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
4525470
label
Ford Newsletter, June-Oct. 1966
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525470
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Newsletter, June-Oct. 1966
description
This file contains material relating to Lyndon Johnson.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Newsletters
subjects
Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-
Agriculture
Appropriations and expenditures
Civil rights
Drug abuse
Federal budget
Food aid
Foreign aid
Freedom of information
Insurance
Legislation
Minimum wage
National security
Postal matters
Procurement and disposal
Social security
Unemployment
Urban policy
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525470
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1966-10-31
month
10
year
1966
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1966-06-01
month
6
year
1966
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
95f2ed97ed7adeca
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 1, 1966
The house of Representatives by a vote of 303 to 93 approved the bill
increasing the minimum wage and extending coverage to over 7 million additional
employees. I supported the bill on final passage after trying to remedy some of the
defects of the legislation as reported by the Committee.
Before final passage I voted for an amendment to extend from February 1, 1968
to February 1, 1969 the effective date of the $1.60 rate for those workers presently
covered under the law. This amendment was approved by a vote of 205 to 194.
I also voted for an amendment which would have exempted many small businesses
from coverage but this proposal was defeated 200 to 195. As finally approved the
bill will ultimately apply to business enterprises doing an annual gross business of
$250,000 or more.
An effort was also made to exempt farm labor from coverage under the law and
to give agricultural processing plants (canneries) a 20-week exemption from the over-
time provisions of the law instead of 14 weeks as the bill stated. I thought these
were desirable concessions but the motion failed 231 to 168.
NARCOTIC ADDICT REHABILITATION: The House is scheduled to consider this week
a bill (H.R. 9167) relative to the treatment and rehabilitation of narcotic addicts
who have been charged with a federal crime. The bill is designed to give the courts
authority to commit a drug addict to a hospital for treatment as an alternative to
trying him for his crime and sentencing him to prison.
When it is evident that a person who has committed a federal offense is a drug
addict, and if he agrees to "civil commitment," the judge may without first deter-
mining his guilt, order him committed to a federal hospital for not more than three
years until the authorities there find he is cured and ready to assume normal respon-
sibilities. This consideration under no circumstnaces could be given to hardened
criminals, those charged with violent crimes, or those selling narcotics illegally
unless the court finds that the only purpose of the sale was to obtain a drug to
support his own addiction. The courts could authorize hospital treatment only where
there is good prospect for success.
If the addict is rehabilitated he will not be punished for the crime for which
he was originally charged. If, however, upon being committed to the hospital the
addict refuses to cooperate or proves that he cannot be rehabilitated, he is to be
LIBRARY
returned to court for trial and punishment under the criminal laws.
We do have at the present time a plan for voluntary treatment at federal hos-
pitals. But this has not proved too satisfactory. Voluntary patients can leave the
hospital at any time and there is no follow-up care or supervision afterwards.
This bill was not unanimously recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary.
Some members insist that anyone charged with selling narcotics illegally ought to be
tried, and if guilty, punished under current law. They object to the provision of
this bill which permits an addict to be committed to the hospital if he claims he sold
narcotics only to get money for satisfying his own desire for drugs. They believe
that no quarter should be given to any seller of narcotics and insist that it would
be most difficult for a judge to determine the real motive of any drug peddler.
A larger number of Committee members were concerned with the provision which
would commit a person to the hospital before determining his guilt, and at the same
time permit a guilty person to escape those penalties of the law meted out to others.
They will offer an amendment to the bill requiring that the guilt or innocence of the
individual first be determined by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict. Then if guilty,
no criminal sentence would be given if the person goes to the hospital. And the
charge would be dismissed if the cure is successful. If not successful, the criminal
sentence could be pronounced without further delay.
A second amendment to the bill will also be offered. This would permit the
addict to escape prison and enter the hospital only if his addiction was a substantial
factor or cause of the crime committed. Addiction could not be used to escape punish-
ment of every crime. In effect, these two amendments would eliminate the pre-trial
"civil commitment" provision of the bill.
SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS IN FIFTH DISTRICT: Over $3½ million in social secu-
rity benefits are being paid each month to more than 45,000 persons in Kent and Ionia
Counties. As of December, 1965 a total of $3,242,537 was distributed for the month
to 40,120 residents of Kent County. In Ionia County $397,196 went to 5,357 persons
during the same period. Beneficiaries include retired workers and their dependents,
survivors of deceased workers, and disabled persons and their dependents.
VA CONTACT OFFICE: The Veterans Administration has announced the establishment
of a "contact office" in Grand Rapids to handle questions about educational and other
benefits available under the new G.I. bill. The office is located at the Army Reserve
Center, 1234 Michigan Avenue, N.E. (Telephone 459-8271). It will be open each
Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. as long as the need for
the service continues.
CONSUMERS ALL: Because of the great demand for the 1965 Yearbook of Agricul-
ture entitled "Consumers All," a second printing was ordered. We have been able to
fill all requests and find that we still have a sizable quantity of the book on hand.
lf you did not get a copy and would like one, please let me know at H-230, The Capitol,
Washington, D. C.
Your Washington Review
KENT
IONIA
Congressman
5
JERRY FORD
June 8, 1966
The House of Representatives approved the narcotic addict rehabilitation bill,
which I described last week, after adopting a Republican-sponsored amendment by a vote
of 198 to 168. This amendment makes any narcotics seller or offender between ages 22
and 26 punishable under the regular criminal laws. You will remember that the bill as
recommended would have permitted an addict to be committed to a hospital if he
claimed he sold narcotics only to get money for his own addiction. The bill as recom-
mended also would have permitted narcotic offenders between 22 and 26 to be sent to a
youth correction camp, to be released when officials felt they had earned it, and
eventually to have the conviction removed from the records. This age group accounts
for about 25 percent of the offenders. The House overruled its committee in deciding
to apply the established law in these instances.
DEFENSE PROCUREMENT AND MILITARY PAY: In a unanimous recommendation, the House
Committee on Armed Services increased the authorization for new aircraft, missiles,
vessels, and for defense research by more than $930 million over the Defense Depart-
ment's request. The largest single item was $258 million for two nuclear-powered
guided missile frigates for the Navy. Not only are these ships authorized but the
Secretary of Defense is instructed to utilize the money authorized for this purpose;
he is ordered to "proceed with the
construction of the two nuclear-powered guided
missile frigates as soon as practicable. "
This strong language stems from the committee's determination that the U. S.
Navy should eventually have all-nuclear powered task forces. It is seriously con-
cerned that the Department of Defense has not begun construction of the nuclear-
powered frigate authorized last year. In ordering the Department to make a start on
building two such ships, the Committee said, "If this language constitutes a test as
to whether Congress has the power to so mandate (give an order to the Executive
Department), let the test be made and let this important weapons system be the field
of trial." The Committee then outlined advantages of a nuclear-powered task force.
The Committee also expressed concern with "the apparent decision ultimately to
eliminate manned aircraft from our strategic bomber force." It added $11.8 million
to permit the advanced manned strategic aircraft to go forward. In all, the Committee
added $146 million over the request of the Department for aircraft.
The bill carries a total price tag of $17.8 billion. It also provides for a
3.2 percent pay raise for members of the armed services. The Report on the bill,
adopted unanimously by the Democrat-dominated Committee, calls upon the Congress to
assume a more positive role in determining defense policy. It is critical of the
decision-maker who in his dedication to cost effectiveness "knows the price of
everything and the value of nothing." Going on, the Committee said, "In a matter of
such great moment as our military posture, the very key to our survival, the Congress
must not be a who-body: something halfway between a nobody and a somebody. It must
call the shots as it sees them."
I am in agreement with the Committee's views on a nuclear-powered navy. I also
agree on the need for manned bombers to supplement our missile systems, and on the
responsibility of the Congress, the elected representatives of the people, in deter-
mining defense policy. Consideration of the Defense Procurement Act, scheduled for
last week, was postponed until this week.
BAIL REFORM ACT: This week the House also considered a bill (S.1357) making it
easier for a person accused of a federal crime to be released on bail prior to his
trial or while he is appealing the verdict. Presently, the accused may be released
on his own recognizance or on bail. Commenting on this, the Committee on the Judici-
ary said: "The present system of monetary bail would be adequate if all could afford
it. The facts, however, are to the contrary. The rich man and the professional
criminal readily raise bail regardless of the amount. But it is the poor man, lacking
sufficient funds, who remains incarcerated prior to trial."
S.1357 makes it mandatory for the judge to consider releasing the accused on
his own recognizance or on a "promise to pay" should he not appear. If the judge has
good reasons to believe the individual will not appear for trial he may appoint some-
one to supervise him, or he may restrict his travel and place of abode, may require a
down-payment on a bond, may require regular bail, or set any other conditions to
assure the return of the accused for trial. The judge is expected to take into con-
sideration family ties, employment, character and mental condition, and his length of
residency in the community in making this determination.
LIBRARY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ACT: The House passed last Thursday by a
vote of 366 to 2 a bill extending the Library Services and Construction Act of 1964
for five years from its scheduled date of expiration on June 30, and authorized $88
million to finance the programs for next year. Under this act the federal government
provides matching funds to be used for books, equipment and operating expenses for
public libraries, and for the construction of new or improved library facilities.
The bill also includes funds to encourage the states to establish and improve library
facilities. The bill also includes funds to encourage the states to establish and
improve library facilities for the physically handicapped, including the blind.
Of the $88 million allocated for next year, Michigan's share will be $3.4
million. Matching funds to be supplied by the state and local governments will total
$3.1 million.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
June 15, 1966
A year ago the national debt stood at $319.5 billion; now it is up to $322.5
billion. A year ago Congress raised the temporary debt limit from $324 to $328
billion; last Wednesday the House of Representatives voted to increase this temporary
limit to $330 billion. Action on the debt limit must be completed by June 30th when
by law the limitation will revert to the permanent amount of $285 billion.
On the vote last Wednesday 121 Republicans (out of 122 voting) and 44 Democrats
voted against the increase primarily to register their disapproval of President
Johnson's fiscal policies. As Republican members of the Committee on Ways and Means
pointed out: "Initially, the Johnson administration adopted a cloak of frugality in
government expenditures
Beginning in the fall of 1965, however, the Administra-
tion abandoned any pretense of fiscal restraint. As a result, by fiscal 1967, the
Administration reported spending will have increased to $112.8 billion. To this
amount, there should be added an additional $5 or $6 billion realized from the sale
of loan and other government assets, the proceeds of which are reflected in the budget
not as "receipts" but as a reduction in expenditures for fiscal 1967. We are thus
faced with an expenditure budget of more than $118 billion for fiscal 1967 - a $35
billion increase in the federal spending since fiscal 1961. Less than one-third of
this increase can be attributed to the war in Vietnam."
Deficit financing and more debt means inflation or higher taxes or both.
Because I'm convinced that the American people want stable prices and lower taxes, I
voted against the increase in the debt limit and will continue to oppose new or
expanded spending schemes.
FOOD FOR FREEDOM: The Food for Freedom bill approved last Thursday was in
many respects an excellent bill. The Democratic-controlled Committee on Agriculture
had accepted a number of Republican-sponsored amendments which greatly improved the
legislation proposed by the President. The Administration fought these amendments,
especially the efforts of the Republicans to retain and strengthen the rules against
sales to unfriendly countries.
The Food for Freedom program is a continuation of President Eisenhower's
Public Law 480 which became the "Food for Peace" program. Under these programs our
surplus agricultural commodities are donated or sold to foreign countries. The sales
may be "local currency sales." This means that the goods are paid for in the money
of the nation making the purchase and that this money can be used by the U. S. only
to buy goods or services in that country. Or the sales can be "long-term dollar
credit sales." In these sales, the purchasing government has 40 years to make payment
with a 10-year grace period. Interest is 1 percent during the grace period and 2½
percent after the grace period.
In spite of the President's opposition, the Committee agreed with the Republi-
can position that Russia, Red China, or their satellites should be ineligible for
either type of sale. Any Communist country would be ineligible for local currency
sales. Furthermore, any nation which sells to, or permits its ships to carry goods
to, North Vietnam or Cuba would be classified as "not friendly" and thus ineligible
for either kind of sale. The same is true of any "aggressor" nation or one with
which we do not have diplomatic relations.
The President is also directed to use the authority to make easy "local
currency sales" in a manner that will assist friendly countries to be independent of
domination or control of either Russia or Red China. In other words, it is the
intention of the Congress that the sale of our surplus agricultural products be used
to promote our own national interest and that of the free world, and to weaken the
influence of the Communist conspirators.
However, this bill continues the provisions of Public Law 480 permitting the
donation of food for urgent and extraordinary relief work to avoid starvation or
extreme hardship. The President is authorized to supply food to feed "friendly but
needy populations regardless of the friendliness of their governments." Procedures
are set forth to meet the emergency needs of starving people, no matter where they
live or what type of government they have.
Before final passage, Republicans attempted to further improve the bill by
cutting from 40 years (with 10 years grace period) to 20 years and a 2-year grace
period the time for payment of the credit sales. But this amendment was defeated
193 to 165.
We also proposed in a "motion to recommit" to prohibit long-term credit sales
to any Communist country and to prevent the Secretary of Agriculture from dumping
grains on the market at a low price, an action which could depress prices received by
our farmers. Although 118 (out of 124 voting) Republicans voted for this motion, we
lost 200 to 157. I voted for the bill on final passage when it was approved 333 to 20.
SHIPMENTS ABROAD: From July 1, 1954 through December 31, 1965, the U. S. has
exported under the Food for Peace programs a total of 155 million tons of agricultural
commodities valued at an estimated total cost of over $18 billion.
The bill passed last Thursday authorized an additional $3.3 billion for each
of the next two years for both types of sales and $800 million for each year for
donation shipments,
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
June 22, 1966
The House of Representatives last week approved a $17.8 billion authorization
for defense procurement and research, the largest bill of its kind ever considered by
the Congress. Two things account for this: increased costs due to inflation and the
high price tags resulting from technological advancements in our weapon systems. For
instance, during World War II we spent $4 million for a submarine; today a Polaris
submarine costs $150 million. A destroyer which cost $7 million in 1940 is now
priced at $67 million. During World War II an aircraft carrier cost $55 million;
today, without airplanes on board, it comes to a half billion dollars.
The House agreed with the recommendations of the Committee on Armed Services
which I discussed two weeks ago. It added $931 million to the request of the Presi-
dent for equipment including additional funds for the Nike X antiballistic missile,
the new F-12 interceptor aircraft, and the CX-2 jet aircraft for evacuation of sick
and injured from the battlefield.
The bill also provided for a 3.2 percent increase in pay for members of the
armed forces which the Committee felt was necessary and justified by the increase in
the cost of living since the last military pay raise.
Because the Committee was concerned with the decision of the Secretary of
Defense to cut back on our strategic bombers (B-52s & B-58s), it wrote into the bill
a provision requiring the Secretary to give Congress all the facts relative to any
decision to abandon a weapon system 90 days before the decision becomes effective.
The Committee is then to give the Secretary its views on the matter within 90 days.
The bill as recommended and approved, orders the Department of Defense to
proceed with the construction of two nuclear-powered guided missile frigates for the
Navy as soon as practicable. The House was deeply concerned with the fact that last
year it had authorized the construction of one such frigate but the Department of
Defense took no action to begin construction. If the attitude of the Department has
not changed, this "order" or "mandate" by the Congress may constitute a test as to
whether Congress has the power to require the Secretary of Defense to act. The
Committee stated that it welcomed-such a test and was pleased to make the nuclear-
powered frigate "the field of trial." I voted for the bill on final passage when
it was approved 356 to 2.
STANDBY CONSUMER CREDIT CONTROLS: The House on Thursday approved legislation
to continue for two years the Defense Production Act of 1950. Under this act the
President has the authority to establish priorities for defense contracts, allocate
materials for defense purposes, assist defense contractors who need working capital,
etc. There was no disagreement on the need for extending the Act.
But the Democratic-controlled Committee on Banking and Currency, without a
request from the Administration, added to the bill a provision giving the President
standby authority to impose consumer credit controls. This would mean that the Presi-
dent could limit the amount of credit which an individual could obtain at a retail
store, that he could require a certain down payment, and otherwise make credit buying
more difficult. The brunt of the controls would fall on those in the lowest income
brackets, the families least able to accumulate down payments. Republicans vigorously
opposed this unnecessary grant of power to the President. We were able to persuade
enough Democrats to go along with us so that the proposal was defeated 275 to 73.
HIGH INTEREST ACT OF 1966: The Johnson Administration has. offered for sale its
first "participations". under the Sales Participation Act approved a month ago. This
is the program under which the federal government refinances mortgages, notes, etc.,
which it holds. As Republicans predicted when they opposed the plan, it would mean
greatly increased interest costs for Uncle Sam and be a real bonanza for the big
investor.
But the facts exceed the predictions. The "participations" will pay interest
of 5.75 percent, and this on a federal government obligation. The same government
which is using your tax dollars to pay this rate to a few large investors has placed
a 5½ percent interest ceiling on bank certificates of deposits. But worse, those
patriotic citizens who invest in Series E Treasury Savings Bonds receive a yield of
only 4.15 percent. If you're wealthy enough to buy "participations" you qualify for
high interest rates, but if you're a member of the Bond-a-Month or payroll savings
program, you take the low, discriminatory rates. It is for these reasons that Presi-
dent Johnson's participation sales plan can be called the "Higher Interest Act of 1966"
FATHER'S DAY: It's now official; by law the third Sunday in June has been
designated as "Father's Day." The House passed and sent to the President a Senate-
approved resolution honoring "Dad." In fact, when Mr. Johnson affixes his signature,
the law will state that "the service rendered to the United States by the American
father is a constant source of intellectual and moral strength which helps to perpet-
uate the highest values of our civilization and our Nation."
Some of us dads may want to clip the above and post it conspicuously in our
homes. If it doesn't help to develop the proper respect of other members of the
family, it may at least strengthen our respective egos.
But to keep us humble, I must report that it has taken us just 52 years to
catch up with mother. It was on May 18, 1914 that Congress set aside the second
Sunday in May as "Mother's Day."
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
June 29, 1966
Leg Ration to make certain changes in the law relative to parcel post mailings
may be considered by the House of Representatives this week. If the bill (H.R. 14904)
is approved, parcel post users will note two major changes. Charges on all parcel
post packages will be increased by eight cents. Parcels now mailed for 20c will cost
28c; those now mailed for $1.00 will cost $1.08. The other change will affect only
the mailings of packages between first class post offices. Presently the law limits
the size of packages between these post offices to 72 inches (girth plus length); the
bill raises this to 100 inches. Currently, packages weighing more than 20 pounds
cannot be accepted for mailing between first class post offices more than 150 miles
apart; the bill raises this limit to 40 pounds. There will be no major changes in
mailings between other post offices or on rural routes, or between first class offices
and other classes. In fact, one of the purposes of the legislation is to make more
uniform the rules on parcel post shipments. The major objection is to the provision
relative to weight and size. Some private carriers contend that an expansion of the
postal operation will put them as taxpayers out of business and result in the loss of
jobs for their employees.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Early this year we received many letters in opposition
to H.R. 8282, President Johnson's proposal to federalize and straitjacket state unem-
ployment insurance programs. Last Wednesday by a vote of 374 to 10 the House approved
an unemployment insurance bill, H.R. 15119, which had bipartisan support because it
varied greatly from Mr. Johnson's recommendation. Republican members of the Committee
on Ways and Means had been able to persuade their Democratic colleagues that the
President's radical changes were neither necessary nor desirable. The bill as
approved is reasonable and preserves the highly successful system of independent state
programs. States are permitted to establish benefits and eligibility standards for
unemployment insurance without federal control.
One of the most significant provisions in the bill as approved grants 13 weeks
of "extended unemployment compensation" for workers who have exhausted 26 weeks of
state benefits, but only during periods of recession, either within the state or
nationally. Under Mr. Johnson's proposal, for 20 weeks of work, a worker could
receive 52 weeks of unemployment compensation regardless of the economic conditions in
his area. This would mean, in effect, a guaranteed annual income to the individual
whether he worked or not.
The President had also proposed that a person could receive benefits even
though he was unemployed because of misconduct on the job, voluntarily leaving his
job, or a refusal to accept suitable work. The maximum penalty the state could impose
on such a person was to suspend his benefits for six weeks. This concept was rejected
by the House. The 50 states will continue to set eligibility standards.
Under the bill the Secretary of Labor retains authority to review certain
aspects of the state plans and invoke penalties if he cannot approve them. However,
under this bill, for the first time, a state is permitted to appeal to the courts if
it feels that the decision of the federal official is arbitrary or unfair.
The new bill also extends unemployment insurance to about 3.5 million addi-
tional workers and increases slightly (much less than the President proposed) the
federal unemployment tax paid by employers.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Unanimously approved by the House last Monday was a
bill, S.1160, to make it easier for our citizens to examine the official records of
the Federal Government. For a long time there has been a concern with the mushrooming
growth of Government secrecy. Too often information which should have been made
available to the public was withheld on the basis that to divulge the information was
not "in the public interest," or that the person making the request was not "properly
and directly concerned."
S. 1160 makes three major changes in existing law. First, it eliminates the
requirement that a person be "properly and directly concerned" before he can obtain
information on a federal agency's rules, policies, public procedures, and methods of
operation. A great majority of records are to be open under reasonable regulations
to "any person."
Second, it replaces such vague phrases as "in the public interest" or "good
cause found" with workable standards for exempting certain documents from public dis-
closure. For example, matters involving national or foreign policy may be kept
secret as may personnel and medical records, inter-agency memorandums, investigatory
files compiled for law enforcement purposes, etc. The point is that the new law will
spell out more specifically the kind of information which may and may not be kept
secret by the executive branch of the federal government.
Third, the new law will permit an appeal to the courts by any person who feels
that he has been denied access to the government's record illegally. Thus, for the
first time in our history a citizen will be able to attack in court a ruling by a
bureaucrat which may be simply to cover up an official failure or wrongdoing.
Republicans strongly endorsed this bill as a good start toward protecting the
right of the public to essential information. The bill will not solve all problems
and will need refining but the new rules will be a great improvement over present
policies. President Johnson has been lukewarm, if not opposed, to this legislation
but we trust he will sign the bill which has been sent to the White House.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
July 6, 1966
The House of Representatives last week approved the bill to raise parcel post
rates by about 8c a package, and to increase the weight and size that may be mailed
between first class post offices more than 150 miles apart. Before approving the bill
on a voice vote, the sponsors of the legislation offered an amendment which was
accepted by the House. Under this amendment any employee of a private carrier who
loses his job because of this bill will be given a position with the Post Office
Department with status and seniority rights. According to the Chairman of the sub-
committee recommending the legislation, the new employee "will be placed in a position
by the Postmaster General at a salary higher than he was receiving from his private
employer. He will be granted full civil service status immediately upon appointment.
He will receive credit for service with his employer for the purpose of leave, retire-
ment, veterans' preference, group life and health insurance, severance pay, tenure
training, promotion, status, and all other rights conferred by law on Government
employees.'
This promise was made by Postmaster General O'Brien and was written into the
bill. While I am gravely concerned with any legislation which will destroy job oppor-
tunities in private industry, I am also seriously concerned with this amendment.
Although obviously well intentioned it seems to me that it may well create more prob-
lems than it seeks to solve. There are involved questions of seniority and employee
morale, of fairness to experienced and to new post office personnel, and of the
ability of the post office to provide positions near at home for those who lose their
jobs. I trust that the Senate will take a good look at the rate, weight, and size
changes and at their social and economic effects, and at the same time examine the
promises made to displaced workers and the effect which these promises will have on
present post office employees. The persuasive argument can be made that the Post
Office Department should not compete with a tax-paying business that already provides
employment for thousands.
CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH: You will remember that I have discussed the
action of the House in ordering the Department of Defense to construct two nuclear-
powered frigates. In recent testimony before the sub-committee on defense appropria-
tions, Admiral Rickover said: "The military who should have been the very first to
request good weapons -- the latest and best ones - sat here complacently and told you
it was not necessary for these ships to be nuclear powered. They sat and followed the
party line."
He was referring to the fact4 that top Johnson Administration officials expect
subordinates to support the position of their superiors on public issues regardless
of the personal views of the experienced and professional subordinate. Admiral
Rickover went on to say: "The witnesses you call before your committee must then
talk in accordance with the party line...
Congress is merely to listen to the official
position. This is tantamount to saying that the Department is capable, but members of
Congress are not capable of judging the issue; that the Department must do Congress'
thinking for it; that the Department can make a better decision than Congress is able
to. Now, most members of Congress are lawyers or experienced professional and busi-
ness people. I am sure you have enough wit and intelligence to judge things for
yourself Isn't it essential if Congress is to do its job properly that you have
presented to you all the relevant information?"
The answer to Admiral Rickover's question is obvious. But he has also made a
significant statement in reference to our constitutional "checks and balance system,"
and in answer to those who delight in a "strong executive." If we are to maintain
our representative democracy (a republic), the elected representatives of the people
must exercise their constitutional prerogative to determine public policy based on a
full and complete knowledge of the facts. We can't afford a rubber-stamp Congress.
THE APPROPRIATION BILLS: Each year the Congress must pass 12 regular appropria-
tion bills to provide funds for the operation of the government in the new fiscal
year which begins July 1st. The bills should, therefore, be passed and signed by the
President before June 30th. But in fact, while the House has passed six of the bills,
congressional action has been completed on only two of them. In a number of instances
this is due to the fact that certain authorization bills have not been approved.
Before the House can appropriate public funds, it must have authorization in law to
do SO.
So as of now, for instance, Congress has not appropriated fiscal year 1967 funds
to run the Department of Defense and carry on the war in Vietnam; it has not appropri-
ated 1967 funds to operate the State Department, the courts, or the Congress itself.
But money will be available. Each year during the latter part of June, the
Congress passes a continuing appropriations resolution. This permits the federal
department or agency to continue to operate and to spend public funds at the same rate
as last year, at the rate requested by the President for this year, or the most restric-
tive amount already approved by either House, whichever is the lowest. Such a resolu-
tion was approved by the House last Tuesday.
NO NEWSLETTER NEXT WEEK: Because the House is in recess this week, the next
"Washington Review" will be dated July 20th.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
July 20, 1966
Legislation authorizing the expenditure of $4.1 billion for foreign aid in
each of the next two years was approved by the House of Representatives last Thursday.
The President had requested $3.4 billion plus "such amounts as may be necessary" for
certain specified programs. The Committee put a $4.1 billion limit on all expendi-
tures.
The most controversial issue in the foreign aid bill this year was the two-year
authorization. Previous bills carried a one-year authorization for most items. This
means that each year those in the executive branch of the government who administer
the foreign aid program must come before the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the
Committee on Appropriations to explain how they have used the taxpayers' money in the
past and how they intend to spend it in the future. Under the two-year authorization,
these administrators would appear before the Committee on Foreign Affairs only once
in two years; they would still have to meet with the Committee on Appropriations
every year.
I feel strongly that those who spend about $4 billion of the taxpayers' money
annually can very appropriately be expected to justify their activities to both
committees representing the taxpayers. Furthermore, the foreign aid program as a
whole is so complex and the international situation changes so unpredictably that the
Committee which specializes in foreign affairs should examine the foreign aid program
annually. To neglect to do this can only mean further abdication of congressional
responsibility and an unwarranted increase in the bureaucrats' authority. I voted
for a motion to keep the one-year authorization and to cut $250 million from the bill.
But we lost by the narrow margin of 193 to 191.
DEFENSE PROCUREMENT: In previous discussions of the bill authorizing the
purchase of aircraft, missiles, ships, etc. for the Department of Defense, I mentioned
that the House of Representatives "ordered" and "mandated" the Secretary of Defense
to proceed with the construction of two nuclear-powered guided missile frigates. But
the Senate refused to go along with this demand. The Conferees (delegates from each
body appointed to iron out the differences) struggled with this issue for an extended
period.
Last Tuesday a compromise was approved by both houses, and the bill was sent to
the President. Under the compromise one frigate was authorized at $130.5 million,
and $20 million was approved to start work on the second ship. The compromise also
provides that the contract for construction of the first frigate "shall be entered
into as soon as practicable unless the President fully advises the Congress that its
construction is not in the national interest."
This is quite different from the original "order" issued by the House to the
Secretary of Defense to build two nuclear-powered ships. The House has backed down,
but as one of its conferees stated, "The other body (Senate) was of a different mind.
I feel, considering the point of view which they hold, that the language of the
Conference report (final version of the bill) as presented to us, is as strong as we
could possibly make it." This is a good illustration of the fact that "compromise"
must play a major role in the democratic process. None of us can always have what we
want personally or as a legislative body. The constitutional principle of "checks
and balances" is at work. While personally I preferred the original House version of
this bill, I know that in the long run our country is better off because of our system
of checks and balances. Only when we lose this system are we in danger of losing our
freedoms. No one group in our government should ever become a rubber stamp for
another group or person. May I add that there is not involved here any question of
partisan politics. The Democratic majority in the House is strongly in favor of
building nuclear-powered naval vessels. Democrats took the lead in attempting "to
order" the Navy to start construction.
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1966: The House Committee on the Judiciary has made its
recommendations relative to the new civil rights bill proposed by President Johnson.
Great concern has been generated over the President's plan in Title IV of the bill to
make a person subject to federal action if he refuses to sell, rent, or lease a
dwelling to another person because of race, color, religion, or national origin.
The bill as recommended by the Committee exempts from the provisions of the
law owner-occupied buildings and structures containing living quarters to be occupied
by no more than four families. This means that an owner of a home or of an apartment
house with up to four units (one of which the owner occupies) may determine to whom
he will rent, lease, or sell his home or apartment. Owners of buildings containing
more than four living units would be required to rent, lease, or sell without regard
to color, race, religion, or national origin. Moreover, real estate brokers or sales-
men could not engage in any discriminatory practices even if so instructed by an
exempted owner.
The bill has not as yet been scheduled for House action. At least seven sets
of additional or dissenting views have been submitted by various members of the
Committee. This indicates that attempts will be made to further alter the bill when
it is considered by the House itself.
Your Washington Review
KENT
IONIA
Congressman
5
JERRY FORD
July 27, 1966
President Johnson has finally become concerned about the rising cost of living.
Belatedly he has asked the Democratic-domimated Congress to hold down spending, and
he has vetoed his first bill this session "because the principle it embodies is
inflationary.
All of us know how prices have been going up, but until now Mr. Johnson has
been blaming the farmer, the businessman, and the housewife. For more than two years
Republicans have been urging restraint in non-essential government spending, especial-
ly in view of the cost of the Vietnam War, as the alternative to higher prices and
higher taxes. But the President ignored these warnings and has been insisting on the
adoption of new spending schemes such as rent subsidies, teachers corps, an ineffec-
tive and wasteful attempt to eliminate poverty, and a highway beautification program
that could wait. Now the bills are coming in and there isn't enough money to pay. We
have deficits, a growing national debt, higher prices, and the threat of higher taxes.
We are pleased that the President has finally recognized the federal govern-
ment's responsibility for inflation. We trust he can persuade his Democratic col-
leagues in the Congress to hold back and cut down expenditures. But unfortunately,
for too long Mr. Johnson has had a heavy foot on the accelerator; now we hope he has
power brakes and that he applies them. The Democrats control both houses by a 2 to 1
majority and are in complete control of the appropriation of tax dollars. Furthermore,
the Democratic President is not obligated to spend all the money appropriated. If
Congress gives him more than he wants he does not have to spend it. Moreover, if Mr.
Johnson is honestly disturbed by the fact that Congress appropriates more money than
he requested, he can veto the legislation. Then his Democratic colleagues can either
override his veto or reduce spending.
In fact, last week Mr. Johnson did veto a bill, his first this session, "because
the principle it embodies is inflationary." We would welcome this as a real step
forward -- except when we look at the bill (H.R. 2035) and what it would do. The bill
provided that when the cost of living goes up at least one percent, payments to
holders of "star route" mail delivery contracts would go up proportionately. Star
route contractors carry the mail by truck between cities and may make some collections
and deliveries to postal patrons. These contractors are among the smallest of the
small business men. More than half of the contracts are for less than $10,000 a year
and most contractors are individuals serving one route. The bill did not apply to a
contractor who had more than two employees, or who had more than one contract. This
bill would affect only about 9,600 contracts and its total cost would be less than
$300,000 a year. This is "peanuts" compared to the multi-billion projects demanded
by the President and approved by this Congress. Mr. Johnson must do better than this
if he is to halt the inflationary spiral which he has set in motion.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND INFLATION: Higher cost of food, clothing, housing, and
other necessities create special hardships for the retired and others living on a
fixed income. Because of the government's responsibility for inflation, I have joined
other Republicans in introducing legislation to give an automatic increase in social
security benefits whenever the cost of living goes up three percent or more. During
the seven years from 1958 to 1965 the cost of living went up 8 percent and the cost
of those things our older citizens need went up 16 percent. Yet until 1965 there was
no increase in social security benefits. Our bill would correct this by providing
the possibility of an automatic increase in payments every three months. The pur-
chasing power of our retirees would keep pace with the cost of living. Actuaries
tell us that to do this would require no increase in social security taxes because of
greater revenue derived as a result of economic conditions.
DEFENSE APPROPRIATION: The House has approved a $58.6 billion defense appro-
priation bill. This is one of those bills in which the Congress gives the President
more than he requested, nearly $1 billion more. This was to provide, among other
things, for a NIKE-X anti-ballistic missile system and additional helicopters and
other aircraft. The Defense Department has indicated, and the Committee on Appropria-
tions agrees, that if the Vietnam War continues, several billion dollars more will be
required for this year and next.
Because they are concerned about our nation's future ability to maintain a
superior defense posture, Republican members of the Committee have called for the
establishment of a Blue Ribbon Commission composed of the highest calibre experts,
both civilian and military, to make an independent and objective study of our future
defense needs and how best to meet these needs. They observed that "only the strength
of this nation can keep what peace there is in the world, and prevent what war there
is from spreading."
RECENT VISITORS: From Grand Rapids: Mr. and Mrs. Clinton H. Scobey and Sally,
Mrs. Geraldine Hoffman, The Edward Kingma family, Mr. and Mrs. Franklin Wiersum and
family, Mr. and Mrs. A. Nuffesse and family, Mr. and Mrs. E. Allison, Debbie and Diane,
Mrs. Alice Slootmaker and Ann, The H. VanOverloop family, Mr. and Mrs. Sterling
Barbour and sons, Rev. and Mrs. A. Barton Brown and family, The Wm. Weeks family, Mr.
Glenn Johnson, Mr. and Mrs. George TerHorst, Mr. and Mrs. Gaylord Gill, Jr. and family,
and Mrs. Albert Navitskas and Rosemary. From Lowell: Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Nisbet and
family. From Sparta: Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Ostman.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
August 3, 1966
The Civil Rights Act of 1966 occupied the attention of the House of Represen-
tatives all last week. Further debate and the vote on amendments and final passage
is scheduled for this week. Last Monday the House voted 200 to 180 to take up the
bill (H.R. 14765) for discussion.
ON THE RULE: Before the House of Representatives considers any major contro-
versial piece of legislation, it adopts a "rule" by which it agrees to take up the
matter and by which it sets forth the conditions under which the bill is to be dis-
cussed. Generally, the "rule" is recommended by the Committee on Rules. But because
this Committee has been accused of delaying the legislative process, it was agreed at
the opening of this Congress that the House could vote to take up a bill if the
Committee on Rules had not acted upon it within 21 days. That was done in connection
with the Civil Rights bill on Monday, July 25th.
The Committee on the Judiciary issued Part One of its Report on the bill on
June 30th. But Part Two of the Report, which contained additional views by the
Chairman of the Committee and those of 13 other members and the minority views of
four more members, was not ready until July 14th. The Committee on Rules, therefore,
did not have all the recommendations of the Committee on the Judiciary until 11 days
(counting Sundays) before the House voted to discharge it from further consideration
of the bill. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Rules Committee had promised to hold
hearings and take action on the bill.
Consequently, I voted against taking up the bill last Monday under this extra-
ordinary procedure. To do so was a misuse of the 21-day rule; it was an irregular
method of legislating, and it was an undeserved slap at the Rules Committee whose
record on handling the 1965 Civil Rights bill was commendable.
THE OTHER PROVISIONS: Most attention has been centered on Title (part) IV of
this Civil Rights bill. This Title would restrict discrimination in selling, renting,
or leasing of housing. I commented on its provisions recently and will discuss
final action on this Title in the next newsletter. Now I want to mention briefly the
other provisions of the bill as recommended by the Committee.
Title I requires that juries in federal courts be selected from a cross section
of the community. Names for jury service are to be taken from the voter registration
rolls and selected "at random" without regard to race, religion, sex, national origin,
or economic status. The rule that a juror must be able to read and write is retained
But the so-called "keyman system" would be eliminated. Under this system certain
individuals (keymen) in various communities are asked to submit names of persons who
they think would be suitable for jury service. It is felt that too often the keymen
recommend for jury duty "members of the social and economic classes" to which they
themselves belong. Those who objected to this Title said that it had been given
insufficient study and examination.
Title II provides that no person could be excluded from jury service in a
state court because of race, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status. The
U. S. Attorney General is authorized to take action to prevent such discrimination
where it may exist. If no discrimination is practiced, state laws and procedures may
continue. Proponents of this Title argued that "those whose property and personal
freedom hang on the decision of a jury...are entitled to the unalloyed impartiality
and the equal protection that can only be achieved if the selection process remains
untainted by discrimination." Opponents said that this was an unnecessary and
unconstitutional interference by the federal government in the affairs of the states,
and that it would complicate and delay law enforcement and criminal prosecution.
Title III empowers the U. S. Attorney General to ask a federal court to inter-
vene when it appears that any person because of race, religion, or national origin is
preventing, or is about to prevent, another person from exercising or seeking his
constitutional rights through lawful means. The affected person may also seek the
court's assistance. Opponents insisted that this Title was poorly written, practi-
cally unintelligible, and that it would permit anyone who claimed he was about to be
denied some right to take his problem into federal court.
Title V makes it a federal crime to interfere with a person because of race or
color who is lawfully engaged in activities relative to voting, school attendance,
seeking employment, etc. Proponents state that this Title "is intended to strengthen
the Government's capability to meet the problem of civil rights violence." It would
permit the federal government to punish those who because of race commit crimes
against those seeking to enjoy the rights mentioned above. Opponents say this is
discriminatory. It makes a certain act a federal crime if committed because of race
in a civil rights matter, whereas the same act becomes a state crime if committed for
a different reason or while the victim is engaged in a different activity.
Title VI gives the Attorney General power to take action to desegregate public
education and public facilities without a written complaint. Under the current 1964
law he must have received a written complaint, must have given sufficient time for
voluntary compliance, and must show that segregation continues. The new power would
make it easier for the Attorney General to bring desegregation suits. Opponents
believe he should act only upon complaint and that the 1964 law is too new to need
radical revision.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
AUGUST 10, 1966
The House of Representatives spent its second week in consideration of the
civil rights bill and, at this writing, it appears that we will go into a third
week before the final decisions are made. A number of amendments have been
adopted, and it is certain that further changes will be voted. I expect to give
a final rundown on the legislation next week.
REPEAL PARTICIPATION SALES ACT: Last Wednesday I introduced legislation to
repeal the Participation Sales Act. approved by the President on May 24. This is
the High Interest Act of 1966, demanded by Mr. Johnson, which benefits only the
big investors. It greatly increases interest costs for Uncle Sam, and discriminates
against the folks who purchase Series E Treasury Savings Bonds.
In order to make the federal budget appear to be more nearly in balance,
the President persuaded the Democratic Congress to permit him to pool certain
financial assets held by governmental agencies and to sell participation certifi-
cates or shares in these assets to private investors. Now the first "participa-
tions" have been sold and the investors who can afford the $5,000 minimum are
being paid interest at the rate of 5.75 per cent with maturity from one to five
years, and of 5.4 per cent for longer terms. In contrast, the small investor who
buys an E bond gets only 4.15 per cent if he holds his bond for seven years.
This is an unfair discrimination.
Republicans had predicted this situation when the bill was considered in
the House. Every Republican voted for a motion to prohibit the government from
paying more than 4.75 per cent interest on any participation sold. But the
Democratic-controlled House voted down this limit. Now that our fears of high rates
for the favored few have been proved, we would welcome support from the Democrats
to repeal the Sales Act or at least to establish a limit on the interest rate.
Recently the Treasury announced it was offering $1,000 notes maturing in
four years and nine months and paying 5½ per cent interest. This, too, is
discrimination against the family of ordinary means who is complying with his
government's request to buy savings bonds.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES: Over 230,000 civilian employees were added to the payroll
in the executive branch of the government during the fiscal year ending June 30th.
The total number employed at the end of this year was 2,738,248 as compared with
2,508,119 in June, 1965.
SLIP, SLIDE, AND DUCK: Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman has stated
the position of the Johnson Administration on inflation. When asked recently at
a Democratic candidates' school how to handle questions about the increased cost
of living, the Secretary in all seriousness replied: "I've been trying to figure
out an answer to that question for six years. Slip, slide and duck any questions
on higher consumer prices if you possibly can."
I'm sure the American people are not going to let the Democratic candidates
off that easily. Of course, the Democrats will try to duck all questions on the
increased cost of living. The people know and the candidates know that it is
Democratic fiscal policy that promotes inflation and drives up prices to new re-
cords with each succeeding month.
THANK YOU: To all of you who cast your vote for me last Tuesday, although
there was no contest, I want to express my sincere appreciation. Your endorsement
was encouraging and I trust that I may continue to merit your confidence.
MICHIGAN'S VOTING RECORD: The number of Michigan's citizens going to the
polls is better than the national average but falls short of the record or of a
desirable goal. I'm sure that all of us will agree that voting is both a privi-
lege and a responsibility. Yet in 1964 only 65.5 per cent of the voting age
population in Michigan voted for a U.S. Representative. We did better than the
national average of 57.9 per cent but fell well behind the leading state, Utah,
where 77.8 per cent of the voting age population cast ballots for Congressmen.
At the other extreme was Arkansas with only 11.6 per cent.
Today Michigan has 4,735,000 persons of voting age. Of these 215,000 have
reached 21 since the 1964 election. We hope these young folks will help boost
our percentage of voter participation this fall.
GEMINI FILM: Any group interested in showing a 28-minute color film of
the flights of Gemini 6 and 7 spaceships may call my Grand Rapids office
(GL 6-9747) which has the film for scheduling. Shown are the adventures of four
astronauts as one spaceeraft finds another high above the earth, and Jim Lovell
and Frank Borman whirl in orbit for 14 days. Those who have seen the film are
enthusiastic about it.
RECENT VISITORS: From Grand Rapids: Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Yakes and family,
The Ray Reynolds' family, Kenneth O. Zick, Mr. and Mrs. P.W.H. Hoekstra and
family, Mr. and Mrs. Gene Larabee, Mr. and Mrs. Orval Reed, Mr. and Mrs. Ed
Hondik, Dr. Winston Prothro and Win, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur DoBosz and Paul.
From Cedar Springs: Mr. and Mrs. A1 Gust and Jim. From Caledonia: Mr. and Mrs.
Clarence Rodgers. From Lyons: Miss Diana Trierweiler, From Ionia: Mr. Max
Mason. From Portland: Miss Mary Lou Schneider. From Pewamo: Miss Joan Weber.
From Sparta: Mr. and Mrs. Ed Frick.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
August 17, 1966
After twelve days of debate, the House of Representatives arrived at its final
decisions on the Civil Rights bill last Tuesday evening. As you know, the bill as
amended was approved by a vote of 259 to 157.
Title IV relating to housing was the most controversial part of the bill.
President Johnson had urged far-reaching legislation prohibiting anyone from refusing
to sell, rent, or lease his home or apartment to another person because of race, color,
religion, or national origin. The bill as recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary partially exempted from the provisions of the law individual homes and
apartment houses of four units or less, one of which is occupied by the owner. Real
estate agents acting for an exempt owner are also exempted from the provisions of the
law under an amendment approved by the House.
When a motion was made to delete Title IV from the bill, I voted in favor of
the motion. Our own state along with many others has strong legislation in this
area. Housing problems can and should be solved locally. The enactment of this
provision calls for the establishment of another powerful federal agency with
authority to investigate thousands of complaints that are bound to arise under this
bill. It could set aside state law and discourage local effort.
Furthermore, the provisions of Title IV are subject to a variety of interpre-
tations. Title IV contains many ambiguities and there is doubt in the minds of many
good lawyers as to its constitutionality. Moreover, those who stress the moral aspect
are hard put to explain that something which is right once or twice becomes wrong
when done three times. Under Title IV a person can discriminate in two sales per year
but not on any more.
Having voted for civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965, I am
certain everyone knows I believe that racial discrimination is a social and moral
wrong. But for the federal government to attempt to prohibit discrimination in the
sale or rental of housing raises far-reaching questions relative to the freedom of
each American to use and dispose of his home as he sees fit. We may not agree with
his viewpoint; we may not approve of his prejudice; we may not like his motives, but
we can properly question whether the power of the federal government should be used to
deny him the right to make his own decision. I think there are other ways of
resolving the problem than those provided in Title IV.
As I pointed out two weeks ago, there are five other significant titles in
this bill. They get at certain important aspects of civil rights. They help to
guarantee a fair trial by an impartial jury in both federal and state courts. They
help to protect those who use lawful means to achieve lawful privileges. They
strengthen the power of the government to secure for all Americans their constitu-
tional rights. These are legitimate objectives and the means provided seem fair.
Furthermore, Rep. Cramer (Republican of Florida) offered a constructive anti-
riot amendment which was adopted by a vote of 389 to 25. This amendment makes it a
federal crime to travel in interstate commerce or use the mails for the purpose of
inciting, promoting, or encouraging a riot or other violent civil disturbance, or for
the purpose of committing a crime of violence, arson, bombing, etc., or for the pur-
pose of encouraging or assisting any other person to perform such illegal acts. This
is intended to get at the rabble rousers including the leaders of the Klu Klux Klan
and the other extremists who are making a business out of rioting, and who are capi-
talizing on the recent preaching of civil disobedience.
Because of the importance of the other parts of the bill including the Cramer
amendment, I voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1966 on final passage. In balancing
the desirable provisions of the bill against the undesirable ones, I felt that the
legislation overall was worthy of support.
SOME STATISTICS ON THE DEBATE: The House devoted nearly 62 hours over a
period of 12 days in consideration of this civil rights bill. There were 13 quorum
calls (members answer "present") and six yea-and-nay votes. A total of 101 amendments
were offered on the floor; of these 31 were adopted, 58 were rejected, and 12 were
not considered. In addition to the six recorded votes, Congressmen were required to
vote 34 times by rising to be counted and had to walk between tellers to indicate
their vote on 21 occasions.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION: Last Wednesday the House considered and passed S. 3105,
a bill authorizing $1,065,973,000 worth of military construction throughout the world.
The largest single item was $510 million for military family housing. None of this
will go for new construction. All is for operating, maintaining, and financing
present housing and for leasing some additional units. The only expenditure scheduled
for Michigan is $358,000 for operational facilities and troop housing at Wurtsmith
A.F.B., Oscoda.
RECENT VISITORS: From Grand Rapids: Mr. Walter DeLange, Sr. and Jr.; Mr. and
Mrs. Emery Hansen and three children; Mr. and Mrs. Clifford McMann and four daughters;
Rev. and Mrs. Virgil Bopp and Bob; Marvin Douker; Mr. and Mrs. Lee Schneider, William
and Sue; Mr. and Mrs. Carl L. DeVree, Jeff and Susan; Mr. and Mrs. Casey Oegema, Ann,
Gary, and Linda; Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Barkin and family; Mr. and Mrs. Chester DeKorne;
Mr. and Mrs. S. Kuipers; Mr. and Mrs. Paul Frantz and family; Mr. and Mrs. H. Dykstra
and family; Miss Kathleen Sullivan; Mr. and Mrs. E. Fredrickson; Mrs. Thomas F. Smith
and sons.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
August 17, 1966
After twelve days of debate, the House of Representatives arrived at its final
decisions on the Civil Rights bill last Tuesday evening. As you know, the bill as
amended was approved by a vote of 259 to 157.
Title IV relating to housing was the most controversial part of the bill.
President Johnson had urged far-reaching legislation prohibiting anyone from refusing
to sell, rent, or lease his home or apartment to another person because of race, color,
religion, or national origin. The bill as recommended by the Committee on the
Judiciary partially exempted from the provisions of the law individual homes and
apartment houses of four units or less, one of which is occupied by the owner. Real
estate agents acting for an exempt owner are also exempted from the provisions of the
law under an amendment approved by the House.
When a motion was made to delete Title IV from the bill, I voted in favor of
the motion. Our own state along with many others has strong legislation in this
area. Housing problems can and should be solved locally. The enactment of this
provision calls for the establishment of another powerful federal agency with
authority to investigate thousands of complaints that are bound to arise under this
bill. It could set aside state law and discourage local effort.
Furthermore, the provisions of Title IV are subject to a variety of interpre-
tations. Title IV contains many ambiguities and there is doubt in the minds of many
good lawyers as to its constitutionality. Moreover, those who stress the moral aspect
are hard put to explain that something which is right once or twice becomes wrong
when done three times. Under Title IV a person can discriminate in two sales per
year but not on any more.
Having voted for civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1965, I am
certain everyone knows I believe that racial discrimination is a social and moral
wrong. But for the federal government to attempt to prohibit discrimination in the
sale or rental of housing raises far-reaching questions relative to the freedom of
each American to use and dispose of his home as he sees fit. We may not agree with
his viewpoint; we may not approve of his prejudice; we may not like his motives, but
we can properly question whether the power of the federal government should be used to
deny him the right to make his own decision. I think there are other ways of
resolving the problem than those provided in Title IV.
As I pointed out two weeks ago, there are five other significant titles in
this bill. They get at certain important aspects of civil rights. They help to
guarantee a fair trial by an impartial jury in both federal and state courts. They
help to protect those who use lawful means to achieve lawful privileges. They
strengthen the power of the government to secure for all Americans their constitu-
tional rights. These are legitimate objectives and the means provided seem fair.
Furthermore, Rep. Cramer (Republican of Florida) offered a constructive anti-
riot amendment which was adopted by a vote of 389 to 25. This amendment makes it a
federal crime to travel in interstate commerce or use the mails for the purpose of
inciting, promoting, or encouraging a riot or other violent civil disturbance, or for
the purpose of committing a crime of violence, arson, bombing, etc., or for the pur-
pose of encouraging or assisting any other person to perform such illegal acts. This
is intended to get at the rabble rousers including the leaders of the Klu Klux Klan
and the other extremists who are making a business out of rioting, and who are capi-
talizing on the recent preaching of civil disobedience.
Because of the importance of the other parts of the bill including the Cramer
amendment, I voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1966 on final passage. In balancing
the desirable provisions of the bill against the undesirable ones, I felt that the
legislation overall was worthy of support.
SOME STATISTICS ON THE DEBATE: The House devoted nearly 62 hours over a
period of 12 days in consideration of this civil rights bill. There were 13 quorum
calls (members answer "present") and six yea-and-nay votes. A total of 101 amendments
were offered on the floor; of these 31 were adopted, 58 were rejected, and 12 were
not considered. In addition to the six recorded votes, Congressmen were required to
vote 34 times by rising to be counted and had to walk between tellers to indicate
their vote on 21 occasions.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION: Last Wednesday the House considered and passed S. 3105,
a bill authorizing $1,065,973,000 worth of military construction throughout the world.
The largest single item was $510 million for military family housing. None of this
will go for new construction. All is for operating, maintaining, and financing
present housing and for leasing some additional units. The only expenditure scheduled
for Michigan is $358,000 for operational facilities and troop housing at Wurtsmith
A.F.B., Oscoda.
RECENT VISITORS: From Grand Rapids: Mr. Walter DeLange, Sr. and Jr.; Mr. and
Mrs. Emery Hansen and three children; Mr. and Mrs. Clifford McMann and four daughters;
Rev. and Mrs. Virgil Bopp and Bob; Marvin Douker; Mr. and Mrs. Lee Schneider, William
and Sue; Mr. and Mrs. Carl L. DeVree, Jeff and Susan; Mr. and Mrs. Casey Oegema, Ann,
Gary, and Linda; Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Barkin and family; Mr. and Mrs. Chester DeKorne;
Mr. and Mrs. S. Kuipers; Mr. and Mrs. Paul Frantz and family; Mr. and Mrs. H. Dykstra
and family; Miss Kathleen Sullivan; Mr. and Mrs. E. Fredrickson; Mrs. Thomas F. Smith
and sons.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
August 24, 1966
The proposal to establish a new cabinet-level "Department of Transportation" is
the major legislative item scheduled for consideration by the House of Representatives
this week. Included in the proposed new Department would be the Bureau of Public
Roads, the Federal Aviation Agency, the Coast Guard, and the Maritime Commission.
The responsibilities of the Civil Aeronautics Board and of the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Transportation, and certain safety functions of the Interstate Commerce
Commission also would be transferred to the new Department. This would increase to
12 the number of members in the President's Cabinet.
In 1961 President Eisenhower recommended such a department as a means for
achieving greater efficiency and coordination in federal transportation policy.
Republicans in the House have indicated their overall support for the establishment
of a Department of Transportation. But they recommend certain changes in the specific
bill, H.R. 15963, which may be before the House this week.
The House Republican Policy Committee believes that the aviation accident in-
vestigating function of the CAB should remain independent; that the Maritime Adminis-
tration should not be included in the new department; that the urban mass transporta-
tion program should be transferred from HUD to the new department (H.R.15963 does not
do so), and that there should be deleted from the bill that section which appears to
give the Secretary of Transportation certain authority to determine exclusively how
and where federal money should be spent to aid transportation. This section should
be eliminated so that further study can be given to its implications; it is feared
that the authority given the Secretary could lead him to favor and help one mode of
transportation over the others without any consultation with the Congress.
HIGHWAY SAFETY: Two bills designed to improve safety on the highways were
approved by the House last week. One bill (H.R. 13228) sets up federal safety stand-
ards for motor vehicles and equipment including tires, and expands the existing
national driver register to include the name of almost every person who has been
denied a driver's license or had his license revoked or suspended.
The second bill, H.R. 13290, requires each state to have a highway safety pro-
gram approved by the Secretary of Commerce and authorizes $215 million for allocation
to the states over a three-year period to assist in the programs. The programs are to
include improved driver education and testing, accident investigation and reporting,
vehicle inspection, highway design and maintenance, and traffic control.
BEAUTY AND THE TAXPAYER: Taxpayers lost by a two-vote margin when the House of
Representatives recently refused to eliminate a $493 million beautification program
from the Federal-Aid Highway Act. No one has any objection to beautifying our high-
ways. But certainly this is one of those "non-essential" expenditures of tax money
which can be postponed until the war in Vietnam is over and there are less demands
for tax dollars. The vote was 175 to 173 with every Republican Congressman from
Michigan voting for the taxpayers. All the Democrats from Michigan who voted (five
were absent) went along with spending-as-usual.
MASS TRANSPORTATION FUNDS REDUCED: We did succeed in effecting savings in the
Urban Mass Transportation bill. The bill as recommended by the Committee on Public
Works authorized $175 million a year on a continuing basis. The House voted 205 to
161 to cut the amount to $150 million for the fiscal year 1968 only. This not only
saved $25 million but gives the Congress another opportunity to review the success or
failure of the program again next year. Furthermore, $150 million was the amount
requested by the President. Three Democratic Congressmen from Michigan voted to
increase the expenditure; four were absent while five Democrats joined all Republican
members from Michigan to hold the amount at $150 million.
Funds expended under the Urban Mass Transportation Act go to assist local
public agencies in developing and improving bus and rail facilities for public trans-
portation in urban areas.
ON A COLLISION COURSE: A serious constitutional issue developed last week when
a federal judge issued an order prohibiting the House Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties from holding a hearing to question critics of the Vietnam War. A higher court
overruled him but has retained the case for further action. At issue is not the
legality or feasibility of the war in Vietnam nor the need for, or justification of, a
given congressional committee. The issue is a continuation of our constitutional sys-
tem of checks and balances which has so long been the security of the people's liberty.
A federal judge has sought to interfere with a function of the Congress. The
question is whether the judicial branch of our government CAR obstruct the legisla-
tive branch in carrying out its constitutional function. My good friend, Rep. Richard
Poff (Rep. Va.) pointed out to the House the seriousness of this attempt of a federal
judge "to trespass upon the domain of the people's elected representatives." Mr. Poff
said: "What finally occurs involves the destiny of this Nation. Down one road lies
the destination of a continuance of our elective representative democracy operating
within the framework of its tripartite form of government. Down the other road lies
the destination of an appointive judicial oligarchy where the body of governmental
powers is unsubdivided, unseparated, and therefore unchecked."
If we are to preserve our liberties, the elected representatives of the people
may neither rubberstamp the demands of the President nor permit the courts to usurp
their prerogatives.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
August 31, 1966
During consideration of the Defense Appropriation Bill last Thursday, the House
of Representatives voted 378 to 3 against a Senate amendment authorizing the President
to call individual members of the Ready Reserve into active duty. The Senate proposed
that a man who had not served on active duty except for training could be called to
active duty for not more than 24 months. In selecting individuals the Department of
Defense would have been required to take into consideration family responsibilities,
the occupation of the person, and the preservation of the various Reserve units.
I joined in opposing the Senate amendment which failed primarily for two
reasons: this was legislation in an appropriation bill and was of such serious con-
sequence that the House felt it should give much more attention to it than could be
done while approving a conference report on an appropriation bill; second, the House
Committee on Armed Services at the moment was working on a comprehensive Reserve bill
(H.R. 17195) involving, among other things, the matter contained in the Senate amend-
ment. The House wanted to have more information and to be able to consider this
important issue more thoroughly than was possible on Thursday during one hour of
debate. I will report on H.R. 17195 when the Committee has completed its work and
made its recommendation.
ALL-ASIAN CONFERENCE ON VIETNAM: I have joined other Republican leaders in
urging prompt and thorough consideration of an All-Asian Conference to work toward a
just and peaceful settlement of the war in Vietnam. We know that neither Red China
nor Communist North Vietnam would participate (nor would the U.S. be a participant)
but we must encourage every effort to end the fighting in southeast Asia so we can
bring our servicemen home. The Asian nations have a major stake in this conflict and
can play a major role in working out an honorable settlement. We must use every
legitimate means at our disposal, military, economic, diplomatic, to achieve a prompt,
just, and secure peace in Vietnam.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: The House last week took up the proposal to
establish a new Department of Transportation but did not complete action. The final
decision is expected to be made this week. There is a great deal of opposition to
the President's suggestion that the Maritime Administration be included in the new
department. I share the view that it should be an independent agency.
AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATION BILL: On Wednesday the House approved the final
version of a $6.99 billion appropriation bill for the Department of Agriculture.
I had supported the bill when it originally passed the House on April 26th carrying a
spending figure of $6.87 billion. But after the Senate had completed action the
amount was up to $7.06 billion which the Conferees cut by $69 million. But the final
appropriation was $118.5 million more than the amount originally set by the House; it
represented an increase of $613 million over last year's appropriation; it exceeded
the budgetary request of the President. For these reasons I was one of those who
voted against the appropriation when it passed 325 to 28.
FARMING IN FIFTH DISTRICT: Exactly one-half of the land area of Kent County
is being used as farm land according to the latest (1964) U.S. Census of Agriculture.
In 1959, the figure was 56.5 percent. In Ionia County over 80 percent of the land is
now in farms; down only 3 percent since 1959.
During 1964 the 2,422 Kent County farms sold $20.5 million worth of products;
in 1959 the 2,087 farms produced $13.9 million worth of agricultural commodities. In
Ionia County 1,838 farms sold $17.6 million worth of goods in 1964; in 1959 the
respective figures were 2,087 farms and $14 million in goods.
Dairying represents the single largest type of farming in both counties with
each claiming just over 500 dairy farms. Sixty-four farms in the 5th District report
annual sales of $60,000 or more but the largest number of our farms fall in the
bracket of annual sales between $2,500 and $4,999.
MICHIGAN AGRICULTURE: Michigan continues to be the leading state in the
production of pickling cucumbers. According to the 1965 Farm Labor Report (Michigan
Employment Security Commission) a total of 79,000 tons were harvested last year with
about 13,600 tons left on the vines. Our state in 1965 was the third largest pro-
ducer of grapes (72,000 tons) and of apples (16 million bushels); and the fourth
largest producer of onions (5 million bushels) and of peaches (3 million bushels)
Two-thirds of all the sour cherries grown in the U. S. last year came from Michigan.
AT HOME ON LABOR DAY: Next Monday I'm planning to participate in the Fifth
Annual Labor Day Parade at Comstock Park at 1:00 and to be at the Sparta Rodeo later
in the afternoon.
My District Office at 425 Cherry Street, S.E., Grand Rapids is open daily from
9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. (telephone: GL 6-9747). If you have any questions or if I
can be of any service please let me know.
RECENT VISITORS: From Grand Rapids - Mr. and Mrs. James Kooi and four children.
Mrs. Robert Ekkens and Terry; Mr. and Mrs. R. D. Hyatt and family; Mr. and Mrs. Frank
Spies; Misses Bea Holben, Pam Paton, Lynn Watson, Deb VanderPloeg, Jan Wynkoop and
Mary Hanson; Steve Ward, Bob Newberg, Nels Olson, Art Lilly, Dave and Jim McBryde, Ken
Hanson; Mr. and Mrs. John Wilcox and three children; Miss Esther Austin; Mr. and Mrs.
William VanLopik and family; Mr. and Mrs. Clarence Inman, Bette and Joyce; Mr. and
Mrs. Terry G. Inman and son; Mr. and Mrs. John Zoutendam and family; Mr. John
Vredevoogd and two sons; Mr. and Mrs. J. Wagner and three sons.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
September 7, 1966
A new cabinet-level Department of Transportation was approved by the House of
Representatives last Wednesday. But the House by a vote of 261 to 117 removed from
the legislation any reference to the Maritime Administration. This agency, presently
with the Department of Commerce is devoted to the development, promotion, and opera-
tion of the U. S. merchant marine. President Johnson had urged its transfer to the
new department but Republicans agreed with all those close to the maritime industry
that the Maritime Administration should be an independent agency.
The problems of our merchant marine, as a vehicle of foreign commerce, are
quite different from other forms of domestic transit to be handled by the new depart-
ment. In addition, the House is seriously concerned with the deteriorating state of
our merchant marine. Republicans have pointed out that today there are only 1000
active U. S. flag ships, compared with 1,955 ships in 1951 and over 3,500 vessels in
1945. The U. S. has dropped to 14th place among the world's major shipbuilding
nations while Russia has risen from 12th to 7th place as a maritime nation. Mr.
Johnson has done little to remedy this situation.
Rather than bury the Maritime Administration in this new department, we have
urged that it be established as an independent agency. It is our feeling that such
an agency will more vigorously promote the development of our merchant marine fleet.
Legislation (H.R.11696) to establish an independent Maritime Administration was
recommended by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on August 8th despite
strong objections from the Johnson Administration.
The new Secretary of Transportation has been given FAA's responsibilities for
establishing regulations relative to aviation safety and CAB's responsibilities for
investigating aircraft accidents. Many of us felt that these functions should be
separated in order to promote greater safety and to insure an independent review of
all aircraft accidents. But we lost on a roll call vote 238 to 143.
PARCEL POST CHANGES: You may remember that I had certain reservations on the
bill approved by the House in June raising parcel post rates and increasing the
weight and size of packages which could be sent through the mail. Last Tuesday the
House approved a compromise worked out by the Senate to which all interested parties
have agreed.
There will be a graduated size and weight increase to 40 pounds and 84 inches
(now 20 pounds and 72 inches) over a five-year period starting July 1, 1967 between
those first class post offices where this is now not permitted. There will be an
average 10-cent increase in the cost of mailing all parcel post packages beginning
next January.
HIGHWAY LEGISLATION: When the House and Senate approve a different version of
a given bill, the legislation is often sent to a conference committee (composed of
Senators and Representatives) to work out a compromise which is called a conference
report. Last week the House approved three conference reports relative to highways.
The taxpayers finally won on the $493 million highway beautification program
which I mentioned two weeks ago. At that time I reported that the taxpayers lost
when by a two-vote margin the House voted to keep this proposed expenditure in the
bill. The Senate did not agree and this half-billion dollar expenditure of tax funds
was not in the conference report. The report did authorize an additional $7.8 billion
for federal aid to highways over the next five years. During the next fiscal year
(1968) Michigan is scheduled to receive $133.8 million out of a total allocation to
the states of $4.4 billion.
Conference reports were also approved on the National Traffic and Motor
Vehicle Safety Act (S.3005) and the Highway Safety Act (S.3052), both of which I have
discussed previously and both of which are designed to promote greater safety in
automobiles and by drivers.
VIETNAM VETERANS: The House and the Senate approved legislation last Wednesday
to amend the federal charters of the American Legion and AMVETS (American Veterans of
World War II) to permit those men who served with U. S. forces in the Vietnam hostili-
ties to become members. The bills have gone to the President for signature.
OFFICE INTERNS: During the past few months we have been fortunate to have
with us in Washington six college students from home on what is called an "intern
program." These young people are interested in a "work experience" in government as
part of their education in political science. They have been a big help in the office
and we trust that this experience has been valuable to them. This year's interns were
Miss Barbara Dean, 1349 Lenox Road, SE; Thomas Demling, 924 Three-Mile Road, NE;
William Garrow, 559 Laurel Avenue, SE; Miss Beverly DeGraaf, 3466 Devon Drive, NE;
Gregg Johnson, 3630 Glenn Drive, SE; Herbert Sperry, 1561 Groton Road, SE; all Grand
Rapids. Two other students from outside the 5th District were with us on a non-paid
basis. For valuable volunteer help this summer we are indebted to John Buell
(Amherst College) whose home is in Grosse Pointe, and to Miss Elizabeth Martin who
comes from Hingham, Massachusetts and attends Connecticut College.
RECENT VISITORS: From Byron Center: Miss Kathy Hust, Miss Mary Zandstra.
From Lowell: Miss Lynn Wittenbach. From Cedar Springs: Miss Faith Hawley. From
Comstock Park: Miss Pam Hoeksema. From Caledonia: Miss Judy Fairbrother, Mr. and
Mrs. A. J. Markus. From Ada: Dick VanderWarf. From Sparta: Michael Fales. From
Grand Rapids: Misses May Wiering and Jean Rasch; Mr. & Mrs. R.H. Bowles, Jan & Lisa.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
September 14, 1966
"Tight money" has become a serious problem in most areas of our country and is
causing a real hardship for many groups and individuals. Interest rates are at the
highest peak in 45 years. Those who want to build or purchase a home may find it im-
possible to obtain a loan at a reasonable rate of interest, The national average for
mortgage money on existing homes is over 6 percent. Personal installment loans call
for interest ranging from 5½ to almost 8 percent. Prime business loans are at a 6
percent minimum. The short-sighted fiscal policies of the Johnson Administration,
including its sale of governmental agency obligations with a return to investors of
up to 6 percent, have been a major cause in this development,
Last week the House considered H.R. 14026, a bill relative to interest rate
controls. The House rejected the Committee's recommendations (Patman bill) that no
bank by law be permitted to pay more than 4½ percent interest on deposits under
$100,000. President Johnson and his advisors were opposed to the Patman proposal,
The House as an alternative approved a proposal granting to federal agencies
flexible authority to set the maximum interest rate paid on time deposits. Actually
the legislation will not do much more than what can be done under existing law, but
on final passage I voted for the bill in the hope that it may help to alleviate the
critical situation of high interest rates,
THE MINIMUM WAGE: The final version (Conference report) of the amendments to
the minimum wage law was approved by the House last Wednesday. I voted for the bill
which extends coverage under the act and increases the minimum wage for those
presently under the law to $1.60 on February 1, 1968.
When the bill was originally passed by the House in May, the effective date
for the $1.60 minimum was set at February 1, 1969. By a vote of 205 to 194 the House
specifically set that date. Many of us thought that the conferees did not give
sufficient weight to this decision of the House. We felt that they should have
insisted upon the original House position, But by a vote of 183 to 163, the House
refused to order its conferees to make a further effort to get the Senate to accept
the House date.
ON FILING TAX RETURNS: If the legislation approved by the House last Tuesday
becomes law, most of us will be sending our 1966 income tax returns to Cincinnati
instead of Detroit, The new law would permit the Treasury to require taxpayers to
mail the returns to one of the seven IRS regional centers rather than to one of the
58 district offices as at present. Because of the use of an automatic data processing
system for handling the returns, the Treasury contends that savings of at least $4
million a year will be achieved by this change and that refunds would be distributed
more promptly.
No services to taxpayers are to be curtailed under the new plan and anyone who
wishes to do so may still hand deliver his tax returns to the nearest IRS office.
The legislation also legalizes what has been accepted in practice for years that the
date of filing tax returns will be determined by the postmark on the envelope rather
than the time of receipt in the IRS offices.
ON LAW ENFORCEMENT: The House approved last week a Republican-sponsored bill
to establish a National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, The Commission
is assigned the task of making a comprehensive study of federal criminal laws
including decisions of the federal courts relating to criminal justice.
The Congress is deeply concerned with the rising crime rate and with the recent
revelation that the rate of convictions in criminal cases is declining. As was stated
in debate we must do something about "the obstacles which law enforcement agencies
have had thrust upon them;" we must do something "to make the policeman the good guy
that he used to be rather than the bad guy that he appears to be in the eyes of many
people at the present time; we must modernize our laws to meet the very real threat
of the growing problem of disrespect for law."
The House also approved legislation extending for two years the federal program
to assist states in training state and local law enforcement personnel. It authorized
$45 million for this purpose to be spent during this fiscal year and the next.
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AT THE SERVICE ACADEMIES: Young men who will have
graduated from high school by June, 1967, are unmarried, and under 22 years of age
are eligible for consideration for appointment to one of the service academies. For
the class entering next July, the Fifth District is entitled to one appointment to
the Military Academy at West Point, two to the Naval Academy at Annapolis, and one to
the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs. My appointments will be based on the
results of an open, competitive Civil Service examination taken by those boys who
make application. The examination this year will be given on Saturday morning,
November 5, and will be open to those who are legal residents of Kent and Ionia
Counties. Applications, to be returned by October 20th, may be obtained from my
District Office at 425 Cherry Street, S.E., Grand Rapids (telephone GL 6-9747), or by
writing me at the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
A Congressman may also nominate ten candidates for the Merchant Marine Academy
at Kings Point, N.Y. Final selection is by the Academy on a state-wide basis. The
Coast Guard makes its own selection of cadets to attend the Academy at New London,
Connecticut. We will be pleased to supply forms and additional information to anyone
interested in service as a Coast Guard Officer or in the Merchant Marine.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
September 21, 1966
The President's anti-inflationary proposals were examined at public hearings
last week by the Committee on Ways and Means which may make its recommendations this
week. These proposals in H.R. 17607 call for the suspension of certain tax incentives
to business. It is generally agreed that the effect of such action in curtailing
inflation will not be noticeable for a long time, if at all.
The President's promise to cut down on "lower priority" federal spending and to
halt the sale of certain high interest government obligations may be some help. But
Republicans have been recommending this for months.
However, the President's proposals in his special message to the Congress are
as the New York Times said, "a sign that the Administration may have finally realized
that it cannot be fiscally responsible so long as it indulges in financial gimmickry."
The Great Society is in deep trouble. Unfortunately, it can be bailed out
only by consumers through higher prices and by taxpayers through higher taxes.
Higher prices are already here and are going up. Unless every indication is wrong,
President Johnson will demand higher taxes on all individuals soon after the election.
TWO MORE APPROPRIATION BILLS: The House last week approved the eighth and
ninth of the 12 regular appropriation bills which must be passed each session to
supply funds to operate the Government. On Tuesday it approved a $381 million budget
for the District of Columbia. Of this amount the direct federal payment to the
District by taxpayers from all over the country totals $52.4 million. In addition the
District's share of federal-state grant programs will amount to $119 million which is
over and above the budget. The amount to be raised by local taxation, fees, charges,
etc. is about $329 million. A Republican effort to make a 5 percent across-the-board
reduction in District of Columbia expenditures was defeated 217 to 103 with 112
members absent.
On Wednesday the $1 billion military construction appropriation bill was approved
The House cut the President's request for funds by $95 million and the amount approved
was $1.9 billion less than for last year. But when the unspent portion of the money
appropriated last year is added to the new appropriations, the Department of Defense
will have nearly $2.3 billion to spend on all types of construction needed by the
armed forces. Michigan is scheduled to get $473,000 of the new money: $358,000 for
Wurtsmith AFB at Oscoda and $115,000 for the Air Force Station at Sault Ste. Marie.
MORE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT: You will remember that before the House passed the
civil rights bill it adopted the anti-riot amendment proposed by my good friend, Rep.
William Cramer, Republican of Florida. Now that the Senate has decided to take no
action on the civil rights bill, Rep. Cramer has introduced a separate bill identical
to his amendment. This bill would make it a federal offense to travel in or use any
facility of interstate commerce (such as the mails) with the intent of inciting to
riot or other forms of violent civil disobedience. We hope the House will act promptly
on this bill which it has already approved as an amendment by a vote of 389 to 25.
Legislation has been approved by the Committee on Un-American Activities and
the Committee on Rules to strengthen the authority of the government to halt the
solicitation and collection of money or property in the U. S. for use by the North
Vietnamese and the Vietcong, and to deal with those in our country who interfere with
the movement of personnel and supplies of our armed forces. Evidence was presented
to show that groups in the U. S. have been collecting money and supplies for donation
to enemy forces, and we are all familiar with the various attempts to halt troop
trains in California. This legislation (H.R. 12047) should be approved.
SEA-CRANT COLLEGES: All of us are familiar with the term "land-grant college"
(Michigan State for example), but the expression "sea-grant college" is much newer
and less familiar. Last week the House voted to authorize $15 million for use during
the next two years for development of "sea-grant colleges". In effect these will be
existing institutions of higher education which institute or expand programs of
education, training, and research in marine science and oceanography.
Congress is concerned with the need to accelerate our underseas exploration.
We were told that the U. S. has some 700 marine scientists supported by about 2,500
technicians. The Soviet Union has approximately 1,500 such scientists and over
7,500 engineers and technicians. Sponsors of the legislation pointed out that "fish,
the cheapest source of protein for the world's rising population, are a prime target
for Soviet trawlers. The USSR have made a science out of fishing and have their
oceanographers go out with their fishing fleets and give them instructions as to how
and where to fish."
Sponsors also stressed the fact that the U. S. now imports 62 percent of its
fish products at a cost of $600 million a year. Of course there are other products
from the sea, and other problems of interest to oceanographers. Under this bill
federal matching funds will go to educational institutions to train students, to
promote research, and to disseminate information in this specialized field. Institu-
tions in the Great Lakes area are eligible to participate.
RECENT VISITORS: From Grand Rapids: Mr. and Mrs. H. Clemens, Curt and Ron;
Mr. and Mrs. Wm. Huizenga, Mark and Beth; David E. Newton; Mr. and Mrs. D. Baatenburg;
Mr. and Mrs. Don Vandertill, Mike and Myrna; Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Peterson; The VanKuiker
Family; Blair Murphy; Mr. and Mrs. Sam Kcukios, Evans and Leah; Mrs. T. Droste & Family;
Rev. and Mrs. Everett F. Ellis & James. From Wyeming: Mrs. Fran Hoag, Jerry & James,
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
September 28, 1966
Republicans succeeded in further cutting the 1967 foreign aid appropriation by
$45 millions before this $3.6 billion money bill was approved by the House of Repre-
sentatives last Tuesday. The Committee on Appropriations had reduced President
Johnson's request by $295 million. The vote for the further reduction was 187 to
182. Every Democratic Congressman from Michigan voted for higher spending while all
Republicans from our state except one voted to make this modest reduction.
The Democratic-dominated Committee said in its Report: "The foreign assistance
program has never ranked high with the American people generally; it seems to enjoy
only degrees of unpopularity." But the Committee went on to say that we must agree
"that our past aid in defense of the free world has paid dividends by helping to
thwart and frustrate the world communist drive. Not only has it foiled aggression;
it has brought stability to a number of countries. But no one seriously thinks that
foreign aid is a panacea for all the ills at which it is directed. It is only one
device, one tool
Despite the dedicated efforts of many, foreign aid over the years
has been beset with innumerable mistakes in administration - with too much waste:
too many ill-advised or premature project undertakings
But the majority opinion is
that these considerations, standing alone, ought not to obscure the objectives of the
foreign aid programs and the purposes they have served and the good they have
accomplished over the years
Constant review, constant reevaluation, constant but
constructive criticism of the aid programs, both in the administrative and legisla-
tive branches, are needed." I believe this statement of the Committee is fair. I
voted for the bill on final passage when it was approved 234 to 141.
PUBLIC WORKS APPROPRIATION: On the $4.1 billion appropriation for public works,
the second money bill passed last week, I voted "no." This is the bill which includes
funds for rivers, harbors, reservoirs, canals, waterways, etc. It is true that the
Committee cut $56 million from the President's request. But when $4 billion in public
works is involved, certainly additional savings can be made. Yet the House beat down
every attempt to make any reductions in the dollar amounts. Furthermore it defeated
a motion to reduce all items by five percent. And included in the bill is an item
for $500,000 to start construction of the proposed Lake Erie-Ohio Canal, a giant
program that will cost the U. S. taxpayers $1 billion to $3 billions. There is a
question of whether the canal is really needed and whether it is worth the cost.
This is something that could have been postponed until the Vietnam War is over. And
with the President expected to demand a tax increase shortly, it seemed to me we
should have made greater reductions in this area of federal spending.
PICTURED ROCKS NATIONAL LAKESHORE: The House last Monday approved a bill
establishing the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in Alger County between Munising
and Grand Marais on Lake Superior. It will border the Lake for about 39 miles and
will vary in depth from two to five miles. The park area will include 67,000 acres
of land and 6,320 acres of water surface. The purpose of the legislation is to
preserve the scenic area including the "pictured rocks" and to provide outdoor
recreational facilities. The area contains a half dozen waterfalls, many miles of
stream, and 20 or more lakes and ponds. It is heavily forested and abounds in
wildlife. This park area is. 425 miles from Grand Rapids.
AN INCREASE IN VETERANS' PENSIONS: The House on Monday also approved a new
schedule for non-service-connected pensions for veterans, their widows, and children.
If the bill becomes law, veterans now drawing pensions will receive an average
increase of 4.4 percent. The average increase for all pensioners--veterans, widows,
and children-will be 5.4 percent. Since the last increase in pension benefits the
cost of living has gone up 4.1 percent.
The Veterans Administration spent $1.9 billion last year on non-service-
connected pensions. Under the new bill, 1,830,411 veterans, widows, and children
would benefit from the increases which will cost $101,433,000 the first year. This
bill in no way affects compensation paid for service-connected disabilities.
INTERNAL SECURITY: A strange thing happened last Thursday: The Democratic
leadership scheduled for consideration a bill to prohibit the collection and delivery
of money for helping North Vietnam or the Vietcong, and to prohibit any obstruction of
troop trains in our country - but the bill was not called up for a vote because of a
threatened filibuster by a group of liberal Democrats.
This is hard to explain. One would expect no serious opposition to such a pro-
posal, regardless of our feelings toward the Vietnam War. We can't condone giving aid
to the enemy or interfering in the movement of troop trains. But the extent to which
man's thinking can be strained is illustrated by an editorial in a Washington news-
paper which said this bill "would penalize protests against the war in Vietnam
would in short adopt the technique of totalitarianism in place of the American tradi-
tion of freedom." I disagree vigorously because the U. S. is engaged in a critical
military conflict, and any person accused does have the right of a jury trial.
VIETNAM BOOKLET: Republicans in the House have prepared a 40-page booklet, "The
United States and the War in Vietnam." A copy is available upon request to my office.
RECENT VISITORS: From Ionia: Miss Sue Stencel, Paula Ohlrich, Miss Christina
Miller, Miss Judy Hankins, Terry Hankins. From Muir: Miss Marilyn Hearld. From
Grandville: Miss Myra Rozeboom, Miss Marian Payne. From Grand Rapids: Mr. and Mrs.
Gordon L. Campbell, David and Kathleen; Mrs. Robert Siegel and family, Mrs. Don LaJoie.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
October 5, 1966
The House of Representatives spent four days last week debating the so-called
War on Poverty. The story of poor planning, mismanagement, waste, and political
shenanigans in this program is well-known and well-documented. True, there have been
some exceptions in certain specific projects in certain areas. Fortunately in our own
District, we have had excellent leadership and some very successful programs. But
the House last week had to pass judgment on the overall program and weigh the benefits
against costs. This was not primarily a partisan issue - some Democratic Congressmen
have been extremely critical of the Office of Economic Opportunity.
Republicans did submit a constructive, alternative proposal called the
"Opportunity Crusade Act of 1966." This would have given to existing federal and
local agencies additional authority and funds to fight the war on poverty. Instead
of a new, bungling bureaucracy, we would use the schools, office of education, the
Labor Department, etc., to carry on a constructive, less costly effort to help the
poor to help themselves. The OEO would retain only the community action program and
the domestic Peace Corps. But the "Opportunity Crusade" was turned down by the
Democratic-controlled House.
FOOD FOR PEACE: When the House approved "The Food for Peace Act of 1966" it
ruled that none of our surplus farm products should be sold at bargain prices (con-
cessional or subsidized sales) to nations that trade with North Vietnam or Cuba.
Republicans insisted on this rule in face of the determined opposition of President
Johnson. And the House agreed. The Senate however eliminated this rule and the
House-Senate Conferees went along with the President and the Senate.
The Republican Policy Committee reiterated Republican insistence that any
country which expects to buy our farm goods at bargain prices should in no way help
our Communist enemies.
SUSPENSION OF INVESTMENT CREDIT: In 1962 President Kennedy recommended and
the Congress approved a 7-percent tax credit for those businesses which invested in
certain new plant and equipment. This was to increase investments at a time when the
economy needed "pepping up." Now President Johnson wants to suspend this incentive in
order to "cool off" the economy. Under current law a business which invests in new
plant and equipment may deduct from its annual federal income tax, 7 percent of the
cost of any qualified investment. If President Johnson's proposal becomes law this
investment credit will be suspended from September 9, 1966 through December 13, 1967.
In the bill as recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, the suspension
does not apply to investments up to $15,000 by a taxpayer or a business made during
the suspension period.
Three Republican members of the Committee said they did not feel that the sus-
pension offered any real solution to the serious inflation plaguing the nation under
President Johnson. But they said they would support this bill because it was "at
least a step by the Administration toward recognition that inflationary pressures in
our economy must be restrained." They agreed however, that "no tax changes will be
effective unless there is a real reduction and restraint on runaway Government
spending.' Five Republicans on the Committee in opposing the bill stated: "Let no
one be misled. This bill is presented by the Administration to relieve the infla-
tionary pressures confronting our economy. The basic cause of inflation is clear -
excessive Government spending
What is needed is a period of restraint - not just
on the part of labor or on the part of business - but on the part of Government."
Republicans agree that the only way to hold down taxes is to reduce non-
essential spending. We can't escape a tax increase without restraint in spending.
RESERVE FORCES BILL: The House has approved a bill which among other things
gives the President authority to call to active duty certain individual reservists in
the armed services without declaring a national emergency. If this bill becomes law,
the President may order to active duty up to 133,000 members of the Ready Reserve
attached to drilling units who had become members before July 1, 1966 but who had not
received their minimum training of 4 months or more in the Reserve enlistment program.
The President would also be authorized to call to active duty up to 64,000
members of the Ready Reserve who are not attached to an organized unit in the
drilling Reserves and who have neither satisfied their Reserve military obligation nor
completed a total of 24 months of active duty or active duty for training.
SUMMER JOBS IN 1967: Anyone interested in a temporary job with the federal
government next summer may qualify by taking an examination this fall or winter. The
opportunity to be an "Office or Science Assistant" is open to high school graduates
or others over 18 for employment from May through September. Salaries will range from
$69 to $92 per week. The jobs are located in federal agencies and installations
throughout the United States, including the Washington, D. C. area.
The examination will be given in Grand Rapids and many other cities on
November 26. (applications must be in by October 21), on January 7, and on February 4.
Applications for the last two dates must be in by December 9 and January 9, respec-
tively. Those interested should obtain a copy of the Civil Service Commission
Announcement No. 401 entitled "Office and Science Assistant Examination for 1967.
I will be pleased to send a copy upon a request addressed either to my Grand Rapids
or Washington office. A copy also may be obtained at most college placement offices
and at civil service information points in some post offices.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
October 12, 1966
Heralded as a great, boon to housewives, ridiculed as doing practically nothing,
and condemned as a superficial, politically-oriented proposition, the "Fair Packaging
and Labeling Act" was approved by the House of Representatives last Monday. This
bill, H.R. 15440, is quite different from S. 985, the so-called "Truth in Packaging"
bill, which passed the Senate but was rejected by the House Committee after extended
public hearings.
The bill as approved by the House is aimed only at those who package or label
goods and not at the wholesaler or retailer. The bill's mandatory regulations
provide that labels identify the commodity and its maker, that net quantity be men-
tioned in a uniform place on the principal panel of the label and be expressed in
commonly accepted terms, and that this quantity statement show up and be readable
without turning the package a number of times to find it.
The bill also gives the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade
Commission authority to make certain discretionary regulations. They may set up
definitions of "small," "large," or "jumbo" packages; they may attempt to define
"servings" when a certain package is labeled as providing four or five "servings."
Just how large is a "serving?" These agencies may also work out regulations to insure
that when a package is labeled "5 cents off," the consumer actually pays 5 cents less
than the normal price.
The federal agencies may take action to insure that packages are properly
filled, and to require that the ingredients in non-foods be listed on the package in
the order of decreasing predominance. However, they must take into consideration the
fact that some packages are too small for listing all ingredients of the product.
Furthermore there is nothing in this bill which would mean that special formulas or
trade secrets must be divulged.
All of us know that there are already federal, state, and local laws and regu-
lations relative to "truth in packaging." While some feel that additional federal
legislation is essential, others contend that/much of the propaganda in support of
additional strong federal controls is an insult to the intelligence of the American
consumer. The bill as rewritten by the House was approved by a vote of 300 to 8.
I voted with the majority.
A $2.3 BILLION BILL: In approving a $2.3 billion appropriation bill for the
Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary, the House approved the
last of the 12 essential money bills. Republicans again made an effort to cut the
overall appropriation by 5 percent (certainly not unreasonable in an expenditure of
this size) but we were defeated 201 to 152. All Michigan Republicans voted for the
cut and we were joined by one Democrat. But eight Democrats from our state voted for
greater spending; three of their members were absent.
FOOD FOR PEACE - TRADE WITH COMMUNISTS: By a vote of 306 to 61 the House last
Wednesday insisted on its position that no surplus farm commodities be sold at bargain
prices to countries which carry on trade with Communist North Vietnam or Cuba. You
will remember that the "Food for Peace" bill originally passed by the House on June
9th contained this restriction. Under pressure from President Johnson, the Senate
eliminated this provision and the House-Senate Conferees went along with the President
and the Senate. But through the insistence of the Republicans the House has ordered
its conferees to take this matter back to conference and to stand firm on the original
House position.
Only one Republican joined 60 Democrats in voting to go along with the Presi-
dent and the Senate. All Michigan Republicans voted to deny bargain prices to those
who trade with Communist Cuba or North Vietnam. We were joined by two Democrats. But
8 Democratic Representatives from Michigan voted to go along with President Johnson.
We must emphasize that this restriction has nothing to do with cash sales or
with donations to relieve suffering. We are talking about long-term easy credit
sales and sales to be paid for with the local nation's currency which may be spent by
the U. S. only in that country - we call these concessional or bargain sales. If
the country buys on credit the interest rate is only 3/4 of 1 percent for two years
and only 2½ percent for the balance of 20 years. These are cut-rate terms which the
American taxpayer cannot get for himself. He should not be expected to subsidize
interest payments for a nation which assists, through trade, Cuba or North Vietnam.
Yugoslavia and Egypt are trading with North Vietnam and getting our food aid. India
is trading with Cuba.
THE EDUCATION BILL: After two days of debate last week the House approved the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1966 authorizing $328 million more for this
year than the President requested in his budget. The same day the House passed this
bill, Mr. Johnson said, "Each vote to increase the budget is likely a vote for
increased revenue later." He was telling the Congress and the people that a vote for
expenditures over his budget was a vote for higher taxes.
I am opposed to higher taxes when they can be avoided by holding down federal
spending. I therefore supported the President's request and voted to recommit the
bill in order to save $328 million this year and $1 billion next year. But we were
overruled 185 to 150. Michigan's Republicans voted solidly to back the President and
protect the taxpayers. All Michigan Democrats (one absent) voted for greater spending
and higher federal taxes.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
October 19, 1966
The House of Representatives spent many hours last week debating the
"Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act" and the bill to establish the
"Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.' Since final action on these issues will be taken
after this newsletter is printed, I will discuss them briefly next week. But I do
want to point out that of the thousands of cities in our country not more than 50 can
expect to participate in the multi-million dollar demonstration cities program. These
cities will be selected by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who will
exercise extensive control over all local projects sponsored under this Act.
INTERNAL SECURITY: The House finally approved by a vote of 275 to 64 the bill
to make it a federal offense to solicit, collect, and deliver any money or property
to, or for the use of, any country with which we are involved in armed conflict such
as North Vietnam. This bill also prohibits the obstruction of the movement of
personnel or supplies of the armed forces of the U. S.
PUBLIC DEBT UP $8 BILLION: The national debt now stands at $324.9 billion com--
pared with $316.9 billion a year ago. This means an increase of $8 billion in the
twelve months ending Sept. 30 (Daily Statement of the U.S. Treasury). Each billion
dollars of debt costs the taxpayers over $33.3 million a year in interest charges.
The debt increase under President Johnson this past year adds more than $266 million
sunually to interest charges. This year U.S. taxpayers must give up over $13 billion
just to pay the interest on the national debt. This is equal to all the federal
Income taxes paid by every taxpayer earning up to $6,000 a year.
A CHANCE TO SAVE: It only amounted to about $20 million in a $4 billion public
works appropriation bill, but try as we did, we couldn't save even that much. The
$20 million was the amount by which the Senate had increased the House bill. A motion
was made last Tuesday to insist on the House figure and to save the taxpayers $20
million this year. The motion lost, but every Republican from Michigan voted to help
the taxpayers; we were joined by two Democrats. But seven Democrats from our state
(three were absent) voted for greater spending which can only mean higher taxes.
We should emphasize that this $20 million is to initiate projects which will
cost additional millions over the next few years. And we must reemphasize that only
through restraint in federal spending can we escape higher federal taxes and higher
prices. The well-known economist and President of the University of Rochester, Dr. W.
Allen Wallis said recently: "Inflation can be generated only by the government.
Business firms, labor unions, or consumers with excessive market power can do many
objectionable things that are contrary to the public interests; but one objectionable
thing they cannot do is to cause inflation - or, for that matter, prevent it."
Gardner Ackley, now the President's chief economic advisor said in 1961, The
important cases of demand inflation result from Government expenditures, especially
those associated with war or war preparations."
SOCIAL SECURITY PLANS: Over 12 weeks ago (my newsletter of July 27th) the
Republican Party recommended that Social Security benefits be raised to meet the
increase in the cost of living. I joined over 75 Republican members of the House in
introducing a bill to provide an automatic increase in social security benefits when-
ever the cost of living went up by 3 percent. This provision was to go into effect
immediately to benefit our senior citizens now. Actuaries and tax experts tell us
that such a plan could be financed without an increase in social security taxes. But
Mr. Johnson did nothing and the Democrat-dominated committee on Ways and Means took
no action on this fair and constructive proposal.
President Johnson has finally acknowledged that high prices are hurting our
older citizens. Just 27 days before the election he holds out the promise of a 10
percent increase in social security benefits - to begin 15 months from now, on January
1, 1968. He also promises, among other things, an increase in minimum benefits from
$44 to $100 for everyone who contributed to social security for 25 years, regardless
of the amount of his contribution. But Mr. Johnson is vague about how his proposals
will be paid for - whether it will be higher rates or an increase in the employee's
wage base on which the payroll tax is levied. In any event it will mean more regres-
sive payroll taxes on top of the increase already scheduled to go into effect in
January. And don't forget that shortly after this election Mr. Johnson is expected
to demand a bigger slice of your pay check through withholding taxes.
ADJOURNMENT: Congress is expected to adjourn at the end of this week and I
will be returning to the Grand Rapids office. Jim Bersie from our staff has been home
and in the 425 Cherry Street office for the past month. Miss Anne Kamstra returned
Saturday. Miss Ruth Mahder and Frank Meyer will be home as soon as Congress adjourns.
We can be reached at GL 6-9747.
RECENT VISITORS: From Wyoming: Mr. & Mrs. Gentry Ledbetter and family; Miss
Deborah Dok; Chester Rudd. From Caledonia: Mr. & Mrs. Eldon Crumback. From Grand-
ville: Miss Linda J. Goeman. From Ionia: Bill Doty. From Sparta: Wm. Reed; Conrad
Larson; Mr. & Mrs. Warren Schut; Mr. & Mrs. Floyd Schut. From Rockford: Mr. & Mrs.
Wilfred Paull and Lee. From Portland: Charles Leik. From Lowell: George Mueller.
From Grand Rapids: Mr. & Mrs. Wm. Kamstra, Doug and Carol; Howard Reges; Mr. & Mrs.
LaVern Fratzke; Mr. & Mrs. C. Jordans; Mr. & Mrs. L. S, Cox, Kathy and Delores; Mr. &
Mrs. "Roy Murray; Mrs. L. NcLaughlin; Mr. & Mrs. R. DeHoek and family; Mr. A. J. Flogg
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
October 26, 1966
The 5 last week of any Congressional session is marked by a vigorous flow of
legislation, including innumerable "conference reports." These reports represent
the compromise worked out by a joint Senate-House committee on bills which have been
passed by both houses but in different form. They are generally approved by both
houses without too much difficulty. They are-accepted not because members are
happy with the final decision but because they recognize that this is the best com-
promise that can be obtained under the circumstances. Our democratic way of life
and our republican system of government rest on a willingness to give and take, to
arrange compromises. But I must agree that it would be better if these compromises
could be handled in a more orderly way than is possible in the last hours of a leg-
islative session.
AIR LIFT TO SERVICEMEN: One of the conference reports approved will mean
faster mail service to and from our servicemen overseas. Under this legislation,
letters, voice recordings, and parcels up to five pounds will be air lifted on a
space available basis from the point of embarkation -- New York, Seattle, or San
Francisco. No additional postage will be required for this service. Local news-
papers will enjoy the same fast delivery, but to combat areas only.
The House recognizes that this legislation does not meet the problem of air
parcel post or the rapid delivery overseas of parcels in excess of five pounds.
There is every indication that the new Congress will do something about this matter
after the first of the year.
INSURED SAVINGS: The maximum to which savings in banks and savings and loan
associations are insured by the federal government has been increased from $10,000
to $15,000. This provision was included in a bill approved by the President recently.
FOOD FOR PEACE: You will remember that the House disagreed with the President
and the Senate on the question of permitting subsidized bargain sales of our farm
commodities to nations which trade with North Vietnam and Cuba. Our mail indicated
considerable interest in this problem. Last week a compromise was worked out which
I believe is satisfactory.
It was agreed that there would be an absolute ban on soft currency and dollar
credit sales of U.S. food surpluses to nations which carry on any kind of commerce
with North Vietnam. Nations which sell or transport food, medicine or fertilizer to
can enjoy our bargain sales but only if the President determines that such
tion is in our national interest. If they sell any other items to Cuba they will
lose the right to purchase our food products at subsidized prices. Countries which
could be affected by this compromise include India and Pakistan, Egypt, Morocco,
Ceylon, Yugoslavia, and possibly Greece.
LOANS TO COMMUNIST NATIONS: In another action last Tuesday the House voted
167 to 121 to prohibit the taxpayer-financed Export-Import Bank from using any funds
provided it by the supplemental appropriation bill to extend credit to any Communist
country. As late as October 7, President Johnson announced that he had signed an
application to allow the Export-Import Bank to guarantee commercial credits to four
additional Eastern European countries: Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia.
I support the position of the House rather than that of the President. I cannot
justify the use of U.S. tax money at this time to further assist any Communist
regime with its financial burdens.
DEMONSTRATION CITIES: Over 30 amendments to the Demonstration Cities bill
were considered by the House before the bill was adopted by a vote of 178 to 141. I
voted against the bill primarily because of the enormous power over local affairs to
be given to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and because this is
another spending plan which could have been postponed until the war in Vietnam is
over. I know that most of you do not want an increase in your income taxes. As
your Representative, therefore, I must vote to hold down federal spending. All
Michigan Republicans voted for you, the taxpayers. The Democratic members from
Michigan who were present (ten in all) voted for the President, for more spending,
for higher taxes.
One of the problems which received the greatest attention in the discussion
of "Demonstration Cities" was whether the bill gave federal officials the authority
to compel the bussing of students from the suburbs into the city and vice versa in
order to obtain a racial balance in the schools. The House adopted an amendment to
make clear that no federal officer would have this authority under this bill.
FINAL ISSUE: This is the final issue of the newsletter for this year. We
hope to be back after the Congress reconvenes in January. If you have any questions
or if I can be of any service, please do not hesitate to call us at GL 6-9747 or
stop in at your Congressional office, 425 Cherry St. S.E., Grand Rapids.
RECENT VISITORS: From Grand Rapids: The Charles Aldrich family; Douglas &
Thomas Anderson; Mr.& Mrs. Dennis Byle; Mr.& Mrs. Brent Bierma; Rev.& Mrs. Douglas
Bol; Mr.& Mrs. Walter Breuer, St.; Fred Baughman; Mr.& Mrs. John Bankston & sons;
Mr.& Mrs. Don Botting; Norma Butzer & Kathy Kelbel; Mr.& Mrs. H. Bliss; Ralph Baldwin;
Carol Crawford; Mr.& Mrs. J. Cook & family; Tuula Rusla; Ray Conlon; Mrs. Gayle Camp-
bell; Stephen DeVries; Ruth DeVries; Mr.& Mrs. D. Davoust; Mr.& Mrs. Frank Edwards;
Mr.& Mrs. A. Froberg; Mr.& Mrs. M. Geisel; Mr.& Mrs. Harold Glupker; Mr.& Mrs. Chas.
Graham; Mr.& Mrs. d.Groening; Mr.& Mrs. W. Heetderks; Lorene Hilton; Mr.& Mrs. Wilbur
Huizing; Linda Johnson; Mr.& Mrs. J. Kunnen; the H. Kuizema family; Mr.& Mrs. F. Klad-
der; Mrs. M. McGavin; Mr.& Mrs. N. Muller & Sandra; Mr.& Mrs. Richard McCarty; Mr. &
Mrs. Dennis Mead; Mrs. Rosanna Matik; the Donald Pothoven family; Maj.& Mrs. Kenneth
Quinlan & Ken Jr.; Mr.& Mrs. A. Rice; Bill Reed; Mr.& Mrs. Robert Rymar; Mr.& Mrs.
G. Ruwitch; Mr.& Mrs. J. Smith; Ronald Selvius; Charles Sedam, Jr.; Mr.& Mrs. Henry
Sprik; Patricia Velthouse; Mr.& Mrs. J. VanderPloeg; Mr.& Mrs. Harvey Volkers; Robbie
Volkers; Mr.& Mrs. Lester Vanderhill; Mr.& Mrs. Andy VanderKlay; Carolyn Woolpert;
Mr.& Mrs. Roger Wolthuis; Mayo Zeigler.