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
4525468
label
Ford Newsletter, June-Oct. 1965
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525468
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Newsletter, June-Oct. 1965
description
This file contains material relating to Lyndon Johnson.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Newsletters
subjects
Canada
Washington (D.C.)
United Nations
Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-
Department of Housing and Urban Development. (9/9/1965 - )
Agriculture
Apportionment
Appropriations and expenditures
Education
Emigration and immigration
Federal budget
Foreign aid
Home rule
Housing
Law enforcement
Legislation
Money
Motor vehicles
National security
Poverty programs
Public works
Roadside improvement
Suffrage
Sugar
Tariff
Taxation
Vetoes
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525468
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1965-10-31
month
10
year
1965
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-06-01
month
6
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
577f2af788d84d08
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
IONIA
Congressman
5
JERRY FORD
June 2, 1965
President Johnson's proposal to double the tax on tread rubber is running into
strong opposition. To adopt his recommendation increasing the tax from 5c to 10c a
pound will raise the cost of a retread passenger tire by about 50c. It is estimated
that 36 million passenger tire retreads will be sold this year. One out of every
four tire replacements is a retread. It is further estimated that 69 percent of the
purchasers of retreads have incomes under $7,000 and that 31 percent earn less than
$5000 a year.
Those who are most familiar with this business contend that it is more hazardous
to drive with certain of the cheap new tires than to use a high quality retread tire.
They fear that an increase in the cost of retreads brought on by Mr. Johnson's tax
will mean greater use of new, low-quality tires. Presently a good retread can be
purchased for about one-half the cost of a new quality tire. This means that a retread
on a $20 to $22 tire sells for about $11.50, equal to or more than the selling price
of some new tires.
All of this is tied in with the hearings presently being conducted by the
Senate on the question of establishing federal standards for new tire construction.
In the meantime many small businessmen as well as consumers are disturbed by
President Johnson's proposal to double the tax on tread rubber. To adopt this
proposal while reducing other taxes appears to be an unwarranted discrimination.
I
trust the Congress will take a hard look at this proposal of Mr. Johnson.
FOREIGN AID AUTHORIZATION: Following two days of debate on the $2 billion
foreign aid authorization bill there was one opportunity for a roll-call vote to
amend the bill. I voted for the amendment which would have cut the Development Loan
Fund by $131 million. It seemed to me that this relatively small reduction would not
have materially curtailed our mutual security program but would have meant a signifi-
cant saving to the American taxpayer. This same amendment (a recommittal motion) would
have added a provision to the law governing the distribution of funds for the construc-
tion of housing projects sponsored by labor unions in Latin America. It would have
required that to be eligible for U.S. funds the labor union not only be "free," but
also "non-Communist dominated." In some underdeveloped countries "free trade unions"
are those that are used by the Communists to achieve their purposes of subversion and
infiltration. I thought it well to spell out specifically that no U.S. tax dollars
should in anyway assist any Communist dominated group in Latin America under our
Alliance for Progress Program. Consequently I voted for the amendment (motion to
recommit) containing these two provisions.
But we lost 179 to 219. I think it is significant that 116 Republicans voted
for the amendment and only 14 voted against it. On the other hand 205 Democrats
opposed the suggested changes while only 62 supported them. The vote on final passage
of the $2 billion authorization bill was 249 to 148. In this instance I voted with
the majority. The amount of money actually to be made available for the foreign aid
program will be set in the appropriation bill to be considered by the House later this
month. But the appropriation for 1966 may not exceed $3.4 billion, the total of past
and current authorizations.
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS: Before the final vote was taken on the $5.7
billion appropriation bill for the Department of Agriculture there also was a motion
to amend the bill. This was supported by all except two Republicans but opposed by
206 Democrats. The amendment (as a motion to recommit) would have stopped certain
shipments of surplus agricultural commodities to Egypt and Indonesia. It would have
applied only to those "sales" to the foreign nations which are paid for in local
currency to be spent by the United States in the local country only. For the most
part these "sales" are donations. The amendment would still have permitted Uncle Sam
to donate surplus food to charitable organizations for distribution in Egypt and
Indonesia, to donate on a government-to-government basis, and to meet disaster or
relief conditions, or to make honest-to-goodness hard sales to these countries. Yet
this minor restriction on American shipments to Col. Nasser and President Sukarno,
both of whom have ridiculed our assistance, was defeated by the Democratic-controlled
House. Democrats voted 206 to 63 against any limitation on assistance to these two
dictators. Republicans supported by a vote of 124 to 2 this effort to serve notice on
Nasser and Sukarno that we resent their insults to our property, our policies, our flag
and our country. But the amendment lost 187 to 208.
Although on final passage the $5.7 billion appropriation carried 354 to 41, I
voted "no." I am deeply concerned with the Johnson-Freeman farm policies and the
enormous costs being inflicted on the taxpayers and the consumers by these policies.
An Associated Press article in last week's newspapers reported that "it is costing
more to fill the family dinner plate with meat, potatoes, and fresh vegetables. An
AP survey indicates that the prices will keep rising a while longer Most food
stores
surveyed put their increase at about 15 percent higher than last spring." My "no" vote
vas a vote of "no confidence" in Secretary Freeman and the policies of the Johnson
Administration which have priced basic foods out of the range of millions of our
citizens and in too many instances priced American farm products out of competition
on world markets.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
June 9, 1965
Last week at President Johnson's suggestion, the House of Representatives
approved legislation cutting excise taxes by over $4 billion. This week, also upon
the President's recommendation, the House will increase the national debt limit by
$4 billion. I am concerned over this policy of "go-now, pay-later" in our nation's
fiscal affairs. I am concerned over the wide-spread acceptance of deficit financing.
I plan to vote against the proposal to increase the debt ceiling from $324 billion to
$328 billion.
I voted for the reduction in the excise taxes. These taxes were largely born
in times of war emergencies to raise revenue and to discourage consumption. To reduce
or eliminate them will do something about the hodgepodge of our excise structure, will
simplify tax administration, will relieve many small businessmen of onerous compliance
problems, and will benefit consumers. But it seems to me that we must curtail expenses
rather than increase the debt if we are to fully justify any tax reduction.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT: A voting rights bill (H.R. 6400) was recommended to the
House last Tuesday by its Democrat-controlled Committee on the Judiciary. This bill
differs significantly from the Act approved by the Senate on May 26th. It is also
quite different from the Republican voting rights bill introduced by Rep. McCulloch
and me. We think the Republican approach is more fair, more practical and more con-
sistent with the Constitution. In this newsletter and that for next week, I would
like to compare briefly and in a non-technical manner the approach taken by the
Democrat Committee and by the Republicans. But first this should be clear, we all
agree that every qualified citizen should have the right to vote.
1. When and where the law is to apply: The Committee's bill applies auto-
matically to those states having literacy tests in which less than 50 percent of the
voting-age population of the state or a county was registered or voted in the presi-
dential election of 1964. This would include Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia along with 34 counties in North Carolina,
and one county each in Arizona, Idaho, and Maine. The law could be made to apply in
other states or counties if a federal court agrees with the Attorney General that the
right to vote is being denied in that state or county on the basis of race or color.
any area covered automatically by the law in which there is, in fact, no discrimination
would have to go to the federal court in the District of Columbia to seek exemption
from the law by proving that it has not used literacy tests or other devices to
practice discrimination within the past five years.
It is to be noted that states and counties are to be punished for a condition
which existed in November 1964, not as it exists now. And to require them to go to a
court in Washington, D.C. (which already has a huge backlog of cases) to prove their
innocence or seek other relief violates our traditional concept that cases should be
heard in the federal court having local jurisdiction.
The 50 percent rule is a "numbers game" approach. By this rule, Louisiana is
guilty of discriminating since only 47.3 percent of the eligible population voted in
1964, while Hawaii with 52 percent voting is declared innocent. In fact, discrimina-
tion could continue under this rule so long as 50 percent of the voting age population
in November 1964 was registered or voted - even if they were all white. Meanwhile
Texas escapes automatic coverage under the Committee's bill although it had only 44
percent participation. It escapes because it has no literacy tests as is true also of
Arkansas, Tennessee, and Florida.
Republican Approach: The Republican proposal makes the law apply when 25 or
more qualified citizens in a given county supply bona fide evidence that they have
been denied the right to register or to vote. An examiner is then appointed by the
Civil Service Commission to evaluate the evidence presented. If the examiner finds
that 25 or more qualified persons have been denied the right to register or vote on
account of color or race, it is to be presumed that there exists in that county a
pattern or practice of discrimination. State and local officials are given an oppor-
tunity to challenge this finding. If the finding is affirmed, the provisions of the
new law will apply. Please note that under the Republican bill consideration is given
to current practices in every state rather than to the situation in November 1964 in
certain states.
2. What happens when law is applied: Under the Committee's (Democrat) bill in
areas automatically covered, all state tests for voting are suspended and Federal
examiners are to register voters in line with qualifications to be determined and set
by the Federal Civil Service Commission. These persons are to be permitted to vote and
their vote is to be counted, even though their right to vote is challenged and this
challenge is later upheld by the courts. It is possible, therefore, under the
Committee's bill for illegal voters to vote and possibly to decide elections on the
local, state, or national level.
Republican Approach: Literacy tests are disregarded for those having a sixth
grade education. For those with less education, the state's test is administered in
writing by the federal examiner. The test is limited to these written answers. Federal
examiners would prepare the list of voters. But if any voters are challemged, their
hallots would be impounded (especially if they would affect the outcome of the
election) until the issue of eligibility is finally determined.
[More next week.]
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
June 16, 1965
For the eighth time in four years the House of Representatives, at the request
of the President, has voted to increase the Public Debt limit. When Mr. Eisenhower
left the White House the debt ceiling was $293 billion and the actual debt amounted
to $290 billion. Today, 4-1/2 years later, our national debt totals $310 billion and
the ceiling is being raised to $328 billion.
I voted against increasing the debt limit from $324 to $328 billion in order
to register my support of a balanced budget except in times of dire national emer-
gency. I think it is morally wrong as well as fiscally irresponsible to expect those
who follow us to pay for benefits we enjoy. And we saddle ourselves and our children
with interest charges which this year will exceed $11 billion.
But the Democrat-controlled House "rubberstamped" the President's request by a
vote of 229 to 164. Only 6 Republicans supported the debt increase while 121 were
registered against it. Forty-three Democrats joined us but we were overwhelmed by
the 223 Democrats who went along with the White House.
CAPITOL MAY BE OPEN EVENINGS: In approving the Legislative Branch Appropria-
tions bill last week the House provided funds to open the Capitol building to visitors
until 10:00 in the evening during the tourist season between Easter and Labor Day.
I have thought for a long time that this should be done and trust that the Senate
will concur in this decision.
The Capitol is now closed to visitors at 4:30 p.m. The longer hours will be a
convenience to those who are in Washington for only a short time and will help relieve
the congestion when thousands come to the building daily. As many as 40,000 visitors
have passed through the Capitol in a single day.
The bill approved by the House allocates $118,000 for 20 additional policemen
and $15,000 for extra services of the mechanical force which will be needed if the
longer hours are established. If the Senate agrees to this plan, it will make pro-
vision for its share of the additional expenses.
YEARS OF LIGHTNING-DAY OF DRUMS: A dramatic, 90-minute, color movie about Mr.
Kennedy's presidency and assassination entitled, "John F. Kennedy - Years of Lightning,
Day of Drums" was prepared by the U. S. Information Agency for use overseas in foreign
lands to serve our educational (and admittedly, propaganda) purposes. This is con-
sistent with the responsibilities of the USIA. But last Wednesday the House was asked
to pass a resolution approving the use of this film within the United States.
The General Counsel for USIA wrote on February 11th that "it is our under-
standing that the Congress intends that USIA not make its materials generally avail*
able in this country." This is precisely the case. Many of us questioned, therefore,
the wisdom of violating a longstanding policy against using in this country materials
designed to further our cause abroad.
Furthermore, we felt that if this film, produced at taxpayers' expense, is to
be shown in this country it should be done at no cost to the viewers. This was con-
sistent with the Democrat-controlled Committee's recommendations that "both the Agency
and the media should avoid overcommercialization of this motion picture." Every
Republican voting (125), therefore, supported an amendment to the Resolution requiring
that the film be made available for viewing "without charge." Regrettably only 49
Democrats joined us on this important vote while 216 Democrats voted against making
this film available to viewers without charge. We lost on the amendment 174 to 216.
The Resolution was then approved 311 to 75. I voted "no" on final passage primarily
because charging Americans to see a film their taxes produced is poor policy, and can
and will lead to overcommercialization.
MORE ON VOTING RIGHTS: Last week I compared some aspects of the Democrat and
Republican approaches to the "voting rights" legislation. Another area of difference
involves the poll tax problem. The Democrat-Committee bill which has been recommended
to the House prohibits any political unit from denying a person the right to vote
"because of his failure to pay a poll tax or any other tax."
Attorney General Katzenbach and many other authorities question the constitu-
tionality of this provision. The Supreme Court has upheld poll taxes as a valid state
prerequisite to voting as long as they are not used to discriminate on the basis of
color or race. The 24th Amendment specifically prohibits the use of the poll tax as a
requirement for voting but restricts this to the election of federal officers. In
1962 I voted for this constitutional prohibition.
The Republicans do not endorse poll taxes (found today only in Texas, Alabama,
Mississippi, Virginia, and certain localities in Vermont) as a requirement for voting
but they do want to write constitutional legislation. They have proposed that the
Attorney General be empowered to bring suit against a state in a special three-judge
federal court when there is evidence that the poll tax is being used to discriminate
against voters on the basis of race. This would resolve the problem quickly through
an accelerated procedure and in a constitutional manner. Such a provision has the
endorsement of President Johnson and his Attorney General.
It should be noted that the Democrat-Committee's bill outlaws not only the poll
tax but "any other tax" as a condition for voting. This could have a major impact in
many areas, including school districts and other local units in Michigan where
elections having to do with local bond issues, special millage proposals, etc. are
restricted to those who pay property taxes.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
June 23, 1965
A highly controversial provision calling for "rent supplements" has been in-
cluded in the "Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965" (H.R. 7984) to be considered
by the House, possibly next week. This wild-eyed program is a cornerstone of Presi-
dent Johnson's "Great Society." Under this provision Uncle Sam (that's you and I)
will pay that part of a tenant's rent which represents the difference between the
fair market rental of an apartment and one-fourth of the tenant's income. For example,
a family with an income of $250 a month ($3,000 a year) could live in a $100-a-month
apartment and pay rent of only $62.50 a month (one fourth of its income) with the tax-
payers paying the remaining $37.50. If the tenant's income increases to $300 a month,
his rent payments would go to $75 and Uncle Sam's share would drop to $25 a month.
However, if the family with a $250-a-month income decides to live in a $200-a-month
apartment, it would still pay $62.50 while the federal subsidy would go to $137.50.
This could happen under this bill which says that rent supplements will be provided
for families who are unable to obtain standard privately owned housing renting for
one-fourth of their income or less. The standard, to be determined by a federal
administrator, could be standard housing suitable to the tenant's needs or suitable
to his desires. With a $250 income he could desire a $200 apartment.
Furthermore, what constitutes "income" for the purposes of "rent supplements"
is to be determined by the Administrator. He could exclude "public assistance pay-
ments" in which case some tenants technically would have no income and pay no rent at
all. Or he could exclude the income of the breadwinner's spouse or children so
families with an actual income of $5,400 could be listed as receiving only $3,000.
Income alone is to be considered; families with substantial assets would not be
barred from participation if their income was under the limit.
This program is not merely to help the poor and needy. On April 21st the
Housing Administrator listed the income limits for "rent supplements" in various
cities. For example, supplements would be paid in New York City for tenants with
income up to $8,900; in Milwaukee up to $8,300, and in Saginaw, $7,850. These
ceilings can be raised by the Administrator and it is significant that they already
exceed the national median income for all families which is $6,249.
This program of the Johnson-Great Society will cost $50 million in fiscal 1966
and $200 million in 1968. But 40-year contracts with owners are involved, so we have
a potential $8 billion program extending to the year 2008.
This program of the Democrat Administration will discourage home ownership,
destroy initiative, encourage waste, centralize too much power in a federal housing
administrator, and saddle the taxpayers with a new burden.
A NEW CABINET POST: If the Senate endorses the action taken by the House last
Wednesday, we will have another member in the President's Cabinet as head of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The new Department will absorb and
carry on the work of the Housing and Home Finance Agency including the Federal Housing
Administration and the Public Housing Administration, and the Federal National Mort-
gage Association. The new Department will also coordinate federal activities
affecting housing and urban development, provide assistance and information to states
and local governments, and advise the President on housing and urban problems.
In fact the new Department will do nothing that is not already being done, but
as one of the proponents stated it will enable the federal housing administrator to
"speak with the same authority and the same prestige and sit in on the Councils of
the President with the same prestige and authority" as the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense. It is a "prestige" move in the affluent society.
The creation of this new Department with a Cabinet Secretary of its own will
solve no problems. It will not even establish one clearing house or coordinating
agency for housing and urban affairs. Less than one-third of Uncle Sam's housing
activities will come under the new office. The Veterans' Administration and the Home
Loan Bank, which account for more than two-thirds of the housing financing activities
of the federal government, will be outside the new Department. Likewise a multitude
of federal functions in which urban areas are seriously interested will have no place
in the Department of Urban Development. These include water pollution, sewage dis-
posal, education and recreation, transportation, public health welfare programs, and
many others. How can a federal department with no jurisdiction at all over these
areas of life assist in urban development?
Republicans in the House, therefore, recommended a constructive alternative.
Republicans know that it would be helpful to city officials to have a one-stop coordi-
nating service where they could obtain complete information and adequate assistance
relative to any urban problem. To meet this need Republicans recommended the estab-
lishment of an Office of Community Development in the Executive Offices. with no em-
phasis on "prestige," this office would provide local officials with a convenient
source of information on federal programs affecting urban areas. But it would not set
the stage of a greatly expanded bureaucracy which is bound to come in a Department
predicated on "prestige."
Republicans supported their substitute (H.R. 8822) with a vote of 122 to 5. But
when 254 Democrats voted "no," our bill didn't have a chance. The Administration's
proposal (H.R. 6927) to establish the Department was passed 259 to 141. There were
122 Republicans and 19 Democrats in opposition; in favor were 5 Republicans and 254
Democrats.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
June 30, 1965
The Housing bill (H.R. 7984) with its revolutionary "rent supplements" provi-
sion which I discussed last week is scheduled to be considered by the House of Repre-
sentatives this week. Opposition to this wild-eyed scheme is widespread. Opposition
has grown as more people understand the insidious implications of this aspect of
President Johnson's Great Society. I hope that we will be successful in striking this
very unsound and expensive provision from the legislation. H.R. 7984 also involves
housing for the elderly and the handicapped, college housing, urban renewal, and FHA
insurance operations. Certain specific items recommended for these programs are con-
troversial. But if the "rent supplements" provision is retained in the bill many of
us will have to vote against the entire bill on final passage.
AREA REDEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION: We haven't heard too much about "area
redevelopment" lately. This is all to the good when we remember that ARA was the New
Frontier's answer to "pockets of poverty" which proved rather to be just another boon-
doggle. But last Thursday, instead of permitting the discredited ARA to fade away on
June 30th when it was due to expire, the Democrat-dominated House voted 224 to 167 to
give it a 60-day reprieve. It is expected that within that period the House will act
on S. 1648, the "Public Works and Economic Development Act," already approved by the
Senate and which would, among other things, reactivate ARA-type programs.
It was the ARA which in 1961 decided it should put up $600,000 in U. S. tax
dollars (and subsidize) a furniture component plant in Varney, West Virginia. Local
folks appear to have contributed about $200,000 to the project. And for good measure
Uncle Sam's Small Business Administration came across with an additional $288,000 as
working capital. So we as taxpayers had in this furniture factory an investment of
over $880,000.
But things didn't go too well. The Administration had located the plant miles
from anywhere, with not even a railroad spur to carry the finished parts to market.
Training of local labor was bungled; work was substandard. Complaints poured in.
There was general discontent but local folks felt the government would keep the plant
open regardless of quality or a loss of markets.
After 25 months, a $1 million investment, and operating losses of $678,000,
the plant closed. If last Thursday's vote to continue ARA is any barometer at all, we
are to have more of the same.
DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS: For the first time in 12 years I did not participate
in the presentation to the House of the Appropriation bill for the Department of
Defense. Upon becoming Minority Leader Ihad to give up my position on the Committee
on Appropriations.
The $45 billion defense bill was passed unanimously last Wednesday. But
Republican members of the subcommittee who handled this and many previous defense
funding bills expressed concern that current Administration policies may be endanger-
ing our defense posture of the late 1960's or early 1970's. They expressed grave
reservations about the wisdom of "the basic Administration defense policy (which)
reflects more of a policy of seeking to achieve a balanced deterrent, rather than
insuring a decisive superiority." These Congressional experts on defense are
particularly concerned with the Johnson-McNamara attitude toward the development
of new weapons and the realities of the world situation. They stated in their
report that "new weapons systems must be aggressively pursued, based upon both the
assessment of the threat and the pace of technology. Testimony during the course
of the hearings reflect an approach falling far short of what we believe must be done
in this vital area." The Republican Committeemen also said that "despite conflicting
voices to the contrary, we believe that the threat from Communism has not diminished,
...and that tensions between the Communist bloc and the free world have not been
eased."
CIGARETTE LABELING: Cigarette packages and cartons will bear the statement:
"Caution: cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health" under legislation
approved by the House last week. The Senate still must act on the bill which would
become effective 6 months after it is signed by the President.
The bill, H.R. 3014, prohibits any state or local government or any
federal agency from requiring an additional "caution statement" on cigarettes. It
also prevents the Federal Trade Commission from insisting that cigarette advertise-
ments contain any "caution statement.'
NEW COINS: The House is expected to act this week on a bill (H.R. 8926) which
authorizes the minting of a new type of coin - a clod or "sandwich" coin consisting
of a copper core between layers of cupronickel (75% copper and 25% nickel) to replace
the present dime, quarter, and half dollar which consist of 90% silver and 10% copper.
The mail we have received on this matter indicates support for the change because of
the assurance that these new coins can be used in coin-operated machines without
adjustment of the machines. The change is proposed to conserve silver for which
industrial demand is increasing. Because they contain no silver, the composition of
pennies and nickels will not be altered.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
July 7, 1965
This week the House of Representatives is scheduled to debate and vote on a
voting rights bill. All of us will agree that every qualified voter should have the
right to register, to vote, and to have his vote honestly counted. But the House will
have before it two proposals for achieving our objective: the Democrat-Committee bill
(H.R. 6400), and the Republican alternative (H.R. 7896) which Rep. William McCulloch
and I have introduced. These two approaches were described in our newsletters for
June 9th and 16th.
In brief, the Democrat bill generally penalizes those states and counties
having literacy tests in which less than 50 percent of the voting-age population regis-
tered or cast a ballot in 1964. The Republican proposal would apply to any state or
county in which there is proof that eligible voters currently are being denied the
right to register or vote on account of race. The Democrats primarily take an arbi-
trary figure, 50%, and apply it retroactively to 1964 to a limited number of states,
excluding from automatic coverage the states of Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and
Florida. The Republicans propose to look at the situation as it exists in every state
now or at a future election in order to assure to all qualified citizens the right to
vote. Under certain circumstances the Democrat bill would apply, by means of a
special procedure, to other than those states affected by the 1964 percentage provi-
sion. Both bills authorize federally appointed officials to register voters and
supervise elections if the law becomes applicable in a given state or county.
RENT SUBSIDIES: By a close and significant vote of 202 to 208, the "rent
supplement" provision was kept in the housing bill passed by the House last Wednesday.
This means that in New York City, for instance, we as taxpayers will be subsidizing
the rent of families earning up to $11,200 a year. Uncle Sam will pay the difference
between the eligible tenant's rent and one-fourth of his income. A total of 72
Democrats joined 130 Republicans to kill this provision but 204 Democrats with four
Republicans provided a six-vote victory. But it was no victory for present and pro-
spective homeowners, for present and future taxpayers, for those who accept the great
traditions of self-reliance and personal responsibility. And please note: We are
not talking about the needy and the under-priviledged when tax subsidies (rent supple-
ments) can be given to families with income up to $11,200. Among the 72 Democrats
voting against this sort of subsidy was the distinguished Chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations, my good friend, George Mahon of Texas.
LIBRARY
In an effort to drum up support for rent supplements provided in Section 101
of the bill, Democratic leaders proposed on the floor of the House a change in that
section. Minor indeed, it meant only that the cost of the program was to be cut from
$200 million a year to $150 million a year or for a 40-year total of $6 billion
instead of $8 billion. The change also provided that only those eligible for public
housing should be eligible for rent subsidies. But in New York City today families
with income up to $8800 a year, not counting excludable income up to $2400, are
eligible for public housing. This means a total income ceiling of $11,200 in New York
for rent subsidies. Other cities vary in line with regulations of the federal housing
Administrator. This vote-enticing substitute, conceived in panic, was approved 240 to
179 with only four Republicans registered in favor.
The Housing and Urban Development Act (H.R. 7984) including Section 101 was
then given final approval by a tally of 245 to 169. Because Section 101 was retained
I voted "No" as did 108 other Republicans and 26 Democrats.
APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL 1966: As I have mentioned previously, the minimum
basic legislation for each session of the Congress consists of the 12 regular appro-
priation bills to provide funds for operating the federal government during the en-
suing fiscal year. These bills should be enacted into law by July 1, the first day of
the new fiscal year. At this writing only two appropriation bills have been sent to
the President and both have been signed. The House has given initial approval to 10
money bills but only three of these have gone through the Senate. Consequently a
resolution was approved last week "continuing appropriations" into the new fiscal year.
This is an interim measure to keep the government functioning on a minimum basis.
The House of Representatives has cut $1.3 billion from President Johnson's
request for funds in the ten bills on which it has acted. Mr. Johnson had asked for
$88.6 billion; the House reduced his requests to $87.3 billion.
TAX CREDITS FOR COLLEGE EXPENSES: I have joined a number of other Republican
Congressmen in introducing legislation to grant a tax credit against the income tax of
those who pay for certain educational expenses beyond the 12th grade level. The "tax
credit" plan permits the taxpayer to subtract a certain amount of his tax after he has
determined his total tax obligation. It is not to be confused with a "deduction" as
for charity, medical expenses, etc. which is used in arriving at taxable income. We
feel that a tax credit is an appropriate and effective device for relieving individ-
uals of some of the rising costs of higher education. It would benefit those with
smaller incomes as much as it benefits those with larger incomes.
Under our bill the maximum tax credit for tuition, fee, books, and supplies
for each individual would be $325. No credit is to be allowed for expenses over
$1500 but 75% of the first $200 of costs could be credited with 25% of the next $300,
and 10% of the remainder up to $1500. We feel it is time to reduce the burden of edu-
cational expenses placed on our students and those who help them financially.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
July 14, 1965
The House of Representatives spent last week considering voting rights legis-
lation. During the debate I pointed out that the Republican Party has an enviable
record on civil rights and in the protection of minorities. When the Civil Rights
Act of 1957 passed the House, 90 percent of the Republican members voted for it com-
pared with only 52 percent of the Democrats. On final passage of the 1960 civil
rights bill 90 percent of the Republicans voted "yes" while only 66 percent of the
Democrats voted in the affirmative. In the 1964 civil rights act it was 79 percent
of the Republicans in favor compared with 63 percent of the Democrats.
NEW COINS - CHEAP MONEY: Scheduled for consideration by the House for the
second time in three weeks is an Administration bill (H.R. 8926) to remove silver
from our dimes, quarters, and half dollars. I reported previously that this was pro-
posed as a method of conserving silver for which industrial demands are increasing,
and that those interested in coin-operated machines endorsed the legislation because
the new coins could be used in existing vending machines.
Recently strong opposition has developed to the bill as its implication became
better known. The new, cheap coin (a clod or "sandwich" coin) would consist of a
copper core between layers of cupronickel (75% copper and 25% nickel) to replace the
present dime, quarter, and half dollar which consist of 90% silver and 10% copper.
The new coins would have an intrinsic value of only a fraction of that of dimes,
quarters and half dollars now in use. This means that millions of people might hoard
the old, more valuable, silver coins in the hope that as the price of silver goes up
they will be able to cash in this silver and make a profit. Already millions of
dollars worth of such coins are in hiding. Long ago Lord Gresham stated that "bad
money drives good money out of circulation." This has happened in the past and it
could happen again.
Other consequences may develop from hasty action in coining new, cheap money.
Widening the gap between the real, intrinsic value of our coins and their face value
means an illusory "profit" to the Treasury with potentialities for greater inflation
higher prices.
I fully recognize the serious problem relative to our silver supply and the
need for legislative action but have mixed feelings about the Administration's pro-
posed solution.
THE ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAM: Although Democratic Party Leaders have been
extremely critical of the conduct of the so-called "war on poverty," legislation
(H.R. 8283) will be considered by the House to extend and expand the program and to
authorize a $2 billion expenditure of tax funds to continue the program this fiscal
year. This is twice the amount provided for the first year of operation.
Pointing out the serious and admitted defects in the program, Republican
members of the Committee handling the legislation strongly endorsed the public
suggestion of Rep. Emanuel Celler, Democratic dean of the House, that a bipartisan
committee be appointed by the Speaker to investigate the entire operation of the pro-
gram. They also called for a full-time administrator of the Poverty Program to bring
some order to the present chaotic situation "in which a fantastic number of highly
paid, casually selected amateurs frantically attempt to patch together programs that
will reflect a favorable image to Congress and the public."
Under current law a State Governor can veto the establishment of a Job Corps
Center in his state, can disapprove Neighborhood Youth Corps projects and other anti-
poverty programs. H.R. 8283 would eliminate this authority of the governor over acti-
vities in his state by permitting the Federal Poverty Chief to override his veto.
Republican committee members insist that this will create greater administrative tan-
gles, and will weaken the power of the states in an area where it should be increased
if we are to have a workable, effective coordination of effort in behalf of the poor.
THE FAMILY OF NATIONS: Today 125 countries are officially recognized as inde-
pendent nations. According to a State Department Bulletin, "Status of the World's
Nations," this is an increase of 54 since the opening of World War II when there were
71 independent countries. The magnitude of this development is emphasized when we
note that in the 35 years preceding World War II only 8 countries joined the family of
independent nations.
Today 32 of the independent nations are in Europe, 24 in North and South
America, 29 in Asia, and 37 in Africa. In addition there are ten political entities
which may be described as quasi-independent states, and several areas and regimes
which "defy classification."
Students, teachers, librarians, and others may be interested in the 21-page
State Department Bulletin mentioned above (Publication 7862) which gives pertinent
information on all these countries. I'm sorry I have no copies for distribution
but they may be obtained for 25¢ each from the Superintendent of Documents, Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
OUR AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: We do have available for free distribution copies of
the 1965 edition of a 42-page booklet entitled, "Our American Government." Answers
are provided to 175 questions along with an up-to-date list of top governmental
officials. Requests may be addressed to me at H-230, The Capitol, Washington, D. C.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
July 21, 1965
Scheduled for consideration by the House of Representatives this week is a
$996 million military pay raise bill (H.R. 9075) and the $2 billion "anti-poverty"
authorization.
The military pay raise which will vary according to grade and length of service,
ranges from a 5 percent increase for certain captains and 1st lieutenants to a 22.2
percent increase for new 2nd lieutenants and ensigns. A PFC or seaman with 1 year of
service will get an 18.7 percent increase raising his total annual compensation from
$2,232 to $2,460. A master sergeant or senior chief petty officer with 21 years of
service is scheduled to receive an 8.8 percent increase raising his total annual com-
pensation from $7,056 to $7,512. The comparable figures for a colonel or naval
captain are 8.9 percent and $14,916 to $16,008.
Although President Johnson favors a smaller pay increase, I believe the recom-
mendations in the bill reported by the Committee on Armed Services are sound and I
intend to support the legislation.
NEW COINS ON THE WAY: The dimes, quarters, and half-dollars to be minted
under legislation approved by the House last Wednesday will be lighter in weight and
duller in appearance than those now in circulation. The dimes and quarters will have
a copper-toned edge with a duller face than even the new half-dollar. The images and
other impressions on both sides of the coins will remain the same but the construction
and composition will be altered.
These three coins are now composed solidly of 90 percent silver and 10 percent
copper. Under legislation approved by both houses the new coins will be of a clod or
sandwich type. The core of the half-dollar will be composed of 79% copper and 21%
silver while the outer layers will be of 80% silver and 20% copper. All in all the
50¢ piece will contain 40% silver instead of the present 90%.
The new dimes and quarters will have a copper core with an outer layer composed
of cupronickel (75% copper and 25% nickel). The new coins will be about 7 percent
lighter than those now being minted.
I supported this bill, H.R. 8926, after it was amended to require 40 percent
silver in the half-dollar. As originally reported the 50¢ piece would have contained
no silver.
THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT: The Republicans maintained their record in support of
civil rights when on final passage 82 percent of our members supported the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 compared with 78 percent of the Democrats.
I supported the bill (H.R. 6400) on final passage after voting for amendments
to improve the legislation, and only after our Republican substitute bill was defeated.
I still believe the McCulloch-Ford approach to the problem was better. It covered all
states, concerned itself with the current situation on registration and voting rather
than looking back to November of 1964, recognized state qualifications for voters
unless these were being used specifically to disqualify voters on the basis of race,
contained provisions to insure "honest elections" in every state, and provided that
only those challenged votes later found to be valid would be counted. But our substi-
tute was defeated 248 to 171.
Every Republican joined 117 Democrats to amend H.R. 6400 providing fines and/or
imprisonment for a person who knowingly gives false information in registering or
voting or who pays or accepts payment of money to register or to vote. This "honest
elections" amendment was adopted 253 to 165 with all of the opposition coming from our
Democratic colleagues. All of Michigan's 12 Democratic Representatives voted "no."
Two amendments, both of which I opposed, were defeated on roll call votes prior
to final passage. One would have overruled state law by giving the vote to persons
who could not read or write English provided they had completed the sixth grade in a
school where another language was used. The second would have removed from the pro-
visions of the new law, those counties covered by the law if at least 50 percent of
the Negroes of voting age are registered to vote. If this law is to be in effect, it
should guarantee all eligible voters the right to vote, not just a certain percentage.
Because the Senate bill approved on May 26th is not identical to the House
version, the legislation was sent to a "conference committee" composed of members
from both houses. I sincerely hope that the conferees will come up with a bill worthy
of general support.
STUDENT INTERNS: Again this year we are privileged to have in our office a
number of college students. These "interns" serve not only as members of the staff
but are given the opportunity to observe many governmental operations and to partici-
pate in various activities at the nation's capital.
Aquinas and Calvin Colleges select students for our "Workship in Washington."
Kenneth Wozniak, 5359 Plainfield N.E. (Aquinas) has been with us for the past month.
In August Calvin's Gordon VanderTill of 173 Center Green Meadow S.E. will join us.
Miss Ann Blocksma, 2523 Union S.E., a student at the University of Iowa and
Miss Marianne VanderSluis, 1007 Grandville S.W. from the University of Michigan have
been working since June 21st. They plan to stay until August 20th.
Jon Muth, 2100 Omena Drive S.E. and Joel Thurtell, R.#3 Lowell, both students
at Kalamazoo College were with us from March to June.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
July 28, 1965
Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act grants to each state the authority to
prohibit compulsory union membership. At the present time 19 states have, under this
authority, enacted so-called "right-to-work laws." Scheduled for consideration by the
House of Representatives this week is H.R. 77, a bill to repeal Section 14(b). This
would nullify the law of 19 states and would deny to any state the right to prohibit
compulsory union membership.
Compulsory union membership is a very controversial issue with strong arguments
on both sides. It seems to me that the solution developed by the Taft-Hartley Act is
sound, permitting each of the states to make its own determination, and that the pro-
vision should be retained. I intend to vote against H.R. 77 which calls for outright
repeal of Section 14(b) without offering any protection or safeguards to individual
union members.
Democratic members of the Committee on Education and Labor which recommended
approval of H.R. 77, specifically rejected six amendments offered by Republican members
to protect workers and union members in all states. I'm certain that most readers
will be surprised and baffled at this action when we note the nature of the defeated
amendments. Democratic members of the Committee voted against and rejected amendments
to H.R. 77 which:
1. Would make it unlawful for a union to deny or limit membership or appren-
ticeship on account of race, color, religion or national origin. (Republicans believe
there should be no discrimination in job training programs or in the rights of union
membership.)
2. Would prohibit the use of union dues or assessments for political purposes
not directly connected with the union's statutory function as a bargaining agent.
(Republicans believe that unions should work for good wages, fair hours, and proper
working conditions, but that individual union members are entitled to political
freedom and to complete control over their political contributions.)
3. Would make it unlawful for a union to fine or penalize in any way its
members for exercising any right guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution or
federal law. (Republicans believe that union members as American citizens possessing
free speech and free choice, should be able to speak out on civic, political issues
without being penalized by union officials for opposing their "line.")
4. Would have exempted from compulsory union membership those who, for
religious belief or scruples of conscience, cannot join a union but are willing to
contribute an amount equal to their union dues to the U. S. Treasury or an appropriate
charity. (Republicans recognize the full meaning of religious freedom and acknowledge
the rights of genuine conscientious objectors. We would grant to them in the area of
union membership a privilege already authorized by conscientious objectors to military
service.)
5. Would have required an election by a secret ballot to show that a majority
of the effected employees in a union shop favor that union which is to bargain for
them. (Republicans believe that the union to which all employees must belong and
which is the bargaining agent for all, should at the minimum, be accepted by a majority
of the employees. This would also prevent management and unions from entering into
"sweetheart" contracts which compel employees to join unions which they have not
chosen and which they may not want as their bargaining agent.)
6. Would have required union officers in a union shop to submit a non-Communist
affidavit to the NLRB. (Republicans believe that no American should be compelled to
join a union in which any officer is a Communist. This amendment was especially signi-
ficant in view of the recent Supreme Court decision that Congress could not by law bar
a Communist from union office.)
These six amendments, which I'm sure most readers would accept, were rejected
by the Democratic members of the House Committee on Education and Labor and were there-
for not included in H.R. 77 as reported to the House.
ON THE RULE FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 77: The majority party not only deter-
mines the content of legislation to be debated and voted upon by the House but it also
controls the way the bill is handled on the floor. It proposes the "rule" which sets
the time limits for discussion and settles the question of whether amendments can be
offered. Republicans were united in their opposition to the "rule" proposed for con-
sideration of H.R. 77 when only two hours of general debate was to be allowed and when
no opportunity was to be given to offer meaningful amendments.
H.R. 77 is too important an item to be railroaded through the Congress. The
issues must be debated and the House must have an opportunity "to work its will" on
these important amendments.
It is evident that President Johnson wants the Congress to rubberstamp this
legislation. He wants no thorough examination nor any change in his proposal.
Republicans are accepting the challenge, however, and will fight for full debate and
an opportunity to present meaningful amendments.
The Administration also engaged in a cynical type of log-rolling on the subject.
It has sought to convince city Congressmen to vote for a bread tax against their con-
victions in order to get repeal of Section 14(b) and farm Congressmen to vote for
repeal of 14(b) against their convictions in order to get a farm bill.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
August 4, 1965
The Democrat-dominated House of Representatives rubberstamped another of Presi-
dent Johnson's demands when it approved repeal of Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley
Act last Wednesday. Repeal of this section invalidates the law of 19 states and pre-
vents any state from passing legislation to prohibit compulsory union membership.
It was especially distressing to see congressmen from states with so-called
"right-to-work" laws, voting against the policy adopted by their own people and state.
This was particularly noticeable in Iowa where compulsory union membership is pro-
hibited and where a poll by the Des Moines Register showed that 73 percent of the
citizens of Iowa approve the state law. Yet the six Democratic congressmen from that
state voted for repeal. Democratic congressmen from six other states having similar
laws also voted for repeal. This points up dramatically the danger of one-party rule
and the necessity of strengthening our two-party system if we are to preserve the
system of checks and balances set up in the Constitution. One-man rule can happen
here; it will happen here unless elected representatives of the people exercise inde-
pendent judgment and consider other factors than the demands of the man in the White
House.
Another distressing factor in last week's action was the refusal of Chairman
Adam Clayton Powell and the Democratic leadership to permit consideration of amend-
ments to the bill (H.R. 77) repealing 14(b). Especially disconcerting was the refusal
to exempt those persons who for religious reasons have conscientious objections to
union membership although they were quite willing to contribute an amount equal to
union fees and dues to charity or the U. S. Treasury. They were not to be "free-
loaders." But the Democratic leadership refused to accept this amendment offered by
one of their own members, Mrs. Edith Green of Oregon. The repeal of 14(b) will, as
Mrs. Green stated, "affect conscientious objectors in all 50 states since such persons
and their religious organizations will be precluded from seeking relief through legis-
lation at the state level." "
It seems to me that our country is large enough and our spirit broad enough to
include a place for those with deep religious convictions who have conscientious
scruples against union membership. We have done so relative to social security and
selective service.
But all amendments were rejected and the bill repealing 14(b) was approved 221
to 203. Republicans voted 118 to 21 against repeal but the Democrats supported repeal
200 to 85. It is significant that as a congressman from Texas, Lyndon Johnson in
1948, not only voted for Taft-Hartley with Section 14(b) but also voted to override
President Truman's veto which was done by a vote of 331 to 83.
The repeal of 14(b) will not affect directly our state of Michigan which has
not prohibited compulsory union membership. But it does seem to me that this provi-
sion is a fair and constructive compromise on a complex and controversial issue.
MEDICARE AND RENTICARE: The House took time out last week during the debate on
14(b) to give approval to two bills on which there had been differences with the
Senate. These "conference reports" or compromise versions covered the "Social Security
Amendments of 1965" and the "Housing and Urban Development Act." The final version of
the social security bill included the medicare provisions with a significant increase
in the compulsory payroll tax. Those earning $6,600 a year or more are now paying
$174.00 in social security taxes. Next year (1966) the tax will go to $277.20. In
1969 the take will be $326 with additional automatic increases putting the payroll tax
at $372.90 in 1987 and thereafter. As I had done previously, I voted against this
medicare plan which covers everyone over 65 regardless of need but which will be
financed by a compulsory and increased payroll tax on everyone regardless of ability
to pay.
The housing bill as it came from the conferees still contained the revolutionary
"rent subsidy" provision. This opens up a whole new spending area and can mean that
taxpayers in the Fifth District will contribute to rent payments for those with family
incomes far exceeding the income of our taxpayers, in fact up to $11,200 a year in New
York City. Yet this part of President Johnson's "Great Society" was adopted 251 to 168.
I could not help but observe and did state on the floor of the House that
"within an hour of one another billions have been authorized for medicare and now
billions will be authorized for renticare. In short, I think it would be entirely
fitting to designate this afternoon's labor or proceedings as "Fedicare Day."
FOREIGN AFFAIRS and FISCAL POLICY: President Johnson has made far-reaching
military decisions in connection with the crisis in Viet-Nam. In an effort to bring
about an honorable and satisfactory solution to the conflict in Viet-Nam, I have sup-
ported firmness against Communist aggression. But it seems to me that in view of the
President's stepped-up program in Viet-Nam he must take the lead in cutting back new
and expanded domestic programs to marshal the nation's strength for the military effort.
We cannot afford bureaucracy as usual. If federal expenditures continue to
soar for both "guns and butter," we can expect only one of two results--the restoration
of many old taxes and perhaps even some new ones, or a badly unbalanced budget with
inevitable run-away inflation. Therefore, it is vital that non-essential and extrava-
gant programs on the "home-front" be curtailed or deferred.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
August 11, 1965
Before the House of Representatives approved the final version of the "Voting
Rights Act" last Tuesday, it refused to remove from the Act a provision it had origi-
nally refused to put in the Act. This provision permits the courts to exempt from the
effects of the law those counties in which at least 50 percent of the Negroes of voting
age are registered to vote. I opposed this provision when the House originally voted
to defeat it; I opposed this provision last week. It seems to me that if we are to
have a voting rights law it should guarantee all qualified voters the right to regis-
ter and to vote. We cannot be satisfied when only 51 percent are registered. Or put-
ting it another way, we do not believe it is good policy to be satisfied when up to
49 percent of the Negroes may not have been permitted to register.
When the House originally passed the voting rights bill on July 9, it specifi-
cally rejected this provision by a vote of 262 to 155. But the Senate insisted on
this arrangement and the House Conferees accepted it. When the House had another
opportunity last Tuesday to again specifically reject this illogical and indefensible
provision, it failed to do so by a vote of 284 to 118.
It was strange indeed to note that 268 members of President Johnson's Party
voted for this means of restricting the operation of the voting rights law. Only
three Democrats opposed it. However, 115 Republicans wanted to remove the provision
and only 16 of our members voted for it. Here is just one more bit of evidence for
the record on which political party is truly dedicated to civil rights.
ON LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT. The House Committee on the Judiciary continued
hearings last week on the subject of apportionment of state legislatures. The Senate
on Wednesday defeated Senator Dirksen's proposed constitutional amendment on this
subject by a slim 7-vote margin. The House Committee is considering a similar amend-
ment which seems to me should be approved.
Senator Dirksen's amendment (H.J. Res. 600 in the House) would permit the
people of a state, if they wished, to apportion one house of their state legislature
on other factors than population alone. This could affect the "one man, one vote"
edict of the Supreme Court, but, and this is most important, any plan for apportion-
ment would have to be approved by a majority vote of all the people of the state.
Furthermore, when they voted, the people would have an opportunity to select an al-
ternative plan of apportionment based on the "one man, one vote" principle. The voters
of the state would therefore be able to make a choice at the polls between the two
plans.
This seems to me to be eminently fair and wholly consistent with our demo-
cratic principles. Yet self-styled "liberals" condemn the Dirksen proposal. They
insist that both houses of the state legislature be elected on the basis of population.
They deny to the people of each state the right to make the decision for themselves.
In so doing, they violate their own pet theory of "one man, one vote."
ON CRIME AND PUNISHMENT: Two bills relating to law enforcement and the reha-
bilitation of federal prisoners were approved unanimously last week. H.R. 8027 author-
izes $10 million for use this year by the Attorney General to make financial grants
to public or nonprofit agencies for training state and local law enforcement officials.
He is also to publish material to assist in crime prevention.
The program is to run for three years but funds for the second and third year
are to be authorized later after the Congress has had an opportunity to review the
use to which the first $10 million was put. The bill also specifically provides that
there shall be no federal control or supervision over any state or local police force.
This program is to help states and local communities to help themselves in improving
law enforcement techniques and practices.
The second bill aims to provide some better methods for rehabilitation of
federal prisoners. It would permit adults as well as juveniles to be transferred
from prison to residential community training centers or "halfway houses." The object
is to give pre-release assistance to qualified prisoners in obtaining jobs and shelter,
and thus to reduce the likelihood of further conflicts with the law. The bill also
grants to a trustworthy person the right to visit designated places for not more
than 30 days for the purposes of seeing a dying relative or attending a funeral, to
obtain medical service not available at the institution, or to contact a prospective
employer.
Lastly, this bill would permit qualified prisoners to obtain private employment
provided they did not displace other workers and the pay was reasonable. They would
remain inmates while not working and could be required to pay a reasonable amount for
their board and lodging. It is estimated not more than 1,500 of the 22,000 persons
now in federal prisons would be eligible for this work release.
ON DEBT AND GOLD: The national debt today is nearly $5 billion higher than it
was exactly one year ago. According to a report from the U.S. Treasury, our govern-
ment's debt reached $317.3 billion at the end of July compared with $312.4 billion on
the same date in 1964. This means that our annual interest charges have gone up by
$166.5 million.
The Committee on Government Operations reported that the U.S. now holds gold
worth some $14.3 billion. Five years ago our holdings were almost $18 billion, and
10 years ago they stood at $22 billion. The U.S. stock of gold has declined some
$8.5 billion since 1957-years in which the United States annually has had deficits
in its balances of international payments.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
August 18, 1965
The omnibus farm bill (H.R. 9811) is scheduled for consideration by the House
of Representatives this week. This is the bill which the city Democratic Congressmen
are supposed to vote for against their convictions in order to help the farm Democra-
tic Congressmen who, against their convictions, voted for repeal of Section 14(b) of
the Taft-Hartley Act. This is also the bill which raises the cost of wheat certifi-
cates and will eventually bring about an increase in the price of bread, cereals,
spaghetti, and other wheat food products.
Under current law and the wheat certificate programs, processors have to pay a
fee of 75c on every bushel of wheat they use to manufacture food products for con-
sumption by customers in the U. S. Under H.R. 9811 this fee is increased by 50c to
$1.25 per bushel. This can only mean a jump in the cost of bread, cereals, etc.
Secretary Freeman admits this means a 7/10c rise in the cost of a pound loaf of bread
but many authorities insist that bread will go up 2c. The Johnson Administration
wants to increase this cost which bears heaviest on those least able to pay. This
led Dr. Leon Keyserling, Chief Economic Advisor to Democratic President Truman, to
say on June 18th, "It is a sad commentary that at the very outset of a nationwide
'war against poverty,' the current legislation attempts to 'save' a few hundred
million dollars in the Federal Budget by imposing taxes upon the bread and rice
which loom large in the diets of poor families, even while we are removing the excise
taxes on many luxuries such as furs and jewelry." (The House Committee deleted rice.)
In addition and basically, this omnibus farm bill extends for four years the
expensive, unworkable, restrictive and tired programs which were supposed to help our
farmers. That they have failed is evident:
The parity ratio (which measures the prices a farmer receives against the cost
of things he buys) has dropped from 80 in 1960 to 75 in 1964, the lowest level since
the
depression
days of 1934. --- Farm debt stands at an all-time record of $36 bil-
lion. ---- Ten years ago the farmer received 42c from each consumer dollar. Today he
receives only 37¢, less than in the depression days of 1935. ------------------------- Retail food prices
have increased 29 percent in the past 16 years while the net income of agriculture
has gone down 29 percent. ----- The number of farmers suffering a net operating loss
increased from 29.8 percent in 1962 to 34 percent in 1963.
The latest crop report by the Department of Agriculture illustrates the
futility of trying to reduce production and surplus by law. The August report indi-
cates that the corn crop this year is up 15% over 1964. Wheat production is up 7%
over last year and 16% above the 1959-63 average. This year's cotton crop will also
exceed the 1959-63 average.
Our present programs, which H.R. 9811 would extend, are not providing a sound
solution to the problems of American agriculture. But they are proving exceedingly
costly to American taxpayers and consumers. The record indicates that:
H. R. 9811 calls for the expenditure of over $18 billion during the next four
years for farm subsidies and support. --- The wheat program alone will cost the tax-
payers $1.5 billion a year. But an additional $625 million a year will be levied on
all consumers by increasing the cost of wheat certificates. --- For every dollar which
Uncle Sam spent in 1948 for the stabilization of farm prices and income, $25 is being
spent today. --- In 1952 price supports cost $1.6 billion; last year the cost was $2.6
billion. --- The taxpayers right now have an investment of about $7 billion in stored
surplus farm commodities. --- The bureaucracy set up to run these programs and to
control individual farmers continues to expand. In 1933 there was one Department of
Agriculture employee for every 203 farms in the U.S. In 1961, the ratio was 1 to 37.
Today there is one employee for every 32 farms.
SMALL FARMERS GET LITTLE AID: Most Michigan farmers operate small family-type
farms; most federal aid to agriculture goes to the big operators. No less an author-
ity than Kermit Gordon stated in January when he was still President Johnson's Budget
Director, that "about 80 percent of our assistance (farm income supports) goes to
1,000,000 farmers whose average income exceeds $9,500. The other 20 percent of
assistance is spread thinly among the remaining 2,500,000 farmers." Mr. Gordon went
on to say, that the "needs {of the 2,500,000 small farmers) cannot be met through farm
commodity programs."
Yet President Johnson and Secretary Freeman are insisting that these tired,
unworkable, expensive programs be extended and expanded for four years.
We who disagree recognize that we cannot abolish them at one stroke of the pen.
These federal programs are so tied into our agricultural economy that change must be
gradual. But the programs can and should be improved. We should encourage programs
which assist the smaller, family-type farm, inflict less bureaucratic control, and
show concern for taxpayers and consumers.
If H.R. 9811 is defeated, nearly every commodity included in the bill still
would be covered by programs established under permanent law. With the omnibus bill
on the sidetrack, further study can be undertaken and a more constructive farm pro-
gram developed.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
August 25, 1965
Just before the farm bill was taken up by the House of Representatives last
week, Administration leaders decided to shift the added cost of the wheat certificate
program from the "processor-consumer" to the taxpayer. The 50c per bushel increase
was to be paid out of the Treasury rather than by the wheat processor who could pass
the cost on to the consumer of food products. This was to get the big city Democrats
off the hook as far as the so-called "bread tax" was concerned, but it did not make
the catch-all Freeman farm bill any more palatable. I opposed H.R. 9811 on final
passage but the bill was sent to the Senate by a vote of 221 to 172.
PUBLIC WORKS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT: The House recently approved a
$3.3 billion authorization for carrying on area redevelopment activities and an accel-
erated public works program. While everyone supports the objective of alleviating
social, educational, and economic poverty wherever it exists in our country, the
evidence is clear that the Area Redevelopment and Public Works programs which have
been tried during the past three or four years have not helped to solve the problem.
There has been a record of poor planning, mismanagement, and waste. Between May 1964
and May 1965 the Comptroller General submitted 17 reports criticizing various aspects
of the administration of these programs.
But more basically, the trouble lies in the legislation itself which provides
for massive and indiscriminate federal spending in areas which statistically lag
behind other areas of the nation. Proponents hope that this will somehow solve what-
ever economic problems may exist in such areas. Had this specific bill (S.1648) been
defeated, work could have been initiated on legislation to provide realistic, workable,
and effective means of alleviating economic depression.
In an attempt to improve the bill before final passage, a motion was made to
save $85 million annually by eliminating industrial and commercial loans and guaran-
tees for working capital, to require the purchase of American made products, and to
provide for an annual review of expenditures by the Congress. This fair and construc-
tive amendment was supported 115 to 10 by Republicans but Democrats defeated it with
214 "no" votes.
UNITED NATIONS: In deciding to ignore Article 19 of the U.N. Charter, Presi-
dent Johnson has disregarded the unanimous advice of the House of Representatives.
He has also capitulated to the demands of the Soviet Union. Article 19 of the Charter
states that any nation which has not paid its dues or assessments for two years shall
lose its vote in the General Assembly. This "no pay, no vote" principle is sound and
was ratified by every nation which joined the U.N.
But Russia and eight of its satellites as well as France, Yemen, and South
Africa have refused to meet their legal financial obligations for the support of the
U.N. They owe some $108 million for Congo and Middle East peace actions. The debt is
more than two years old and these countries should lose the right to vote in the
General Assembly under Article 19 of the Charter. But last week President Johnson
announced through Ambassador Goldberg that the U.S. would not object to giving Russia
and the other nations full voting rights in violation of the Charter. This was com-
plete and abject surrender to those who are delinquent and will not pay their assess-
ments. It also ignored the expressed will of Congress.
Last August the House unanimously adopted a resolution, agreed to by the Senate,
calling for enforcement of Article 19 and for "invocation of the penalty provisions"
of the Charter, I reiterate what I said on the floor at that time, "There is no room
for compromise. Our U.N. delegates should demand that these other nations make their
payments as they are required to do under the Charter and the World Court decision.
This is not a negotiable issue in the U.N. Payment is to be made, or else."
But President Johnson has not simply negotiated and compromised; he has
surrendered. He did slip in a weak face-saving device -- we reserve the right not to
pay some U.N. assessments in the future if such behavior fits our fancy. But how can
the U.N. effectively perform its mission throughout the world if it cannot enforce the
provisions of its own Charter at headquarters?
THE IMMIGRATION ACT: The House is expected to consider this week the bill
(H.R. 2580) which revises our immigration policy. It modifies the "national origins
quota" concept and makes quota numbers available on a "first come, first qualified"
basis. The bill limits to 170,000 (including 10,200 refugees but excluding immediate
family members of U.S. citizens) the number of immigrants which may be admitted in one
year from countries outside the western hemisphere. No country is to be allowed more
than 20,000 immigrants in one year. Preference is to be based upon the existence of a
close family relationship with U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, and upon
the special talents and skills of the immigrant which may be needed in this country.
The bill contains a provision to insure that no alien will replace any worker here nor
lower the wages of any U.S. citizens.
The House Republican Policy Committee found that the bill conforms to well-
established Republican policy but strongly recommends one amendment. Republicans on
the Policy Committee and on the Judiciary Committee feel that the limitation on the
number of immigrants should apply to the countries of North and South America as well
as to the rest of the world. They propose a ceiling of 115,000 immigrants annually
from the western hemisphere. Not to have this limitation is to discriminate against
the rest of the world, including friendly nations of western and southern Europe.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
September 1, 1965
Efforts by the Republicans to include a sound and reasonable limitation on
immigration from the western hemisphere were defeated when the House of Representa-
tives approved the new immigration bill last Wednesday. We have no quarrel with (in
fact we endorse) the basic changes in our immigration policy brought about by this
legislation. But we do think it is discriminatory to limit immigration from countries
of Europe, Asia, and Africa while leaving the gates wide open for those from Latin-
America. This double standard has existed too long. Republicans tried to correct the
situation by proposing a limit of 115,000 immigrants per year from North and South
America.
But President Johnson strongly objected to this legitimate provision and the
Democrat-dominated House went along with him by a vote of 218 to 189. While I was
disappointed that this provision was not incorporated in the bill, I voted "yes" on
final passage. In fact, the bill as finally passed much more closely resembled the
original Republican bill than it did the Administration's proposal.
INSURANCE FOR VIET NAM SERVICEMEN: The Congress should ignore President
Johnson's objections and enact legislation to provide $10,000 indemnity insurance
without cost to all American servicemen in Viet Nam.
By an Executive Order, Mr. Johnson has designated Viet Nam and adjacent waters
as a combat zone for purposes of income tax exemption. Despite this clearcut recog-
nition that the Viet Nam conflict is "war," the President is opposed to providing
indemnity insurance protection to our combat soldiers. This opposition was expressed
by his Administrator of Veterans' Affairs in recent hearings on a bill to provide
these benefits.
At the present time, a wife, a child, or a dependent parent of a serviceman is
entitled to benefits (in some instances, substantial) when death results from a
service-connected disease or injury. But the plight of the unmarried serviceman
killed in action and his parents is especially noteworthy. Unless the parents have a
combined income of less than $2400 a year, they are not entitled to any survivor
benefit payments from the Veterans Administration. There would be no Government
insurance, or indemnity, and no compensation payable to the parents of this young man.
This is a shameful situation. Congress, despite the objections of President Johnson,
should act promptly in providing some form of life insurance or indemnity protection
without cost to American combat servicemen, including those unmarried with non-
dependent parents.
THE VETO AND CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY: President Johnson has taken another
step to show the Congress who is boss. His surprise veto of the military construction
bill was prompted by an extremely mild restriction on the executive authority to
close military installations.
At the present time, many citizens are concerned about the erosion of Congres-
sional authority and the breakdown in our constitutional system of checks and balances.
They are familiar with the current "rubber-stamp" Congress. They have heard the
President say, "I will send to Congress a law..." when they know that laws are to be
made by Congress, not sent by the President. They are familiar with orders from the
White House for Committees to approve bills virtually sight unseen. They are con-
cerned with the bureaucrats' influence over legislation by Congress. Lobbyists from
the various departments roam the halls on Capitol Hill buttonholing members of the
House, telling individual Congressmen the President "wants," "needs," or "demands"
all kinds of legislation. There is no doubt that today the biggest lobbying operation
in the Nation's Capital originates in the White House and is financed by our taxpayers,
many of whom are thus forced to contribute to the support of legislation they per-
sonally oppose.
It was ironical, therefore, to hear the President complain in his veto message
"about the cumulative erosion of the executive power by legislation." And what was
the legislation he was complaining about? It simply said that no military installa-
tion should be closed or have its mission substantially changed until four months
after the proposed action has been reported to interested congressional committees.
The committees could not veto the proposal but there could and often would be a delay
in the action desired by the executive branch. In his veto message Mr. Johnson
acknowledged that bills with reasonably similar provisions have been approved in the
past and that the provision in this bill was "not literally" the same as those ruled
unconstitutional by Attorneys General in recent years.
Many authorities will agree that President Johnson's constitutional argument
was extremely weak. But there is no question about his determination to run the show
and put the Congress (the people's elected representatives) in its place. This fact
does concern many citizens who value a sound system of checks and balances for the
protection of our liberties.
HOME FOR LABOR DAY: Next Monday morning I am planning to participate for the
first time in the traditional Labor Day parade at Belding. In the afternoon I expect
to be in Comstock Park for the community parade and later in the day at Sparta for
the annual rodeo.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
September 8, 1965
By a vote of 280 to 113 the House of Representatives last week approved Presi-
dent Johnson's agreement with Canada for reducing tariffs on the importation of auto-
mobiles and automotive parts. I supported this legislation and the Presidential
action.
By the agreement Canada will permit J.S.-produced motor vehicles and parts to
be imported duty-free by Canadian motor vehicle manufacturers. The legislation
(H.R. 9042) approved by the House provides a similar condition for our manufacturers
by eliminating the tariff duty on Canadian automotive products.
The U.S. duty on most automobiles and parts imported into our country has
ranged from 6½ percent of the value to 8½ percent. Canada has maintained duties
between 17½ and 25 percent. In 1963 the Canadian Government established what amounted
to a subsidy for its manufacturers by reimbursing them for tariff duties paid on
exports. This was done in the hope of increasing Canadian automotive production.
Several American parts manufacturers objected to this practice and negotiations were
undertaken between the United States and Canadian governments to try to work out the
problems involved. As a result we had the agreement of January 16, 1965 which was
approved last week by the House. Top officials of the major automotive companies and
the vice-president of the United Automotive Workers have supported the agreement.
Republican members of the Committee on Ways and Means (which recommended the
bill) did point out that the President made this agreement without specific authority
and that the Congress was now being asked to legalize his action. They also expressed
concern with the fact that this special agreement with Canada represented a sharp
departure from our well-established policy of including many nations in our trade
negotiations. Republican members of the Committee also thought that the Administra-
tion could have worked out a better deal with Canada.
FARM LABOR SHORTAGE AND CROP LOSS: The action of the Johnson Administration
in halting the normal use of Mexican nationals (braceros) as farm workers in the
United States is causing serious losses in farm income. Farm authorities have told
Secretary of Labor Wirtz that in Michigan "the pickle crop, with the acreage already
severely cut at planting time because of uncertainty regarding picking help, is now
being lost on the vines for the want of labor." They went on to say that the situa-
tion would be "very different" if Michigan pickle growers could use the 11,000
braceros they had last year.
Reliable estimates indicate that 10 to 15 percent of Michigan's cherry crop
was left on the trees because of lack of pickers. This portion of a grower's crop
could mean the difference between profit and loss. Secretary Wirtz was also told
that due to the shortage of pickers in Michigan "the prospects for the apple harvest
are alarming."
When bracero labor was permitted by law, the Mexicans could be used only in
those areas where the Secretary of Labor found that domestic labor was not available
and where their employment would not lower the wages of U.S. citizens. This seemed
to me to be an ample safeguard against abuse, and I consistently supported legislation
to make bracero labor available. Regrettably President Johnson has preferred to cut
off this farm labor supply and let our farmers suffer loss of crop and income. And
the consumer has been hit with higher prices at the grocery store.
THE GOLD DRAIN AND YOUR DOLLAR: The gold supply of the United States has
dwindled from $23 billion to under $14 billion in the last eight years. Our country
owes $28 billion in short-term dollar balances held by foreigners, for which they can
demand payment, directly or indirectly, in gold. For the last seven years American
dollars have been flowing overseas (for investments, imports, loans, foreign aid,
tourism, and military purposes) at a rate that has exceeded the inflow of dollars
from other countries by an average of about $3 billion a year. The margin of our
exports over imports has shrunk alarmingly in recent months, at the rate of about
$2 billion per year, from earlier levels.
A special Republican Committee headed by Maurice H. Stans, Director of the
Budget from 1958 to 1961, has pointed out that our "government's management of the
nation's monetary and fiscal affairs has shaken the confidence of other nations in
our ability to find lasting solutions to our balance of payments problem." It went
on to say that "unless these conditions are corrected promptly, they can lead to loss
of value for the dollar, loss of American strength at home and leadership abroad,
loss of vigor in our economy, and the loss of jobs, welfare and security for individ-
ual Americans." The Stans Committee recommended a 9-point plan for attacking this
problem and called for "realistic reductions of government overseas economic and
military programs, and for steps to increase the return flow of dollars."
ACADEMY APPOINTMENTS: Young men of Kent and Ionia Counties are invited to
compete for the six openings we have at the three service academies for 1966. The
Civil Service Designation Examination to select the successful candidates for the
Army, Navy, and Air Force Academies will be held on Saturday, November 6, 1965. Any
legal resident of the 5th District between the ages of 17 and 22, unmarried, and who
will have graduated from high school by next June is eligible to compete. Applica-
tions may be requested from my Washington office (House of Representatives) or from
the District Office at 425 Cherry Street, S.E., Grand Rapids (Telephone: GL 6-9747).
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
September 15, 1965
Before approving the $3.4 billion foreign aid bill last week the House of
Representatives banned further help to those nations which sell, furnish, or permit
their ships to carry goods to North Vietnam as well as to Cuba. This is a common-
sense restriction and one I fully endorse.
Free world ships carry 45 percent of North Vietnam's seaborne imports and 85
percent of seaborne exports. To be sure not all free world nations receive our
foreign aid. But Norway, Greece, and Lebanon who have been benefiting are among those
nations whose ships have delivered goods to North Vietnam this year. Great Britian
no longer receives economic or military assistance and would not be affected by the
amendment, but 44 ships flying its flag delivered material to North Vietnam during
the first six months of 1965.
I also supported a motion to cut off further aid to India and Pakistan as long
as they are at war between themselves, and to reduce the overall cost of the program
by $285 million. But these proposals were strongly opposed by President Johnson and
the Democrat-dominated House refused to accept them.
The magnitude of our foreign aid program is not truly reflected in the $3.4
billion foreign aid appropriation bill approved last week. Minority members of the
Committee on Appropriations as well as the Democratic Chairman of the subcommittee
pointed out that this year President Johnson has asked Congress for over $71/2 billion
in foreign assistance funds. These are listed in 15 items in the President's budget
and include .$900 million for the Export-Import Bank, $1.6 billion for disposal of
surplus agricultural products, and $705 million for the Inter-American Development
Bank. Over 50 international groups or subgroups are engaged in some form of activity
which contributes to our total foreign aid effort.
The magnitude of our foreign aid program is further emphasized when we note
that on June 30th there was on hand over $10.6 billion in unused funds (the unexpended
balance). This means that with the approval of new funds in the amount of $7.5
billion there will be available for expenditure as foreign aid over $18 billion.
Such an expenditure in foreign countries has a definite effect on the gold
outflow and on our adverse balance-of-payments. The minority members of the Committee
answered the common contention that we should not worry about the dollars spent for
foreign aid because most of the funds are spent in our own country. They showed that
this domestic spending referred only to "total commodity purchases" which are a minor
part of total cost. For example, in fiscal year 1963, only $855 million was spent on
commodities out of a total of foreign grants and loans of $5.17 billion.
Pointing to the many examples of bungling, mismanagement and waste, Republican
members of the Committee said, "The foreign aid program needs a major revamping, and
the bulk of the American people are thoroughly in accord with this feeling. Our tax-
payers would take a far better view of the program if they could see that the accom-
plishments were more favorable to the people of the recipient countries."
I think that our mutual security program has served a useful purpose. But it
is now time to re-evaluate it. I think we should cut expenditures more drastically,
tighten administrative practice to achieve greater efficiency, and expect our allies
and the developing nations to provide greater cooperation.
A look at the figures presented by the Democratic Chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations shows that we haven't made much headway in reducing costs. The 1966
appropriation for items technically listed as "Foreign Assistance" is $3.28 billion,
compared with $3 billion in 1964, $3.9 billion in 1962, $3.2 billion in 1960, and
$2.7 billion in 1958.
HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT: As a result of action through a discharge petition,
the House is scheduled to consider on September 27th a bill to provide home rule for
the District of Columbia. The bill, H.R. 4644, is similar to S.1118 passed by the
Senate on July 22nd.
At the present time Congress acts as the city council for Washington and the
President appoints three commissioners to administer the District. Many logical argu-
ments can be made for the principle of "home rule" but when legislation is considered
we are dealing with specific provisions of a given bill.
Both H.R. 4644 and S.1118 call for an annual, automatic payment of federal
funds to the new District government. There would be no Congressional hearings to
justify the expenditure of these federal tax funds. Tax dollars collected nationwide
would be given to the City of Washington regardless of the City's needs. Under these
bills, government buildings including the Capitol and the White House would be
assessed as is other real estate and the local tax rate applied against the assessed
valuation. Washington would be the only municipality in the country with the right
to tax federally-owned real or personal property.
Furthermore these specific home rule bills call for election of local officials
on a partisan (Republican and Democrat) basis. Best modern practice calls for selec-
tion of local officials on a personal rather than a partisan political basis. But
more significantly, an exception will be made in federal law to permit employees of
the District and Federal governments to actively participate in these partisan
elections. Such a privilege is denied federal employees elsewhere. To make an ex-
ception in D.C. is neither fair nor condusive to good government. I can't support a
home rule bill which contains these objectionable provisions.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
September 22, 1965
It was the longest session of the year -- 12 hours, 31 minutes -- with a record
number of roll calls -- 22 in all - as adjournment came to the House of Representatives
just after midnight last Tuesday morning. Debate was not on great issues of the day,
nor were the roll calls (each consuming about 30 minutes) on highly controversial
items. But there was a deliberate attempt to delay action in order to protest what we
in the Minority believe was an abuse of the 21-day rule by the House Majority.
When a bill has been approved and recommended by a legislative committee, the
Committee on Rules may be asked to set the "rules" (length of general debate, whether
amendments may be considered, etc.) under which the bill will be considered by the
House. In the past the Committee on Rules has sometimes decided to take no action on
a request for a "rule." This generally meant that the bill did not get to the House
floor for a vote.
Early this session the House adopted a resolution providing that if the Com-
mittee on Rules did not act within 21 days after receiving an approved bill, the House
could pass a resolution to by-pass the Committee and adopt its own "rule." It was
intended that the House would by-pass the Committee only when it was clearly evident
that the Committee was deliberately holding up important legislation desired by the
Administration and/or by a majority of the membership.
But last Monday there were scheduled for consideration, seven resolutions to
take from the Committee seven bills, only one of which was fully endorsed and desired
by the President. More significant, over half of these bills were with the Committee
on Rules only a few days before a petition was filed to follow the 21-day procedure.
The Committee did not have the bills 21 days before a request was made to by-pase the
Committee. For instance on August 12th the Committee received H.R. 6183, a bill pro-
viding for a general census every five years instead of ten, and incidentally opposed
by the Administration. On August 19th a hearing before the Committee was requested
and the same day a petition was filed under the 21-day rule to take the bill away.
This was seven days after the Committee received the bill. In another instance, a
petition was filed to take the bill away from the Committee one day before the Com-
mittee was asked to consider the bill. Many of us believe this was an abuse of the
21-day rule. And when these two bills plus five others were scheduled for considera-
tion by the House on a single day, we who objected to this unnecessary and regrettable
slap at the Committee on Rules and to this breach of orderly procedure in the House
did what we could to emphasize our objections.
It was widely rumored and conceded by many that this mass of seven 21-day bills
was scheduled in order to prevent the consideration of a District of Columbia home
rule bill opposed by the majority leadership and the President. Last Monday was
"District Day" and it would have been in order normally to consider bills recommended
by the District of Columbia Committee. Under the Rules of the House, District Day is
scheduled on 2nd and 4th Mondays. Leading Democrats opposed the home rule bill the
Committee would have presented and used the massive 21-day operation to prevent the
House from "working its will" on this home rule bill. This explanation is strength-
ened by the knowledge that the Committee on Rules has not been delaying legislation.
During July it reported 10 important bills and in August 15 bills, many of which were
extremely significant and highly controversial.
THE RECOMMITTAL MOTION AND REPUBLICAN STRATEGY: A syndicated news analyst
recently devoted his entire daily news column to the Republican's use of another par-
liamentary device - the motion to recommit (to send a bill back to Committee). This
device may be used for two purposes: to kill a bill, or to alter certain provisions
in proposed legislation. The syndicated column did not make this clear.
A plain recommittal motion to send the bill back to Committee would be an
effort to kill the legislation. But most of our recommittal motions are designed to
improve the proposal by removing certain objectionable features or otherwise changing
the specific bill without killing the legislation.
Our recommittal motion on the voting rights bill was not to kill the legisla-
tion but to substitute H.R. 7896 for H.R. 6400. Our substitute would have guaranteed
the right to vote in all 50 states rather than those few covered by H.R. 6400, would
have been more fair in its general application, and would not have raised questions of
constitutionality. There was no attempt to kill outright the legislation.
When the housing bill was being considered we proposed to send the bill back to
Committee, not to kill the bill much of which we approved, but simply to remove the
revolutionary and terribly expensive provision relative to "rent subsidies" which
President Johnson demanded. If our motion had prevailed, the housing bill could have
been passed immediately but without the $30 billion "rent subsidy" provision.
When we are defeated in our efforts to improve a bill, we may or may not vote
for it on final passage. The seriousness of the defeats and the overall effect of the
bill would be the determining factors. But it is not true as was contended that the
Republicans thus "could tell the voters back home they were for the above (he mentioned
nine) programs after doing their best to kill them." In fact, on the most significant
issues where there was a Republican motion to recommit, a large Republican majority
voted against the bill on final passage.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
September 1965
Life insurance for all servicemen, *including those unmarried with non-dependent
parents, was approved by the Congress last week. Unless a serviceman specifically
declines the insurance, he will automatically have $10,000 coverage at a cost to him
of $2 per month. He may elect $5,000 of coverage at $1 per month. The insurance
will be provided by commercial insurance companies under a group plan. The premiums
are expected to cover normal claim and administrative costs. Those costs which arise
out of the extra hazards of combat duty will be borne by the government and are esti-
mated to be about $4 million a year during a period of hostilities such as exists in
Vietnam today.
The Senate had approved a bill calling for $10,000 of free insurance for men
who lose their lives in a "combat zone" as defined by the President. Both the House
and Senate bills satisfied the criticism of our insurance system for servicemen which
I mentioned four weeks ago. I was especially concerned about the unmarried service-
men with non-dependent parents for whom under present law there is no government in-
surance or VA benefits.
Sponsors of the House bill argued that the Senate bill, while protecting GI's
killed in auto accidents in Saigon, would provide no benefits for survivors of those
killed in plane crashes or training accidents in the United States or anywhere outside
of a "combat zone." The House sent its bill to the Senate which accepted the House
version and on Thursday the legislation was cleared for the President.
THE ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAM: On Thursday the House voted for the last time on
the so-called anti-poverty bill (H.R. 8283). The most controversial issue in this
bill involved the authority of a state Governor to veto certain anti-poverty projects
in his state such as the establishment of a Community Action program or a Neighbor-
hood Youth Corps. The question was whether the state Governor or the federal Director
of the poverty program should have the last word.
Under current law the Governor has veto powers. The bill, H.R. 8283; as passed
by the House in July retained the Governor's veto but gave the federal Director the
right to override the Governor if he found a project to be "fully consistent with the
provisions" of federal law. An effort in July by Republicans to preserve the present
authority of the Governors and restrict that of the federal bureaucracy was defeated
in the House by a vote of 227 to 178.
When the Senate acted on the bill, it placed all authority in Washington and
cut the Governors out of the picture completely. In the first conference between
the Senate and the House to iron out differences between the respective versions of
the bill, the House conferees gave in to the Senate. But on September 15th, at the
insistence of the Republicans, the bill was returned to conference by a vote in the
House of 209 to 180. The conferees were told by all Republicans (127) and 82 Demo-
crats to insist on the position taken by the House in July.
The conferees met a second time last week and the House position was accepted.
On Thursday the House took final action in approving H.R. 8283. While some faint
semblance of state control is retained, the Democrat-dominated Congress has taken one
more step toward greater centralization of power in Washington. Because the so-called
"anti-poverty program" has established a record of waste, inefficiency, mismanagement,
and political shenanigans, I could not support H.R. 8283 which extends the program's
life and doubles its cost to nearly $2 billion a year.
THE HOUSE SETS SOME RECORDS: As of last Thursday there had been 322 roll calls
in the House of Representatives since January 3rd. All available information indi-
cates that this is a record for a single session of the Congress. The previous record
of 307 roll calls was established during the 1950 session. With adjournment some
weeks away, this first session of the 89th Congress will not only break the 15-year
record on the number of roll calls but may be setting one which could stand for a
long time.
Last week I reported that there were 22 roll calls during the 12½ hour session
of the House on September 13th. This also is a new record, breaking one of over 41
years' standing. On May 5, 1924 there were 18 roll calls in one day, a record which
stood until this month.
My own attendance record has not suffered as a result of the many requests the
Minority Leader gets to speak throughout the country. Since January, I have made 125
speeches in 32 states. During this time I answered 288 roll calls out of the 322
total for an attendance record of 90 percent. This compares favorably with my pre-
vious 16-year average of 92.8 percent.
"CONSUMERS ALL" -- 1965 YEARBOOK OF AGRICULTURE: Available upon request until
my limited supply is exhausted is the latest Yearbook of Agriculture entitled
"Consumers All." This edition departs from the usual Yearbook content by stressing
items of interest to homeowners and homemakers no matter where they live. It includes
a discussion of such subjects as fireplaces, gardens and house plants, mortgage and
insurance, dishwashers, refinishing furniture, and termites. If you are interested
in a copy please let me know at "House of Representatives, Washington, D. C."
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
October 6, 1965
After three days of debate and parliamentary maneuvering the House of Repre-
sentatives passed a home rule bill for the District of Columbia. The bill finally
approved calls for a referendum to find out whether a majority of the local voters
want home rule. If they do, a charter commission will be elected to write the
charter to be approved by the local voters and the Congress. I supported this propo-
sal on final passage. A "no" vote was in effect a vote against any home rule plan as
the above proposal had been substituted for the "official plan" (the Multer bill)
endorsed by leading home rule proponents.
On the vote to substitute the "referendum - charter commission" plan (the Sisk
bill) for the "official plan," I voted "no." I did so because the "official plan"
had been amended to meet my objections relative to taxing federal property without
annual Congressional review and to electing local officials on a partisan basis.
HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION: All of us want our highways to be beautiful. Many of
us have deplored the existence of distracting billboards and unsightly junkyards
along our freeways and primary roads. We want to preserve the natural beauty of
America and diminish ugliness. So naturally we are in favor of highway beautification.
But as is always the case when legislation is concerned, we must look at the
specific provisions of the specific bill in judging its merits. In this case it is
S. 2084, approved by the Senate and recommended to the House by its Committee on
Public Works. The bill was hastily approved at the demand of President Johnson and
is replete with unworkable, unwise, and unfair provisions. The Republican members of
the Committee listed and explained nine weaknesses of the bill.
The bill calls upon each state to provide for "effective control" of outdoor
advertising and junkyards by January 1, 1968. The Secretary of Commerce, a federal
appointive official, is to decide what constitutes "effective control." If the state
does not satisfy him on billboard control, it loses 10 percent of the federal highway-
aid money. If the Secretary rejects its plan for junkyard control, the state loses
another 10 percent of its highway-aid funds. This is a mandatory provision of the
House bill. Republicans tried to give the Secretary discretion so that he could, for
good cause, give a state more time or additional opportunities for appropriate action.
But the Democrat majority insisted on the mandatory provisions.
The Secretary of Commerce is given full control over signs outside the highway
right-of-way which have to do with such things as hunting and fishing regulation,
zone changes, etc. But there is in the bill no provision for controlling signs which
advertise activities conducted on the property where the signs are located. This is
sorely discriminatory. Some of the most offensive signs are those displayed by
eating places, gas stations, general stores, etc. on their own property. The Republi-
can committee members pointed out that they opposed giving control over these local
signs to the U. S. Secretary of Commerce but concluded that "it is entirely inconsis-
tent to vest the Secretary with authority to control some signs and not others in the
same areas."
Under the bill signs may be erected in areas zoned industrial or commercial,
But most land outside urban area is unzoned. Under this bill the Secretary of
Commerce would have full authority to determine how all unzoned property along the
highway is to be used. There is nothing in the bill which restricts his power to
matters involving billboards and junkyards. This is unwarranted power for a federal
official over a local problem. There is little comfort in the fact that appeals can
be taken to the courts on this issue of the use of unzoned land.
Republican committee members agreed that there are many examples of ugly sign-
board clutter which should be eliminated. But they went on to point out that many
signs serve a useful purpose, a fact agreed to by any motorist who has traveled in
unfamiliar territory. They also stressed the importance of this form of advertising
to thousands of small businesses.
The bill requires payment of just compensation for the removal of junkyards
and signs as required by the bill. But no federal payment is made to the owners of
the property who lose the right to use their property for billboards or junkyards.
Many farmers and others receive income from advertising leases. They are not to be
paid for the loss of the right to lease their property, unless the state voluntarily
reimburses them. There is no provision for a federal payment for a loss caused by
federal action.
The bill calls for the removal or screening of all junkyards within 1000 feet
of a main highway by January 1, 1968. Federal funds may be used to pay 75 percent of
the cost of screening or removal. But there is nothing in the bill to prohibit the
establishment of future junkyards within 1000 feet of the road. Presumably federal
funds could then be used to screen or remove these new junkyards. As the Committeemen
said, "This is an absolutely asinine situation."
No one has been able to determine the cost of this beautification program. It
is certain to far exceed the $320 million authorized in the bill for 1966 and 1967.
It is extremely doubtful whether all the states could comply with the law by 1968. At
least 15 states will have to amend their constitutions. While the objectives of the
legislation are laudable, it is obvious that this bill, forced upon the Congress by
President Johnson, must be improved.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
October 13, 1965
One of the bills which Congress will consider before adjournment concerns the
common household necessity, sugar.
For many years we have had a Sugar Act to protect domestic producers, to assure
a dependable supply, and to stabilize prices. The Secretary of Agriculture controls
all marketings and imports and thus determines sugar prices. The Congress specifies
what countries will share in the foreign quotas.
Each year the Secretary estimates the U.S. sugar needs; the law allocates 60
percent of this amount to domestic producers and 40 percent for foreign import.
This year's needs are estimated at 10 million tons at a planned or target price of
6.7¢ a pound for raw sugar. The actual price to the U.S. refiner of sugar is approxi-
mately that amount but the price on the world market is only about 2c a pound. Con-
sequently each foreign country producing sugar wants to sell as much as possible to
the United States. To protect our own producers and to divide up the business, the
U.S. provides each country with a sugar quota which gives each country the advantage
of a guaranteed market for a given amount of sugar at a premium price.
The foreign importer, of course, has transportation costs and must pay a tariff
of 62/100c a pound. But because of the difference between the world price of 2¢ and
the U.S. price of over 6c, the foreign importer realizes a "quota premium" of approxi-
mately 3c a pound at the present time. This "premium" is a real break for all the
sugar-producing countries and it is little wonder that all of them attempt to obtain
as large a U.S. quota as possible. But the benefits are to foreign interests rather
than to U.S. producers, consumers, or taxpayers.
To remedy this, an "import fee" has been used in the past. This fee, paid into
the U.S. Treasury by the sugar importer, is a percentage of the "quota premium." It
is in effect an additional but variable tariff duty. The import fee was first
imposed by President Eisenhower against sugar imported from the Dominican Republic in
1960. About $22 million was collected for the U. S. Treasury. The fee was also used
from late 1962 until December 31, 1964 when the law expired. Only about $37 million
was collected from the Treasury during that period largely because of the worldwide
sugar shortage. The shortage caused an increase in the world price of sugar which
reduced the "quota premium." But this year with production back to normal and the
"import fee" no longer collected, foreign countries are to enjoy a "windfall" of $200
million on "quota premiums."
The Johnson Administration early this year recommended a 50 percent import fee.
Later it changed its mind, dropping the demand for any fee. The sugar bill recom-
mended by the Committee on Agriculture contains no provision for an import fee. All
the benefits of the quota premium are to go to foreign interests, not to the U. S.
Treasury.
One of the amendments which may be voted on by the House provides for an import
fee of 75 percent. At present prices this would place in the U.S. Treasury about
$210 million annually or over $1 billion during the five-year life of the bill. The
country importing the sugar would retain 25 percent of the quota premium or $17.50 a
ton at current prices. This is a substantial benefit when the world price of sugar
is about $40 a ton.
The imposition of the import fee would not change U.S. sugar prices; it would
not change the volume of imports, and it would not force any increase in the retail
price of sugar at the grocery store even if world prices go up. However, it would
greatly benefit the U.S. Treasury and reduce to one-fourth the pure profit presently
enjoyed by foreign sugar interests. I intend to support the amendment reimposing an
import fee. I am more concerned with the federal treasury than helping these foreign
interests.
Another proposed amendment to the bill would cancel the quota of any country
whose government hires or authorizes any individual to lobby for it in regard to
sugar legislation. This amendment is aimed at the high-priced and high-powered
lobbyists (some being paid up to $50,000 a year) whom many feel have been exerting an
undue influence on sugar legislation in recent years.
AN EVALUATION OF THIS SESSION OF CONGRESS: Senator Mike Mansfield, the Demo-
cratic leader of the U.S. Senate, recently gave an astute evaluation of this Congress.
He said, "We have passed a lot of major bills at this session, some of them very
hastily, and they stand in extreme need of a going-over for loopholes, rough corners,
and particularly for an assessment of current and ultimate cost in the framework of
our capacity to meet it."
Senator Mansfield proposed that the next session of the Congress "spend less
time on new legislation and more time correcting oversights in legislation we have
just passed." The Democratic leader plans to set up committees "whose functions it
would be to tighten up the hasty enactments in general and evaluate the degree of
efficiency with which they are being administered by the executive."
All during this session Republicans in the Congress have been trying desperately
to help the Democrats keep their "oversights," "loopholes" and "rough corners" at a
minimum. They may be assured of our complete cooperation next year in an effort to
correct the errors and redeem mistakes of this session.
MR. PRESIDENT, GET WELL: I'm sure I express the sentiments of all of us in the
Fifth District when I say, "Mr. President, we desire for you a speedy and complete
recovery.'
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
October 20, 1965
The sugar bill which I discussed last week has been passed by the House of
Representatives. The Democrat-dominated House refused to approve the "import fee"
which means that foreign sugar interests are going to be richer and the U. S.
Treasury poorer by about $200 million a year. Because the U.S. price of sugar is
approximately three times the price on the world market, those countries which sell
all or a portion of their sugar to our country enjoy a financial windfall. Republi-
cans proposedto tax 50 to 75 percent of this "windfall" to bring the money into the
U. S. Treasury instead of into the private coffers of foreign sugar interests.
The proposal for a 75 percent import fee was defeated 137 to 95 on a teller
(unrecorded) vote. In an effort to gain more support for the "import fee" (in effect,
a tax on imported sugar), the proposal was cut to 50 percent. This would mean that
one-half of the "windfall" would go to the U. S. Treasury and the other half to the
private foreign sugar interests. This is precisely what the domestic sugar industry
recommended last March and what the Johnson Administration wanted until four months
ago. It must be remembered that this "import fee" has no effect on either the price
or supply of sugar in the United States or elsewhere. The fee simply permits our
taxpayers to share in sugar profits with the foreign sugar barons. The 50 percent
fee would have brought into the U. S. Treasury about $80 million annually
But when a recorded vote was taken on the 50 percent fee it was defeated 230
to 160. The 112 Republicans supporting the American taxpayers were joined by only 48
Democrats. 220 Democrats voted against the 50 percent import fee, largely, I presume,
because President Johnson had changed his mind on the issue and now wants no import fee.
The Democrats based their opposition on two points: that the "import fee"
would disturb our relationships with our Latin American neighbors, and that it would
jeopardize our own sugar supply. The latter is not borne out by the facts, and as to
the former we certainly have learned by now that international friendship and respect
cannot be purchased. This same argument, that we must not irritate our American
friends, was used against the Republican proposal that the new immigration bill
should contain quota limitations on immigration from countries in North or South
America. The Democratic majority in the House voted down our proposal. However, the
Senate included our limitation, and the law as signed by President Johnson restricts
immigration from countries of the western hemisphere to 120,000 annually.
HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION: The bill to regulate billboardsand junkyards has been
sent to the President for signature. It is not the legislation he requested; it is
not the legislation as originally passed by the Senate; it is not the bill as recom-
mended by the House Committee on Public Works. It is not a bill satisfactory to any-
one. But the Senate accepted their original bill, S. 2084, as amended by the House
Committee and further changed by the House itself. It is full of the "loopholes,"
"rough corners," and "oversights," which Democratic Senate Leader Mike Mansfield said
characterizes so much of this year's legislation. Because of this fact, I voted
against the bill on final passage.
MORE ON RENT SUBSIDIES: The Housing bill signed on August 10th contained the
revolutionary and controversial "rent subsidy" provision which was adopted in the
House by a vote of 208 to 202. Under this provision taxpayers will pay that part of
an eligible tenant's rent which represents the difference between the fair market
rental of an apartment and one-fourth of the tenant's income. This program is
designed not to assist the poor but rather the "moderate" income group. I have
pointed out before that under this new law the federal treasury could subsidize the
rent of families in New York City earning up to $11,200 a year.
Under regulations recently released by the Housing and Home Finance Agency we
now learn that a person can have more than $24,000 in assets, which does not include
furniture, clothing, and personal effects, and still be eligible for rent supplements
from the federal government. This means, for example, that a person who owns 420
shares of Consumer's Power stock and is drawing $750 a year in dividends, could be
eligible for a rent subsidy. This is ridiculous, but it is a part of "The Great
Society." A ray of hope was seen last week when the House by a vote of 185 to 162
knocked out a $6 million appropriation designed to put the "rent subsidy" program in
operation. The House served notice that the rules and regulations must be rewritten
in a more realistic manner if funds are to be made available for the program.
ADJOURNMENT APPROACHES: The adjournment date for the first session of the
89th Congress is approaching and may be the end of this week. There will be one more
issue of the newsletter before we suspend publication until the opening of the new
session in January.
I hope to spend considerable time in the District but do have a number of
speaking engagements in other places. This is one of the responsibilities that goes
with the minority leadership.
Members of my staff in Washington will be joining Mrs. Elaine Westfield, my
permanent 5th District secretary, in the Grand Rapids office from the first of
November through the middle of December. Our office is located at 425 Cherry Street,
S.E. The telephone number is GL 6-9747.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
October 27, 1965
Now we are to have a National Teacher Corps. And federal control over local
education moves steadily onward.
Not included in the Higher Education Act of 1965 (H.R. 9567) when that legis-
lation was initially approved by the House of Representatives on August 26th, the
Teacher Corps was added by the Senate. Last Wednesday by a vote of 226 to 152 the
House went along with the Senate's proposal. But a temporary setback resulted when
no funds were provided to put the Corps into effect this year. First year costs are
estimated at $36 million with an increase to a minimum of $65 million annually
thereafter.
According to its advocates the Teacher Corps has two great objectives: "to
bring dedicated teaching help to depressed urban and rural areas where it is needed
most, and to attract able and idealistic young Americans into the teaching profession."
Experienced teachers as well as inexperienced teacher-intern teams would be
recruited, trained, supervised, and paid by the U. S. Commissioner of Education to
work in cooperating school districts, supposedly those having a concentration of low
income families. Term of service would be up to two years.
Proponents argue that Corps teachers must be requested by local school authori-
ties who will supervise their work and can transfer or dismiss them. But this is not
the whole story. These teachers will be members of the NATIONAL Teachers Corps; this
fact sets them apart from regular local teachers.
Corps teachers will be selected and trained (special orientation up to three
months) and paid by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. They will be available only
to those school districts which make arrangements with the federal commissioner on
his terms. Federal officials will decide which schools get the help and the money.
This is federal control.
While a local school superintendent could dismiss an unsatisfactory Corps
teacher, he could not remove him from the Corps. Thus Corps teachers will be quite
different from regular local teachers. They will be paid by Uncle Sam at a rate
equal to local teachers with similar training and experience or at a rate agreed to
by the Commissioner. In addition they will be paid travel expenses for themselves
and their dependents; they will be reimbursed for moving their personal and household
goods, and for "other necessary expenses including readjustment allowances.' Uncle
Sam will also pay any costs resulting from the experienced teacher's desire to
protect his tenure, retirement rights, medical insurance and other benefits in his
home district.
One wonders what these considerations for the Corps teachers will do for the
morale of regular local teachers. We can well ask who will replace the experienced
Corps teachers who leave their regular positions for a year or two? The Corps creates
no "experienced teachers." It would simply shift them from one area to another.
While giving lip service to local control of Corps teachers, the Senate Com-
mittee in its report said that "it is the committee's assumption that the local
school districts applying for Teacher Corps members will be willing to innovate and
utilize the experience that these teachers bring with them." In everyday language
this means that local schools will be expected to change their programs of instruc-
tion along the lines recommended by teachers selected, indoctrinated, and paid by
federal educational officials in Washington. This is federal control.
TEMPORARY SETBACK: After voting to establish the Teacher Corps on Wednesday,
the House on Thursday approved a supplemental appropriation bill from which funds for
the Corps had been deleted. No attempt was made on the floor to reinstate the funds,
so no money is presently available to put the Corps into operation. Money may be
supplied next session, but in any event there is now time to take another look at
this revolutionary proposal. If it must go into effect, possibly some of the "rough
corners" and "oversights" (to use Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield's characteriza-
tion of much of this session's legislation) can be remedied next year.
ACADEMY APPOINTMENTS: About 60 young men from Kent and Ionia Counties have
made application to take the Civil Service examination for appointment to the
military, naval, and air force academies for the class entering in June, 1966. The
test will be given on Saturday, November 6 to fill the six available openings.
High school graduates under 22 years of age and single are eligible to compete
for these all-expense scholarships with a career in the armed forces. Application
forms may still be obtained from my Grand Rapids office at 425 Cherry Street, S.E.
or by calling GL 6-9747.
AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE: Two staff members from my Washington office will be
at our Grand Rapids office from Monday, November 1 through Friday, December 17. The
office will be open from 8:00 A.M. until at least 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and
until noon on Saturday. Evening appointments can also be arranged.
We will be happy to discuss specific problems involving agencies of the
federal government or to talk about recent or proposed legislation. We will be
pleased to obtain for interested parties any available governmental publications or
other material and information.
WASHINGTON REVIEW: This is the final issue of the newsletter for the year.
The next issue will be out in January after Congress reconvenes.