
Because the Congress may have adjourned by this date, this will be the final
"Washington Review" for the year. We will be returning home immediately following
adjournment to keep speaking dates which have been scheduled and to meet with as many
other groups and individuals as possible. Our Fifth District office at home is
located at 425 Cherry Street, S.E., Grand Rapids, and the telephone number is GL6-9747.
Today I will be in Grand Rapids with Astronaut Gordon Cooper and Mr. James
Webb, NASA chief, for a series of meetings. The public is invited without admission
charge to hear Mr. Webb and Major Cooper at the Civic Auditorium this evening at 8:00.
FAREWELL TO OTTAWA COUNTY: With the opening of the 89th Congress in January,
Ottawa County will be represented by the Congressman from the 9th District, the Hon.
Robert P. Griffin. Our "Washington Review" will, therefore, no longer be mailed to
the residents of Ottawa.
May I take this opportunity to express again to every citizen of Ottawa County
my sincere appreciation for the support, encouragement, and friendship which has been
extended to me consistently over the past sixteen years. While we break the
congressman-constituent relationship, the personal friendships which have been built
up over these years will continue.
GREETINGS AND AN INVITATION TO IONIA COUNTY: Many copies of our newsletter are
presently being mailed into Ionia County which in January will become a full partner
with Kent County in the 5th District. I am looking forward to serving all the
residents of Ionia to the best of my ability.
We desire to expand our mailing list for the "Washington Review" in Ionia
County. If you know of anyone who would like to receive this weekly report during the
Congressional sessions, please send his name and address to me at 351 House Office
Building, Washington, D. C.
If there is any other way in which I can be of service to you who reside in
Ionia, please let me know at either my Grand Rapids or Washington office. I am always
interested in your views and recommendations on legislative proposals and on other
national or international issues.
NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT: Originally passed by the House on August 14,
a bill to amend and extend the National Defense Education Act was considered again
last Thursday. The Senate bill, S.3060, had been amended by the House and now we had
to act on the "conference report," the compromise version of the bill worked out by
"conferees" representing both houses of the Congress.
I supported the bill as it originally passed the House as I have supported the
NDEA since it was recommended by President Eisenhower. Under NDEA, loans are provided
for needy capable college students; certain fellowships for graduate study are made
available; institutes for in-service training of teachers are encouraged, and funds
are supplied to schools for certain educational equipment. Without further action by
the Congress these programs would expire on June 30, 1965. The conference report
provided for a three-year extension.
The issue which was the subject of a "motion to recommit" (to send the bill
back to conference for further change) involved funds for fellowships at in-service
training institutes for teachers of history, geography, civics, and literature, and
equipment for the teaching of these subjects. Many members of the House felt that
the original bill providing federal aid for the teaching of science, mathematics, and
foreign languages was based on a special need for teachers and students in these areas,
and on the excessive costs of equipment and supplies for these subjects. It was
contended that history, geography, civics and literature did not fall in the same
category, and that to add these subjects was just one more step toward a general
federal-aid-to-education program.
Others emphasized that the bill authorizes a politically-appointed federal
official, the Commissioner of Education, to designate those colleges which would offer
the fellowships and handle the in-service teacher-training institutes. This would
give the Commissioner power to influence instruction in civics, geography, history,
and literature by denying funds to those institutions whose political or social views
he did not like. While I supported the bill on final passage, I voted for the motion
to recommit.
I was most concerned with the conferees' acceptance of the Senate bill to
designate Washington, D. C. as a federally "impacted area," making Washington eligible
for additional tax funds (over $4.5 million annually) for educational purposes. The
capital city schools already receive an adequate federal payment in lieu of taxes.
It was never the intention of the "impacted area" legislation to pay for
education in Washington. This legislation was designed to help a local community
which had to provide additional school facilities at the same time it may have lost
some of its tax base because of the location or expansion of a federal installation
in the community. For instance, the construction of a federal air base means loss of
private tax-paying property and the need for more schools and teachers. In such a
case the federal government should help meet this expanded cost of education.
Washington is not an "impacted area" in this sense. To designate it as such for
further federal aid is unfair to thousands of other communities.