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, Adam Clayton Powell.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525471
label
Ford Newsletter, Jan.-June 1967
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525471
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Newsletter, Jan.-June 1967
description
This file contains material relating to Lyndon Johnson, Adam Clayton Powell.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Newsletters
subjects
India
Copyright
Debts, Public
Education
Ethics
Federal aid
Food aid
Food stamps
Legislation
Postal matters
Social security
State of the union messages
Taxation
Urban policy
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525471
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1967-06-30
month
6
year
1967
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
month
1
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a1b24931d91c8cae
ocrText
This document scanned from Box D2 of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
January 18, 1967
This
the first newsletter for 1967 and the 90th Congress. To the voters of
Kent and Ionia Counties, I say "thank you" for the opportunity to continue to serve
you in Washington. May I reiterate my wish that no resident of the Fifth District
will ever feel that I am "too busy" to give attention to your letters or telephone
calls or to assist you with any problem involving an agency of the Federal Government.
You may address me at either the House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., or Room
H-230, The U. S. Capitol. Our telephone number here is 225-3831 (area code 202).
We have an office in Grand Rapids with Mrs. Elaine Westfield in charge. She
may be contacted by calling GL 6-9747 or you may visit her at 425 Cherry Street, S.E.
THE OPENING: I lost an election on the opening day of the new Congress but
this was not unexpected. My good friend, John McCormack, defeated me for Speaker by
a vote of 246 to. 186. This is an improvement over two years ago when I lost 289 to
139. And as the losing candidate it was my pleasure to present the newly-elected
Speaker to the House. At that time I said, "We of the opposition will be loyal. We
of the opposition will be responsible. We will work together in all that is good for
America." But we are going to strive harder than ever during the next two years in
an effort to reverse the count in the election for Speaker in 1969.
MR. POWELL: On the first order of business following the election of the
Speaker, Republicans were more successful. The question was on the seating of
Representative-Elect Adam Clayton Powell of New York. All of us had received hun-
dreds of letters, telegrams, and phone calls on this issue. The Democrats, in their
caucus on Monday, had already removed Mr. Powell as Chairman of the Committee on
Education and Labor.
The question on Tuesday was whether Mr. Powell should be permitted to take his
seat as a member of Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that a special
committee of House members should be appointed to fully investigate the matter and to
give Mr. Powell every opportunity to present his answers to all charges. The
committee was to report to the House within a specified time (Democrats' plan - 60
days; Republicans' plan - five weeks) and during the interim Mr. Powell would receive
his salary, have an office, and be provided funds for his congressional (not commit-
tee) staff. On all these points there was agreement.
But the proposal of the Democratic Leadership gave Mr. Powell the right to vote
in the House pending a final decision on his right to a seat in the 90th Congress.
The Republican resolution denied Mr. Powell the right to vote until after the
Committee had made its investigation and the House had rendered final judgment on
his right to a seat. On the first yea-and-nay vote in the new Congress, the
Democratic proposal was defeated 305 to 126; the Republican plan was then adopted
364 to 64.
THE 21-DAY RULE: The Democratic Leadership suffered another defeat on opening
day when the "21-Day Rule" of the 89th Congress was repealed by a vote of 232 - 185.
This applies to the Committee on Rules which has been called the "traffic cop of the
House." After a bill has been approved by a legislative committee (Judiciary, Armed
Services, etc.) it may be sent to the Committee on Rules. This Committee must decide
whether to schedule the bill for further action by the House and under what rules
(length of debate, whether amendments may be presented, etc.) the bill is to be
considered.
The Committee has been criticized for "bottling up" or killing legislation which
is eligible to go before the entire House for a decision. The "21-day rule" is a
means of by-passing the Committee on Rules and bringing a bill to the floor of
the House if the Committee refuses to take action within 21 days. When I first
came to Congress in 1949, the question was with us and I voted for a 21-day rule.
Two years later the rule was repealed and I voted for repeal. Experience in the
actual task of legislating convinced me that we need a Committee on Rules and that
it almost always reflects the will of a majority of members of the House and the
majority party leadership. I voted against the 21-day rule two years ago and again
last week.
STATE OF THE UNION: The Republican State of the Union message is scheduled
to be presented over TV this Thursday evening, January 19th. Senator Dirksen and I
will be speaking in behalf of Republicans in the Senate and the House. We will
comment on some issues raised in the President's address which I will also discuss
in next week's newsletter.
YEARBOOK OF AGRICULTURE: The latest edition (1966) of the Yearbook of
Agriculture entitled, "Protecting Our Food," contains chapters of interest to
farmers, processors, consumers, and teachers and students of agriculture. We have a
limited supply and will be pleased to comply with requests for copies directed to
either my Grand Rapids or Washington address.
MAILING LIST: If there is any change in your mailing address, please let me
know so we can make the proper corrections. We are also pleased to add names to the
mailing list for "Your Washington Review."
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
January 25, 1967
The Republican Appraisal of the State of the Union was presented by Senator
Dirksen and me last Thursday evening. Of all the issues mentioned by President
Johnson the previous week, new taxes and Social Security seem to have created the
most interest as evidenced by our mail.
NEW TAXES: There was no applause on either side of the aisle when Mr. Johnson
recommended a six percent surtax on business and individuals. Under his proposal a
taxpayer would determine his Federal income tax in the regular manner and then add
six percent. For example, a person with a regular tax of $300 would have to pay $318.
Republicans for many months have been urging a reduction in Federal expenditures
and a moratorium of new spending schemes. Neither the President nor the Democratic-
controlled Congress would listen. Now we must face cold economic facts--and there is
no applause. And that is understandabie. There is a better way to a sound fiscal
position. Non-essential expenditures can and should be reduced. There are many
Federal programs which may be curtailed, postponed, or eliminated without causing
great hardship. Let's cut waste and duplication of effort and be mindful of him who
foots the bill. Such action must be taken before the American taxpayer is required
to make further sacrifices. I am convinced we can cut unnecessary expenditures and
am therefore opposed to any tax increase at this time.
Billions of dollars approved by Congress in the past remain unspent. Republi-
cans are proposing a Rescission Bill which would withdraw from the President the
right to spend these funds until the new Congress can examine the situation and
determine whether the expenditure is justified.
DEBT AND INTEREST: According to a Treasury statement of January 13th, the
national debt has risen to $329.8 billion, an increase of $7.7 billion in just one
year. This means an annual interest charge to the American people of $14 billion.
Only five years ago the debt was $300 billion with interest cost of $9 billion.
It is time to become seriously concerned with a rising national debt and the
interest charges which must be met annually. This is not only an economic question;
it is also a moral one.
TAX SHARING: We as Republicans recognize that there are many local needs which
must be met in the areas of education, law enforcement, sanitation, transportation,
etc. We know that these problems can be solved better locally than by direction and
aid out of Washington. But we recognize the limitations on local and state taxes
when Uncle Sam is already taking a big bite out of every pay check.
Republicans support a system of tax sharing to return to the state and local
governments a fixed percentage of personal income taxes without Federal control.
This would enable local and state governments to meet their obligations and reduce
Federal dictation.
Right now about $15 billion is being returned to states and municipalities
through 170 separate aid programs, administered by 21 Federal departments and agen-
cies, 150 Washington bureaus and 400 regional offices. A simple plan of tax sharing
would assist local and state governments, would strengthen our constitutional concept
of Federalism, and would save huge sums now spent on "administration." The tax
sharing plan can be put into effect without increasing Federal taxes.
SOCIAL SECURITY:
I have joined other Republicans in introducing legislation
to provide an eight percent increase in Social Security benefits retroactive to
January 1st. Our bill also provides a further increase automatically if the cost
of living goes up (3% increase for each 3% rise in living cost). This plan can be
put into effect without any increase in Social Security payroll taxes.
Republicans also know that the present earnings limitation is unrealistic and
must be revised upward. We also feel that widows' benefits and minimum benefits must
be brought into line with today's inflated living costs. Folks still not covered by
Social Security should, as soon as possible, be blanketed into the program, at least
by age 72.
I have introduced a bill to permit policemen and firemen to be covered under
Social Security. Most city and village officials in the 5th District as well as
their firemen and policemen support this bill. If these men were now covered, the
widow of the Grand Rapids police officer recently killed in the line of duty would
receive $368 per month in Social Security benefits.
The changes in Social Security recommended by President Johnson will require an
increase in Social Security payroll taxes on every employed person. The best estimate
now is that the cost would be the equivalent of an increase of 1.6 percent in the
payroll tax. This could be obtained by raising the rate of tax or levying the tax
on a larger part of the employee's wages. At the present tax base, the President's
plan would ultimately raise the total payroll tax to 12.15 percent, of which the
employee would pay half.
VISITORS SINCE NEW YEAR'S DAY: From Grand Rapids: Rev. Douglas Evett,
Dr. Victor M. Matthews, Miss Wendy Littlefair, Mr. Philip Lewis, Mr. Henry L. Brady,
and Richard De Korte. From Wyoming: Mr. Norman Overbeek.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
February 1, 1967
Most of my time last week was spent working with the Committee on Committees.
This group assigns Republican members to the various committees of the House of
Representatives. Each assignment is extremely important to each member, his state
and district, and to the development of legislation in the Congress.
Legislation comes to the floor of the House for action only after it has been
examined and recommended by a Committee. For example, members of the House will have
no opportunity to vote on any Social Security bill until the Committee on Ways and
Means has held public hearings on the various proposals, has debated each new propo-
sal in executive session, and has decided on what should be included and on the
exact language of the bill. A Congressman's committee assignments, therefore, have
much to do with his influence in the Congress; the make-up of a committee has great
influence on the nature of the legislation enacted by the Congress.
Because there are 47 more Republicans in the House this year than during the
last Congress, Republicans were given more places on each committee and the ratio in
our favor was increased. For instance, in the last Congress the Committee on Agri-
culture was composed of 24 Democrats and 11 Republicans. In this Congress the ratio
is 20 to 15.
The 44-member Committee on Committees, of which the Minority Leader is
Chairman, is composed of one member from each state having a Republican in the House.
When there is more than one Republican from a state, the member is elected by his
colleagues and has as many votes on the Committee as there are Republicans from his
state. Rep. Elford Cederberg is Michigan's member of the Committee. He has 12 votes
because there are 12 Republicans in the House from our State. Much of the work of
the Committee is done by the Executive Committee of 13 made up of the members from
states having seven or more Republicans, and one member from the group first elected
to the 89th and to the 90th Congresses, and one each from three geographical areas
not otherwise represented,
In selecting individuals for committee assignments we take into consideration
the Congressman's personal request and background; we aim at fair geographical
representation on the committees and are not unconscious of political considerations
relating to the needs of the party and of the help which a given committee assignment
may be to a member when he seeks reelection. Certain states traditionally have
representation on a given committee.
Because of the seniority system, the position in which a member is listed on
the committee is quite significant. By working his way up as other members leave the
Committee, a member may become Chairman or the senior Minority member. Former
members who have returned to Congress and to their former committee are listed above
all new members but below holdovers from the last Congress. Former members going
to a new committee have priority only over freshmen as is true of veteran members
transferring to a new committee. When more than one freshman is assigned to a given
committee, lots are drawn to determine rank.
When we note that there are 59 new Republicans (47 of whom replaced Democrats)
and that 33 veteran members requested new committee assignments, it is easy to see
why we spend many hours juggling names in an effort to please our colleagues and to
establish a strong Republican minority on each committee.
THE DELUGE: Our mail last week was the heaviest I have seen in at least a
decade. Nearly 3000 letters and cards arrived in the office from all over the
country. There was a fine response to our radio and television presentation of the
Republican Appraisal of the State of the Union. Many letters concern Social Security,
the Vietnam War, the case of Mr. Powell, and the President's tax proposal. Hundreds
of letters commend Republican efforts to change and improve foreign and domestic
policies. But we also have our critics, some very severe and many quite constructive.
ON RABBITS IN MICHIGAN: One of the questions of the week was: How many
rabbits are there in Michigan? I thought you would be interested in the answer
supplied us by the "rabbit expert" in the Department of Agriculture. We were told:
"The Agricultural Census Bureau shows that 56,000 rabbits were sold in Michigan in
1964. Given 56,000 marketed, commercial rabbits, presumably about eight weeks old or
weighing roughly four pounds, one may approximate the number of does. Assuming that
the average litter is from 8 to 10 rabbits, five of which reach the market, we may
divide 56,000 by five to ascertain the probable number of does bearing the 56,000
rabbits, or 11,200 does. One may further project, if we presume that the buck to doe
ratio is one to ten, that 1,120 bucks contributed to the fathering of the 56,000
commercial rabbits sold. Our total is now 68,320 rabbits that were engaged in
commercial activity in Michigan in 1964. However, we must also consider non-
commercial rabbits which are raised as pets. It is estimated that commercial and
non-commercial rabbits are about equal in number. This would increase our total of
"raised rabbits" to 136,640. This is considered a conservative figure and does not
include any of the wild rabbit population."
This report may not be as dramatic as the famous short story, "Pigs is Pigs,"
but it does prove that in Washington there are experts on everything and that if we
can find the right person we can get information on practically any subject.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
February 8, 1967
One of the first legislative decisions to be made by the Congress this year
involves an increase in the temporary limitation on the public debt from $330 billion
to $337 billion. (The permanent limitation remains at $285 billion.) President
Johnson has made the request and the Committee on Ways and Means has been working on
the problem. Secretary of the Treasury Fowler told the Committee that unless Congress
permits additional cash borrowing before the end of this month "the Treasury will be
in the untenable position of having to reduce outpayments for goods and services
approved by the Congress and vital to the nation's well-being" and that "the possi-
bility of an economic and monetary derangement will be a reality."
Secretary Fowler asked for immediate action on the proposal and requested that
no controversial amendments be considered. The proposed increase in the debt limit
would be in effect until June 30th. But, added the Secretary, "I shall be here again
later, in the Spring, to ask that the temporary debt limit be extended at least until
the end of the next fiscal year. Presumably there will then be more time for the
debates and controversies that swirl around this fascinating subject."
We may legitimately ask why the Johnson Administration did not request an
increase in the debt limit last September or October when it knew that its expendi-
tures were running well over its projected estimate. We do not think it is
unreasonable to assume that the matter was delayed until now to keep this nation's
serious fiscal problem from becoming an issue in the November election.
Furthermore, we know that the President can cut his expenditure levels right
now in order to ease the burden that the Federal debt is placing upon the economy.
He can curtail and postpone the expenditure of authorized funds. According to the
President's own figures, he will have available on July 1st over $125 billion from
"unspent authorizations enacted in prior years."
We must also note that the dire fiscal situation which Secretary Fowler
describes follows on the heels of the 89th "rubber stamp" Congress which authorized
too many new spending schemes demanded by President Johnson. Again we see the
chickens coming home to roost.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS' BENEFITS We are getting a number of inquiries
from veterans and their families who are concerned that an increase in social security
benefits may reduce a veteran's pension so that his net income suffers a loss. Non-
service-connected veterans pensions are based on income, and an increase in social
security can put a veteran in a new income bracket with a lower VA pension. Those
close to the Committee on Veterans Affairs tell us that as soon as the social
security bill is enacted, the Committee will consider legislation to resolve this
problem. It is not the intention of Congress that any veteran suffer a net loss in
income because of an increase in social security benefits. No veteran or widow's
pension would be affected in any way until the end of the year, so there is ample
time to work out this particular problem.
It should also be pointed out that a veteran's compensation for service-
connected disabilities is not related to income. No veteran (or veteran's widow)
receiving compensation for a service-connected disability will lose any VA benefits
because of an increase in social security payments.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND WIDOWS WITH MINOR CHILDREN: Many bills for improving our
social security program have been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. Two
weeks ago I mentioned one which many Republicans have presented. Last week I reintro-
duced my bill to permit a widow with minor children to earn up to $3600 a year
without forfeiting any of the benefits coming to her on her late husband's earning
record. Presently the mother with minor children who goes to work to help support
her family is held to the same earning limitation as a retired person with no
dependents. It seems to me that we should not penalize the working mother who assumes
an additional responsibility. This does not mean that I oppose raising the earning
limitation for all social security beneficiaries. In fact, I have consistently
advocated an increase in the earning limitation. Widows with minor children I do feel
deserve special consideration in this regard.
TAX SHARING: I have joined other Republicans in introducing legislation to
return $2.2 billion in federally-collected taxes to the state and local governments
without federal earmarking or control. Under this version, and there are alternatives,
3 percent of the federal personal income tax would be used for tax sharing. The 17
poorest states would first receive 10 percent of the total funds as a form of equaliza-
tion. The other 90 percent would then be divided among all states on the basis of
population and a simple "tax effort ratio" for each state. The "tax effort ratio" is
total taxes collected by the State and its political subdivisions (real, income, sales,
etc.) divided by total personal income in the state.
The State could spend 55 percent of what it receives in any way it desires; 45
percent of its funds would be distributed to its local subdivisions. A 10-man,
bi-partisan Council on Tax Sharing (five of whom would be State Governors) would
administer the program to prevent federal dictation.
It is estimated that under this program Michigan would obtain a grant of
$85,380,480 during the first year. The program would be financed through savings
effected by substituting this plan for some existing grant-in-aid programs and by
cutting back proposed expansion in other federal aid projects.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
February 15, 1967
The House of Representatives has approved an increase in the public debt limit
from $330 billion to $336 billion. The vote was 215 to 199. I voted "no" as I have
done on the last seven proposals to raise the debt ceiling. In 1961 and in February
1962 when President Kennedy asked for greater borrowing authority, I voted "yes."
But at that time I stated that something must be done to halt deficit financing. I
said in my newsletter, "the Congress cannot blithely go on voting for new proposals
to increase Federal spending" and that "Congress may have to refuse to increase fur-
ther the national debt limit." The last debt limit which I supported was in the
amount of $300 billion. The debt now hovers near $330 billion and is on the way to
$336 billion.
House Republicans agreed to support a debt limitation of $339 billion if two
important conditions were met. We feel that the money borrowed through sale of par-
ticipation certificates (government assets) should be included in the debt subject to
limitation. Not to do so gives a distorted picture of the Government's true debt
situation. The Administration expects to borrow $2 billion by this method before
June 30th, and it will be outside the $336 billion limitation.
Current law sets the interest rate on long-term U.S. bonds (over 5 years) at
4½ percent. This is unrealistic today and means that the Treasury must resort to
short-term borrowing and pay a higher rate. In December, the Treasury was paying an
average interest rate of 5 percent. Our second proposal was to remove the 4½ percent
limitation so the Treasury could sell long-term bonds at a net savings to the taxpayer
in overall interest costs. But our amendments were defeated 261 to 155.
POSTAL RATES: President Johnson has proposed a $700 million increase in postal
revenues. There are indications that he will recommend raising the rates for regular
letters from 5c to 6c and airmail from 8¢ to 9c, and will suggest a 20 to 30 percent
increase in second and third class rates.
During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966 the deficit in the Post Office
Department (paid out of general tax revenues) amounted to $400 million. In addition,
the taxpayers contributed to the Department as a "public service allowance" over $542
million. This was to cover costs incurred by handling mail at free, reduced, or
preferred rates.
According to estimates by the Post Office Department, first class mail at 5¢
during the past year paid 107 percent of its cost of handling. Airmail paid 125 per
cent of its cost. Second class mail (newspapers and magazines) at the other extreme
paid 36 percent of the cost allocated to it. Third class mail (advertising matter)
paid 72 percent of its cost while parcel post and fourth class mail in general paid
just over 86 percent.
Last year Congress increased parcel post rates (effective Jan. 15, 1967) which
will just about put parcel post on a pay-as-you-go basis. I should point out also that
any governmental agency, including the Congress, which uses penalty or franked mail
(no stamps) reimburses the Post Office Department for the cost of carrying its mail.
HUMAN INVESTMENT ACT: I have joined over 120 Republican members of the House
in introducing legislation to meet the challenge of unemployment and to wage an
effective war against poverty. Our proposal, The Human Investment Act, would
encourage employers to hire the unskilled and train them on the job for permanent
positions and advancement. It would encourage employees to retrain and to improve
their skills in order to promote their own economic security. We are convinced that
management and labor working together with the encouragement of government can provide
employment opportunities and reduce poverty in an effective manner.
This legislation encourages the employer to provide on-the-job training, to
pay certain educational expenses of his employees, and to hire more apprentices. It
encourages the employee to develop his skills and improve his education. The govern-
ment in turn provides a limited tax credit to employers to encourage them to partici-
pate in the training program and to strengthen our free enterprise system.
THEY ALSO SERVE: Governmental officials and employees expect a certain amount
of criticism; but being human, they enjoy a bit of praise. It is a pleasure, therefore,
to share with you a few sentences from a recent letter written by a Grand Rapids man
now working in Massachusetts. He wrote: "For the past year I have been writing a
number of poster series on scientific subjects
In preparing these series, I had
occasion to visit a number of Public Information Offices in Washington in search of
photographs. During my 5-day stay in August of last year, I made 16 separate contacts
for this purpose. Of the many, many government employees with whom I came in contact,
there was only one who was not helpful, polite, and cooperative in the extreme."
RECENT VISITORS: From Grand Rapids: Mrs. Marvin Muller, Miss J. Omilian, Marc
Baas, Mr. & Mrs. Fred Ellis, David Long, Dianne Oppewall, Sandy Timmer, Sara Winter,
Tom White, Howard Rozema, William Rigg, J. Robert Lentini, Mr. & Mrs. David Berry and
family, Mrs. F. C. Essener, Jr., Robert Mosher, Gretchen Wierenga, Rev. Marlin Vander
Wilt, Mrs. Gilbert Devendorf, Lois Westra, Everett Thompson, Mr. & Mrs. William
Joling, Sue Koster, Mr. & Mrs. Deane Brengle, Mr. & Mrs. Richard Kowalkoski. From
Wyoming: Miss Vicki Lemmink. From Caledonia: Mr. Elton Smith.
Clarence Boonstra of Grand Rapids, the new Ambassador to Costa Rica, was in the
office before leaving for his post at San Jose. He asked me to extend to residents of
the Fifth District an invitation to visit him at this Central American Capital.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
February 22, 1967
Traditionally the only business for the House of Representatives on Washington's
birthday is the reading of his Farewell Address. Today Rep. William Scott of Virginia
is scheduled to read this message, originally published by the Father of His Country
in the Daily American Advertiser of Philadelphia on September 19, 1796, about six
months before the expiration of his second term as President. The "Address" was
never presented orally by Mr. Washington.
WITH THE COMMITTEES: The Committee on Ways and Means is to open hearings next
Wednesday, March 1, on the President's proposals for revising the Social Security
System. The following Monday, the Committee on Education and Labor will begin its
investigation on how foreign imports may adversely affect American industry and labor.
It will consider legislation to protect domestic workers and employers from low-wage,
competitive imports.
The Committee on Banking and Currency is scheduled to meet tomorrow to adopt
its rules and designate subcommittees. Thereafter it will invite spokesmen from the
agencies under its jurisdiction (Federal Reserve Board, Small Business Administration,
Department of Housing and Urban Development, etc.) to review their activities and
discuss legislation in which they are interested. This Committee of 33 has ten new
members this year.
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce will also be organizing this
week. Later it plans to get into the problems of air pollution (H.R. 4279), educa-
tional television, and mutual investment funds which have been under study by the
Securities and Exchange Commission. The Committee on Government Operations expects to
get into the question of merging the Departments of Labor and Commerce but not until
the President submits his specific proposal to the Congress.
The Special Committee investigating Mr. Powell's right to his seat in the
House must report by February 23rd. There is every indication that it will file a
report on its findings and with its recommendations by midnight tomorrow.
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT: I have joined a number of other
Republicans in introducing legislation (H.Res. 249) to establish a special Committee
on Standards and Conduct. This Committee of six Republican and six Democratic members
of the House would be authorized to recommend rules and regulations to insure proper
standards of conduct by members, officers, and employees of the House. It would
also have the power to investigate allegations of misconduct and to recommend
appropriate action to the House itself or to proper federal or state authorities.
The Republican Policy Committee of the House, of which I am a member, in
calling for the "immediate establishment" of this committee said: "Justice for those
accused as well as the ever-mounting public demand for the highest standards of
personal conduct makes imperative the immediate establishment of an effective
Committee on Standards and Conduct." We hope the Democratic Leadership and House
majority will support this proposal so the committee may be put into operation
promptly.
THE ELECTION REFORM ACT: The Republican Policy Committee has also recommended
and I am sponsoring legislation (H.R. 5419) relative to election reform. This bill,
among other things, requires a member of Congress or a candidate to disclose gifts
and honorariums received by him or members of his family; it establishes more
realistic regulations relative to political contributions and expenditures, and sets
up a five-member bipartisan Federal Elections Commission to receive reports and
enforce the provisions of the law.
HERE'S WHERE A MILLION WENT: Nearly a million dollars of our tax money has
been distributed for research grants in the humanities. Nearly $8,800 is going "for
completion of a study of the history of the comic strip in the 19th century This
study," we are told, "should make a great contribution to the understanding of the
comic strip on a historical basis, as well as an artistic one." A grant of up to
$17,205 will be used for excavation in Winchester, England, to study "the growth and
changing character of the city of Winchester from its origin in the Iron Age down to
its emergence as a Victorian City."
"A Study of the World Views and Life Ways of the Gaujiro Indians of the
Guajiro Peninsula, Columbia and Venezuela" will cost $5,000 while an analysis of
"British Parliamentary Diaries of 1628" will nip us for $34,950.
All of this was announced by the National Foundation of the Arts and the
Humanities on February 8th. The 69 grants listed in this one announcement total
$963,000. When we add administrative costs we have an expenditure of about one
million dollars in tax funds. This National Foundation was established by the
"rubber stamp" 89th Congress. I voted to kill the bill setting up this new agency
when it was considered by the House on September 15, 1965. But the motion made by
Rep. (now Senator) Robert Griffin to send the bill back to committee was defeated
251 to 128. May I say that I have no objection to research in the humanities. But
I do not think that our citizens should be taxed for this purpose when governmental
costs are high and new taxes are being demanded. If private individuals, associations,
or foundations want to sponsor such research, fine. But let's spare the federal
taxpayers this one in a period of war involving personal sacrifice and financial
burdens.
March 1967
YOUR WASHINGTON REVIEW:
A
SUPPLEMENT
By
JERRY FORD
Congressman Charles Teague (Republican of California)
served on the Committee to Investigate Mr. Powell.
This is a copy of the report Mr. Teague has sent to his
constituents. I think he has given an outstanding
explanation of the problem.
(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE)
10
Dear Friends:
January-February, 1967
THE POWELL INVESTIGATION
I wish that every person who is skeptical about the ethics and honesty of all Members of
Congress and who believed that the inquiry involving Adam Clayton Powell's conduct would
result in a "whitewash" could have had the privilege I had. Serving on the special investiga-
ting committee and hearing the testimony was both interesting and challenging. During my
participation in the deliberations and decisions in executive sessions, I gained an extremely
high regard for my fellow committee members and their sense of fairness and justice.
Of the nine Committeemen, five were Democrats, four were Republicans. Not once was
there an element of political partisanship in our discussions or decisions. Five of these
Committeemen were bona fide liberals, four were moderate conservatives. Although Mr.
Powell had a very liberal voting record (when he voted), this fact did not influence the
Committee. Eight Committeemen were white, one was a Negro. However, at no time did
the fine young Negro Congressman, John Conyers of Michigan, express the view that Mr.
Powell was being investigated because he is a Negro.
There was wide experience and wisdom in the combined Committee membership. The
Chairman, Mr. Celler, a Democratic colleague of Mr. Powell's from New York City, has
been in Congress since 1922 and presided over the Committee with complete fairness. His
counsel in executive sessions was wise and he demonstrated his great knowledge of the law
and the precedents involved in our task. Although he has been a leader and fighter in the
civil rights movement, Mr. Celler was picketed at his home and office by "Powellites"
during the course of our investigation.
Because of his long and able service on the Judiciary Committee, Arch Moore of West
Virginia was chosen as ranking member of the Republican minority on the investigating
committee. He did a splendid job in presenting the views of the minority in those compara-
tively few times when they differed with those of the Democrats. He was ably assisted by
Clark MacGregor of Minnesota, a man of wide experience, sound judgment and, also, a
veteran of the Judiciary Committee. It was clearly never a case of Democrats versus
Republicans rather of what was the right and just thing to do. Claude Pepper of Florida
is a former United States Senator and law professor. Vernon Thompson served as Governor
and Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin. Andrew Jacobs of Indiana and John Conyers
of Michigan are comparatively young, highly trained lawyers. Jim Corman of California
made many significant contributions.
I was impressed by the fact that the Democratic members of the Select Committee did
not merely echo Chairman Celler's views. For instance, the Chairman proposed that the
hearings be closed, rather than open. He was not trying to conceal anything, but was afraid
that there might be demonstrations similar to those that have sometimes made it almost im-
possible for the House Committee on Un-American Activities to conduct orderly and mean-
ingful hearings. All of the Republicans and most of the Democrats disagreed with the
Chairman on this point. He gracefully bowed to the will of the majority of the membership
and the hearings were opened to the public and the news media.
Mr. Powell chose not to answer the charges that had been leveled against him. This
was in great contrast to the attitude of Mrs. Powell, who appeared to be a woman of high
calibre and answered our questions forthrightly. Powell contended that our Committee had
no authority to go beyond his "constitutional qualifications, 11 namely: (1) Was he duly
elected? (2) Is he a citizen? (3) Is he over the age of 25? (4) Is he a resident of the State
of New York? There can be no question about the answers to any of these points, with the
possible exception of residency in New York.
The Committee ultimately decided that it was not necessary for us to determine whether
we could legally, under the Constitution, recommend that the Congressman-Elect be denied
his seat. If we had followed that route, the whole issue might well be tied up in the courts
for months, or even years.
We also were faced with another difficult constitutional problem. We could have recom-
mended that Powell be seated and then expelled. Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote in the
House, which probably could be obtained. But, the unresolved question is: Can Congress
expel a Member in this Congress for acts committed in a previous Congress. All of Powell's
serious malfeasances occurred prior to the convening of the 90th Congress in January, 1967.
However, there appears no doubt about the right of the House to censure and punish a
Member. This cannot, of course, be done until the Member-Elect is seated. Therefore, the
Committee members decided that we should recommend seating, censure and discipline.
The Reasons:
In addition to avoiding a potentially long and conceivably unsuccessful court fight, our
decision to recommend punishment rather than exclusion or expulsion had these advantages:
1. The provision that most of Powell's salary will be withheld from him and paid into
the U. S. Treasury will result in a return to the taxpayers of government funds that
have been clearly proved were improperly used for personal purposes.
2. Depriving Powell of all seniority, together with the aforesaid financial penalty, will
be extremely humiliating. He will have to move out of his plush office and will be
at the bottom of his Committee.
3. It seems to us that treating the Congressman-Elect as a very bad boy who is being
severely punished will deprive him of the martyrdom he would enjoy if he were ex-
cluded or expelled.
4. If we recommended exclusion or expulsion, there is no doubt that Powell would be
re-elected and we would still have the same seating problem with us.
5. By allowing Powell to be sworn in, we cannot be accused of denying the people of his
Congressional District representation in the House by the person they chose, and
would again and again choose no matter how many costly special elections were held.
I would not like to have anyone conclude that I am contending that all Members of
Congress are saints and beyond criticism. I do, however, make these points:
1. While some Members have their wives or other relatives on their payroll, I know of
no instance in the House where these persons are not working staff members.
2. There have been cases when traveling Congressmen have abused that privilege. How-
ever, in my opinion, these are rare, rather than typical, instances. There is much to
be said about the advantages of lawmakers gaining first-hand knowledge of issues on
which they must vote. For example, a Member of the House Appropriations Committee
was sent to Paris for two or three days (at a cost of less than $1000) to determine for
his Committee whether or not a State Department request to spend $2, 000, 000 to en-
large our Paris Embassy should be approved. His report was negative. The result
was that $1,000 was spent, but $1, 999, 000 was saved.
3. The overwhelming majority of Members of Congress are honest and conscientious.
After all, there are some lawyers, doctors, farmers, educators, businessmen and
even clergymen who are not what they should be.
4. We definitely need, and I fervently hope we shall have, a permanent and effective
House Committee on Standards and Ethics. Its purpose would be to investigate all
future cases involving charges similar to those with which we wrestled in the Powell
case. I do not, for one moment, contend that the Republicans, per se, are the good
guys and the Democrats the bad guys. However, if we are to have a permanent ethics
committee, we must have the support of the Democratic leadership in the House to
ensure it's establishment. There is no other way. House Republicans, almost to a
man, support that proposal.
5. There was more than simply "ethics" involved in the current case. All records and
findings developed by our Committee have been turned over to the Department of
Justice. The purpose is to determine whether criminal prosecution is indicated.
This Report to you is written before the House acts on the recommendations of our Special
Committee. I believe that the punishment we recommend will be far more distasteful to
Adam Clayton Powell than to refuse him his seat. I am concerned, however, that many
Members have committed themselves to voting against seating Powell and will not wish to
attempt to explain to their constituents (as I have tried to do in this Report) that what we pro-
pose is the best and most effective disciplinary action we could take.
Sincerely yours,
Charles CHARLES M. m TEAGUE Jeague
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
March 1, 1967
The Resolution relative to the seating of Mr. Powell as a member of the House
of Representatives is the major item of business this week. The Resolution recommends
punishment rather than exclusion or expulsion. Mr. Powell will have until March 13th
to appear in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms before the Speaker's dais to take
the oath and to be publicly censured by the Speaker. There is to be deducted from
his salary $1000 per month until $40,000 has been recovered to reimburse the Treasury
for improper expenditure of government funds for private purposes. Mr. Powell is to
loose all seniority which means moving out of his plush office in the Rayburn Building
and going to the bottom of his Committee.
I intend to support this Resolution. A competent committee has examined the
problem and arrived at an unanimous report. To exclude or expell Mr. Powell would
raise some serious constitutional questions. It could result in his overwhelming re-
election to the House without solving the problem of punishing Mr. Powell. Under the
Resolution, Mr. Powell's constituents are to be represented by their freely-elected
representative but he will be punished and humiliated. But if he doesn't take the
oath by March 13, he loses his seat in the House.
RESERVE BILL OF RIGHTS: By approving H.R. 2 last Monday the House of Represen-
tatives voted to block any merger of the Army Reserve and the National Guard. If this
bill becomes law there will be a minimum Army Reserve strength of 260,000 men and a
minimum of 380,000 in the National Guard. The bill is designed to insure that every
Reserve unit be given the personnel and equipment necessary to discharge its training
requirements and its ultimate mobilization requirements.
The bill also solves a problem for 39,533 technicians (full-time caretakers)
employed by the National Guard. Because their salaries are paid by the Federal Govern-
ment while they are employed by the State, they run into many difficulties. Under
this bill, National Guard technicians become Federal employees and are eligible for
their benefits as to insurance, retirement, sick leave, etc.
A MATTER OF TIME: The State Legislature and the Attorney-General at Lansing,
the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Congress in Washington are involved in
extracting Michigan from the difficulty created by the passage last year of the
Uniform Time Act. This law puts each state on daylight saving time from April through
October. The Legislature, under the Act, can exempt Michigan from the provisions of
the Federal law. If it does not act and the Federal law goes into effect, the Lower
Peninsula will for the six summer months be two hours ahead of the sun. But if the
Legislature exempts our state, the Upper Peninsula will be one hour behind the rest of
the state during the summer. This results from the fact that under ICC regulations
the UP is in the Central time zone while the Lower Peninsula is in the Eastern zone.
I voted against the Federal law last year, and two weeks ago introduced a bill
(H.R. 5609) to permit our State Legislature to set the standard time for the entire
state. Rep. Harvey and Rep. Ruppe have introduced similar bills. The passage of this
legislation would solve the problem in Michigan. Another solution would be to have
the ICC put all of Michigan in the same time zone. But the ICC moves slowly in
matters of this nature and is not expected to resolve the issue in 1967.
Although the Attorney General of Michigan has said that the ICC must take new
action to establish two time zones in Michigan, the State Senate has approved S.B. 1
to make Eastern time standard throughout the State and exempt Michigan from the pro-
visions of the federal law. Whether this approach will hold up legally remains to be
seen. The situation is confused indeed and it appears that the confusion may continue
all summer.
CIA ON THE PAN: I do not go along with those who condemn the CIA (Central
Intelligence Agency) for supplying funds to pay expenses of some non-Communist
American students to international student assemblies. When this program was
initiated the "cold war" was intense. These world meetings of students were packed by
subsidized Communists who made effective use of many propaganda devices to get their
story across. CIA used means at its disposal to enter the "struggle for men's minds."
We cannot contend that money was used to buy support for the American Way of Life.
Few, if any, of the students who were subsidized knew that the funds came from the
CIA. Even if they did know, they were free to speak their minds; there was no
control over them by CIA.
The American students at the World Youth Festival in Vienna (1959) and in Hel-
sinki (1962) gave an excellent account of themselves; they prevented a Communist take-
over of the festivals. We should commend the CIA for its foresight and its success.
To "expose" and condemn the CIA and call for major restrictions may only weaken a
necessary international operation. As one who served for some years on the congres-
sional committee supervising the CIA, I can say that I have more confidence in the
patriotism and competence of men like Allen Dulles, John McCone, Adm. W. F. Raborn,
and Richard Helms than I have in some of those Americans who delight in "exposing" the
CIA. By its very nature the CIA must conduct its business secretly. Possibly there
should be more congressional supervision of its specific activities. But we do not
strengthen our national security or promote our national interest by "exposing" and
condemning sincere efforts by either Democratic or Republican Administrations to ad-
vance the democratic way of life and to nullify the effect of Communistic propaganda.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
March 8, 1967
The House of Representatives last week decided to deny a seat to Adam Clayton
Powell. If letters and telegrams received in my office are a true indication, this
decision has general support throughout the country. If personal behavior, official
conduct, and attitude toward the law and the courts and toward his colleagues were
the only issue, no one would question this decision. As was pointed out in the
debate recorded in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Mr. Powell's "morals are shocking, his
conduct is revolting, his character is disreputable, and he has repeatedly insulted
the Members of this body--and the House of Representatives as an institution."
Something had to be done about Mr. Powell. But the problem involves more than
personal behavior and official conduct. It involves a constitutional question
including the basic right of a congressional district to elect its representative to
the Congress. Many authorities allege that if a congressman-elect satisfies the age,
citizenship, and residency requirements of the Constitution and is duly elected under
the laws of his state, he should net be excluded from membership in the Congress.
None other than the late Senator Taft held this position when the Senate was debating
the exclusion of a Senator-elect. He said at that time: "If the Senate can say that
the absence of moral turpitude is a qualification, it can impose qualifications based
on morals
or the philosophical view of any person elected
The existence of
such a power would give the majority of either House the ability to exclude those who
disagreed with the opinions of the majority
"
With all due respect to Senator Taft and to other authorities, it does seem to
me that the House of Representatives or the Senate may take into consideration other
than the three constitutional qualifications in determining whether to seat a member-
elect.
However, in view of the action of the House, Mr. Powell could take his case to
the courts and there could develop a serious constitutional crisis, a collision
between the legislative and judicial branches of our government. In fact, when the
House had finished its work, Chairman Celler of the Judiciary Committee and of the
Select Committee said: "If I were Mr. Powell's lawyer I would go into court right
away. He's got a good case."
Although I believe the House has the power to exclude Mr. Powell, I voted
to support the Committee's resolution of censure and punishment. However, on final
passage I supported the amended resolution calling for exclusion.
I supported the Committee's recommendation because it had worked out a good,
fair, and firm solution to a difficult problem. Its recommendation would have stood
-
the test of time as a precedent for subsequent Congresses. It had recommended what
would have been severe punishment and grave humiliation for a member of the Congress.
And 1f Mr. Powell had not accepted this punishment by March 13th, he would have
excluded himself from the House. If he had stolen from the government or converted
public funds to his own use or otherwise committed a felony, criminal action was to be
taken against him by the Attorney General with adjudication in the courts.
Last Wednesday when the issue was before the House there were three crucial
votes. The first was to halt debate on the Committee's Resolution and vote on that
resolution without amendments being permitted. In other words, the question was:
Shall we now vote to either accept or reject the Committee's recommendation. The
House defeated the motion 222-2022 In effect, the House said it wanted to add an
amendment to the Resolution. I voted against adding the amendment because I favored
the Resolution as originally recommended by the Select Committee.
When the motion to halt debate and prevent amendments failed, an amendment was
proposed to exclude Mr. Powell from membership in the 90th Congress. The second sig-
nificant vote was on the adoption of this amendment. I voted "no," but the amendment
carried 248-176. I voted "no" because I felt that the recommendations of the Committee
for censure and punishment was a good, fair, and firm solution to the problem and that
to go further could create new and serious difficulties.
The third and last significant vote was on the adoption of the Resolution as
amended. The question now was: Shall the House approve a revised resolution simply
to exclude Mr. Powell from the 90th Congress? On this I voted "yes," and the motion
passed 307-116. You may be interested to know that three of the four Republican
members on the Select Committee and one Democrat member also voted "yes." Five members
of the Select Committee including one Republican voted "no" on final passage.
I voted "yes" because it was evident from the 248-176 vote to amend the Commit-
tee's resolution that the House was determined to take strong action against Mr.
Powell. Furthermore, if on final passage the resolution had been defeated, it could
have meant no punishment at all for Mr. Powell and no immediate solution to the problem.
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS AND CONDUCT: The Committee on Rules has held three
days of hearings on the Republican proposal to establish a Committee on Standards and
Conduct to recommend rules and regulations to insure proper conduct by all members,
officers, and employees of the House. It would also have broad authority to investi-
gate allegations of misconduct and to suggest proper action.
The Committee is scheduled to hold more hearings this week and may decide what
to recommend. Republicans want to create an independent committee. Many Democrats
favor the establishment of a Subcommittee on Ethics in the Committee on House Adminis-
tration. The Committee on Rules is expected to recommend one of these approaches.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
March 15, 1967
Last Thursday afternoon I was served with a summons to appear in the U. S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The Speaker, the Majority Leader, and I
are among those who have been named defendants in the suit brought by Adam Clayton
Powell to regain his seat in Congress. The issue is a most significant and serious
one and could, as I pointed out last week, precipitate a constitutional crisis.
As you know, I preferred the action recommended by the Select Committee to
punish and humiliate Mr. Powell rather than to exclude him from membership. However,
I voted for exclusion on final passage. Now that the House, representing the American
people, has spoken we must defend its action and preserve the constitutional principle
of separation of powers. The House of Representatives in the Legislative Branch has
rendered its judgment in this case. No court in the Federal Judiciary nor any
official in the Executive Branch has any jurisdiction over the matter. The Constitu-
tion says "each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications
of its own members." I therefore strongly urged the employment of special counsel by
the House to defend its position in this case. The House agreed to do this last
Thursday by a vote of 254 to 85.
CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT ON VIETNAM: There has been no declaration of war in
the Vietnam conflict. But last Wednesday in giving final approval to a supplemental
authorization bill, the House declared "its firm intentions to provide all necessary
support for members of the Armed Forces of the United States fighting in Vietnam."
Congress (the Senate too approved the bill on Wednesday) also declared its support of
all efforts "to prevent an expansion of the war
and to bring that conflict to an
end through a negotiated settlement
(and) for the convening of the nations
for
formulating plans for bringing the conflict to an honorable conclusion." The vote on
the bill containing this declaration was 363 to 13.
FIREARMS AND RELATED LEGISLATION: The Committee on the Judiciary will hear
the Attorney General today as it opens hearings on five bills relating to crime con-
trol. The most controversial of these, as far as our mail is concerned, is H.R. 5384
which has to do with the sale and distribution of firearms. Most of our letters
oppose this legislation. The Committee will hear all the arguments for and against
the bill before deciding what the final provisions of the bill will be or whether any
further action should be taken.
Many of those who oppose H.R. 5384 favor H.R. 360 introduced by Mr. Casey of
Texas. This bill provides prison terms of 10 to 25 years for anyone who commits a
felony while using or carrying any firearm which has been sent or carried from one
state to another.
FOOD FOR INDIA: The House has approved a Resolution calling for the shipment
of an additional 3 million tons of food grain to India this year at an estimated cost
of $190 million. The Resolution, adopted last Thursday, also endorses the participa-
tion of the United States with other countries and with various international govern-
mental organizations in encouraging a "self-help" program for India.
The Committee on Agriculture which recommended approval of the Resolution
emphasized that "in the long run the American people will simply be unable to assume
alone the immense burden of India's ballooning population." The rest of the world
would share in helping India through the present crisis, but the Committee stated that
"India herself must shoulder the basic responsibility for feeding her own people."
In this connection the Committee recommended "that India should utilize more of her
tillable land for the production of food than for the production of nonfood crops
which are in world surplus." India now has twice as many acres in cotton as does the
U. S. but her yields per acre are less than one-fourth of those in our country. Her
wheat productivity per acre on the other hand runs about 45 percent of that in the
U. S. Our Department of Agriculture stated on March 1 that "from a physical and
scientific standpoint, one can therefore, conclude that virtually every acre of land
now producing cotton could produce crops used for food or feed."
The U. S. with its large surplus of cotton could easily supply India with any
additional cotton she might need as a result of reducing her cotton production. The
Committee concluded that "this would be beneficial to both nations--India would grow
more food, and the U. S. would reduce its cotton surplus." As it is, India needs to
import 10 million tons of grain this calendar year, of which 6.6 million tons will
come from the United States.
India pays for this grain in rupees. Under an agreement signed recently 32
percent of the funds received will be granted to the Indian government for financing
economic projects and health programs; 65 percent of the sales proceeds will be lent
to India to finance economic development projects. Five percent will go to loans to
private Indian-American firms, and the remaining eight percent will be available for
paying U. S. government expenses in India.
An encouraging note does come from top American officials in India who report
that, "the great majority of farmers are now eager for fertilizers, for better seeds,
and more efficient use of water."
RECENT VISITORS: J. David Heiss, Edward C. Marek, Louise Gephart, Mrs.
Raymond Fuller, George Beute, Mrs. Paul Gorski, John A. Kwekel, Gen. David E. Cleary
and Pam, Mr. G. A. Rinck, Ernie Wixom, Wendell A. Lyle, Ben Buikema, Wendell Miles,
Robert Muth, and Gary Schmidt.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
March 22, 1967
In our Republican State of the Union Message on January 19th I said, "The
Investment Tax Credit must be restored immediately.' On March 9 President Johnson
asked Congress to restore this tax credit and last Thursday, March 16, the House
passed a bill to do SO.
Originally recommended by President Kennedy in 1962 as a means of stimulating
the economy, the Act provides a 7-percent tax credit for those businesses which invest
in certain new plant and equipment. It was designed to increase new investments by
authorizing a business to deduct from its annual federal income tax, 7 percent of the
cost of any qualified expenditure.
Last fall President Johnson recommended that the law be suspended through
December 31, 1967. The Congress agreed and set October 10, 1966 as the effective
date for suspension. This was done because at the time strong inflationary forces
were at work and it was felt that the suspension would ease pressures in the money
markets. Now, however, it is evident that all industry groups anticipate far smaller
increases in plant and equipment expenditures in 1967 than in 1966. Also, the tight
labor supply conditions have eased in the tool and machine industries as evidenced by
a decline in overtime hours in these industries in the final quarter of last year.
And there appears to be an easing in the money market at the present time.
We are pleased that President Johnson recognized these facts and agreed with
the Republicans that the tax credit should be restored. The House approved this
action last Thursday by a vote of 386 to 2.
FURTHER ON MR. POWELL: It is generally agreed that Adam Clayton Powell will be
reelected by his constituents in the 18th Congressional District of New York. In
view of its Resolution of exclusion, what is the House to do? It could vote to seat
him on the basis that he satisfies the three basic and enumerated constitutional
qualifications, that the House has passed judgment on his personal qualifications, and
that his constituents are entitled to be represented by their freely-elected Congress-
man. Or the House could stand by its Resolution of March 1 denying Mr. Powell a seat
in the 90th Congress regardless of further action by his constituents or the courts.
There could be a court determination of Mr. Powell's right to his seat and the House
could accept or reject the court's decision.
Finally, the House could agree to seat Mr. Powell under the conditions laid
down in the original Resolution approved by the Select Committee. This would mean
that he would be publicly censured by the Speaker, lose all seniority rights, and be
required to reimburse the Government $40,000 at the rate of $1,000 per month. In the
meantime the Justice Department should vigorously investigate alleged violations of
the criminal statutes by Mr. Powell. Just what will happen is difficult to predict at
this point. It is obvious the last chapter in the Powell matter has not been written.
It appears the House of Representatives will establish a standing Committee on
Standards and Conduct, a proposal recommended by the Republican Policy Committee.
11
INTEREST EQUALIZATION TAX: We still have a balance-of-payments problem.
During 1966 the U. S. had a deficit of $1.4 billion in its payments to other countries
and a decrease in its gold supply of $571 million.
In order to do something about this problem the Congress in 1964 levied a tax
on foreigners obtaining capital from U. S. sources either from the sale of stock or
from the sale of bonds with a maturity of one year or more. By raising the cost to
foreigners of obtaining money in our country, the tax serves to slow down the flow of
private capital abroad. But the present tax expires on July 31 of this year. Last
Wednesday by a vote of 238 to 142, the House agreed to extend the tax for two more
years.
I voted with a majority of the Republican members of the Committee on Ways and
Means in support of the extension of the tax. These members said: "The Administra-
tion has failed to adopt appropriate measures to meet the balance-of-payments problem"
While accepting the opponents' contention that this tax was but a temporary measure
that did not meet the problem, these members felt that because of the seriousness of
the situation "even temporary measures may be preferable to taking no action" at all.
I agreed.
Those who opposed extension of the tax argued that to continue the tax "merely
serves to becloud the real problem--excessive Government spending abroad." They
showed that the $1.4 billion deficit for 1966 was caused by a $3.9 billion Government
deficit offset by a $2.5 billion surplus of exports over imports in the private
sector of our economy.
It was also pointed out that "if we are to regain our trade surplus, we must
first restore price stability at home. The inflationary policies of this administra-
tion amount to nothing less than a hidden 'tax' on our exports and a 'bonus' for
imports. We must also reexamine the policy of extending trade concessions to the
European Community and to Japan, while they ever increasingly adopt 'protectionist'
policies to restrict imports from the United States. We cannot continue to encourage
imports from abroad, in the face of a growing effort on the part of other major indus-
trial nations to close their doors to American exports."
RECENT VISITORS: Grand Rapids -- Dr. & Mrs. Lawrence Zoerner, Mrs. Edgar Orr,
George D. Green, Jerry Sietsema. Ionia -- Lyle Clover. Rockford -- C.E. Schumacher.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
March 29, 1967
The House of Representatives has approved the first regular appropriation bill
of this session. The pattern is the familiar one: a cut in the President's request
but an increase in spending over the previous year. To operate the Treasury and Post
Office Departments and the Executive Office in fiscal year 1968 the President had
requested $7.6 billion. The Committee on Appropriations reduced this to $7.5 billion
which is $797 million more than is being spent this year. An effort by Republicans
to make a 5-percent across-the-board cut was defeated 217-168.
Salaries and expenses at the White House are up by $54,000 making a total of
$3 million. The cost of providing for the care, maintenance, and operation of the
Executive Mansion will be $708,000, an increase of $16,000 even with the lights
turned off. Incidentally, there are 250 permanent staff positions at the White House
and the permanent maintenance crew numbers 75.
The Post Office is going to spend over $6.5 billion next year. If there is no
increase in postal rates there will be a deficit of over $1.3 billion to be met from
the general fund of the Treasury. The President has indicated that he will ask for
increases in postal rates to produce $700 million; this will reduce the 1968 postal
deficit to $551 million. As yet Mr. Johnson has not submitted his specific proposals
for increased postage to the Congress.
This bill provides funds for 25,545 additional positions in the Post Office
Department. This will bring total postal employment to about 745,000 in 1968. Mail
volume continues to increase. The U. S. Post Office handled nearly 80 billion pieces
of mail last year, an increase of about 4 billion pieces over the previous year.
ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT: The House Republican Policy Committee, of which I am a
member, has called for the adoption of legislation to eliminate political favoritism
in the Post Office Department and to "insure the recognition and promotion of able
and experienced career postal employees." We cannot have high morale and good service
as long as this Department "remains a politically-dominated agency where appointments
and
all promotions are based on political favoritism rather than merit, postal
experience, and good management procedures."
A LATIN AMERICAN RESOLUTION: President Johnson is planning to attend a "summit
meeting" with leaders of our Latin American neighbors next month at Punta del Este in
Uruguay. Last Wednesday the House passed a Resolution indicating its support of the
establishment of a Latin American Common Market, the development of cooperative
efforts to promote Latin American economic integration, and an increased emphasis on
programs of education, agricultural modernization, and improvement of health. The
Resolution pledges our cooperation in helping the nations of Latin America to help
themselves and one another. I supported the Resolution but made it clear that I was
making no future commitment for specific dollar assistance.
VETERANS' PENSION AND READJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE ACT: Veterans' pensions were
increased by an average of 5.4 percent under a bill unanimously approved by the House
of Representatives last Monday. Veterans will receive an average increase of 4.4 per
cent, widows an average of 8.2 percent, widows with children an average of 6.4 per
cent, and "housebound" veterans an average increase of 14.3 percent. For example, the
pension of a single veteran with an annual income of $600 to $1200 per year will be
increased from $75 to $79 per month; a widow in the same income bracket will have her
monthly pension raised from $48 to $51.
The bill also extends to veterans of the Vietnam conflict benefits available
to those who served in Korea and in World War II; it increases the service-connected
disability compensation for many veterans serving after August 5, 1964, and raises
certain educational allowances for veterans.
The first-year estimated cost of this bill is $236 million with the five-year
total cost coming to $1.34 billion. The bill has been sent to the Senate for further
consideration.
ON HOLIDAYS AND CELEBRATIONS: About 445 bills were introduced in the last
Congress authorizing and requesting the President to designate certain days or weeks
in honor of a given activity, project, or concept. So far in this Congress there are
about 75 bills calling for a Presidential proclamation to encourage the national
observance of this day or that week.
Last Monday the House approved a bill to establish a "Commission on National
Observances and Holidays" whose primary duty will be to report and recommend to the
President those observances which it finds to be of national significance and which
warrant Federal recognition. The Commission would be composed of the Archivist of
the United States, the Librarian of Congress, and the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution. The Commission would relieve the Congress and individual Congressman of
the burden of acting on these requests for Presidential proclamations.
At the present time, between 30 and 40 proclamations, some based on law and
others on longstanding precedent, are issued annually. In addition about 10 events
are observed each year by virtue of proclamations issued at some time in the past.
Spokesmen for the President have questioned "whether the practice should be extended
further" and have said: "We believe it would be preferable to limit issuance of
Presidential proclamations to observances which are clearly of major national
importance." I agree.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
April 12, 1967
Byron Center's senior class was the first high school group to visit us in
Washington this year. I had the pleasure of meeting the 67 seniors and four sponsors
in the office last Wednesday. This week we are expecting the senior classes from
Caledonia and Lee High Schools.
The Congress was in recess from March 23rd to April 3rd. It was for this
reason that there was no newsletter last week. However, we did mail to many of you
a list of farm and home bulletins prepared by the Department of Agriculture. Many of
these publications are of interest to the housewife and the homeowner as well as to
the farmer. If you did not receive this list and would like a copy, please let me
know. You may write me at "House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.," or telephone
my Grand Rapids office at GL 6-9747.
REVISION OF COPYRIGHT LAW: The most significant action of the House of Repre-
sentatives last week involved a general revision of the copyright laws. The bill
(H.R. 2512) itself consists of 54 pages of small print. The Report of the Committee
on the Judiciary explaining the bill runs to 254 pages. The legislation represents
almost 12 years of work which began in 1955 with a comprehensive program of research
and study by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. The Committee itself
conducted 22 days of public hearings on the subject and held 54 executive sessions to
iron out difficulties and arrive at the specific language of the bill.
The purpose of this revision is to update the copyright laws and to insure
that authors receive the encouragement and remuneration they need and deserve. While
our first copyright law was enacted by the First Congress in 1790, the last comprehen-
sive revision was made in 1909. There have been many technological developments since
that time and as a result exisitng law is inadequate. The House debated the bill last
Thursday from 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. when it decided to continue the discussion
this week.
ON COMMITTEE FUNDS: Some conflict developed last Wednesday when Republicans
attempted to obtain additional staff assistance for the Committee on Science and
Astronautics which handles the $5 billion NASA authorization bill and other legisla-
tion of a highly technical nature. Our efforts to obtain additional help for
minority members in the modest amount of $30,000 was defeated 215 to 176.
On the same day an attempt was made to deny or delay funds for the operation of
the Committee on Un-American Activities. The request for funds was finally approved
348 to 43, As I said a year ago: "Until a better method for keeping subversive, anti-
American elements under surveillance and legislation related thereto is developed by
the House, I will continue to support this official committee of the Congress."
ON THE PUBLIC DEBT: At the end of March the national debt had reached $332.8
billion. This is more than $10 billion above the total debt just one year ago. A $10
billion increase in debt means an increase of more than $330 million annually in
interest charges, which is an additional charge against the taxpayer. While some pro-
fessional economists tell us this expansion of debt is nothing to worry about, I am
deeply concerned with a fiscal policy that makes no attempt to balance outgo against
income, which adds millions to annual interest charges, and which means we pass on to
our children and grandchildren burdens we refuse to shoulder. This policy has moral
and ethical implications as well as economic ones. We must reduce non-essential
federal expenditures, and I intend to vote for economy.
ON POSTAL RATES: President Johnson has recommended an increase in postal rates
for all classes of mail. First class and airmail now more than pay their own way but
postage on other classes of mail does not meet the cost of handling and delivery. The
chart below shows how costs of each class compare with current revenues and with
revenues under the President's proposal.
Percentage of
Proposed
Percentage of costs
Class
costs paid now
increase
paid under new rate
First
103
5c to 6c
123
Airmail
121
8c to 9c
128
Second
(newspapers,magazines)
23
22% average
28
Third
(advertising)
63
28% average
80
Special 4th
(books, records)
42
21% average
51
The percentage of costs to be paid under the new rate does not reflect the
President's proposed increase in salaries to be paid to postal employees. If salaries
are increased it will mean that the percentage of cost to be met under the new rate
will be less than shown in the chart. You may see figures showing second and third
class mail paying a greater percentage of their costs than indicated above. This is
true when the "public service allowance" from tax funds is included as revenue. Our
figures compare actual postage paid with actual costs as determined by the Post Office
Department.
ON CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS: The House Rules Committee has recommended the estab-
lishment of a permanent Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. If the House
agrees, there will be a bi-partisan, 12-member committee elected by the House to write
a code of standards of official conduct for members, officers, and employees of the
House. The Committee will also establish a code of procedure for enforcing these
standards. When both the standards and the procedures are approved by the House, the
Committee will have authorization to enforce the standards of conduct. Such a
committee is overdue and should be put into operation promptly.
Your Washington Review
KENT
IONIA
Congressman
5
JERRY FORD
April 19, 1967
By a unanimous vote of 400 to 0, the House of Representatives last Thursday
established a permanent Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. There was general
agreement that the American people want such a committee and that there should be
some guidelines for official conduct for members of the House, its officers, and
loyees. The Committee of six Republicans and six Democrats will draw up these
guidelines as a code of ethics. It must also establish means of enforcement. After
both the guidelines and means of enforcement have been approved by the House, the
Committee will have authority to consider allegations of misconduct against members
of the House, officers, or employees.
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE POWELL CASE: Since my last comments in the newsletter on
the Powell case, there have been two major developments: a Federal District Court has
ruled that it has no jurisdiction in this matter, and Mr. Powell has been reelected to
Congress by his constituents.
The District Court agreed fully with the position I took on the floor of the
House on March 9th. I maintained that the House of Representatives, and the House
only, has the authority to judge the qualifications of members-elect. I said "that
one of the most fundamental and precious principles is this constitutional provision
of the separation of legislative, executive, and judicial branches." I added that
"no court nor any officer of the executive branch has any jurisdiction" in this
case. In his opinion the District Judge said: "For this Court to order any member
of the House of Representatives of the United States, any officer of the House, or any
employee of the House to do or not to do an act related to the organization or member-
ship of that House would be for the Court to crash through a political thicket into
political quicksand." This decision has been taken to the Court of Appeals and the
problem may eventually go to the Supreme Court. But in my judgment the District
Judge is 100 percent correct.
Mr. Powell was reelected last Tuesday but at this writing has given no indica-
tion when he would come to Washington to claim his seat. Under the Resolution adopted
by the House he is barred from membership in the 90th Congress which runs through
1968. Only time will tell the ultimate results.
COPYRIGHT BILL APPROVED: Following one additional day of debate last week the
Copyright Revision bill was amended and approved by the House. Two principal changes
were made in the bill as recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary. The first
affects CATV (Community Antenna Television). Under present law as interpreted by the
courts, CATV stations are fully liable under the copyright laws. They must pay for
the use of copyrighted material or be subject to the penalties of the law. Section 111
of the bill as recommended by the Committee granted certain exemptions to CATV
operators. But CATV interests objected to this Section and it was stricken from the
bill. In the meantime there is a law suit in the federal courts on the issue of what,
if anything, the CATV operators must pay to copyright owners.
The other principal amendment has to do with jukeboxes. Presently, owners of
jukeboxes pay no fees to copyright owners. Under the Committee's bill they would pay
3c per quarter for each tune used in the jukebox, or an equivalent of $19.20 a year.
Under the amendment adopted by the House the jukebox owner must pay a flat $8 a year
and the method of collecting and distributing the fee is altered. While in both
instances I preferred the orginal committee recommendations, I voted for the bill
which was approved 379 to 29.
RAILROAD STRIKE AVERTED: Both the House and the Senate last Tuesday approved
a joint resolution requested by the President to extend the "cooling off period" in
the threatened railroad strike for 20 days to May 3rd. We sincerely hope that by that
time the parties to the present dispute can arrive at a satisfactory understanding and
contract. The President pointed out that "the cost of a nation-wide railroad strike
would be incalculable." I supported this resolution which was approved 396 to 8.
POSTAL LEGISLATION: A subcommittee of the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service will hold hearings during the latter part of May on the Postmaster General's
proposal to replace the Post Office Department with a non-profit government corpora-
tion. The Subcommittee Chairman has said: "Mail service is the lifeline of our
economy. Taking control of this vital service from the elected representatives of the
people must not be done lightly. My Subcommittee and I intend to determine whether or
not the Postmaster General's proposal would actually facilitate modernization of the
postal system and thereby improve mail service." More efficient postal service is the
issue and I'm pleased to know that the proposal is to be thoroughly examined.
At the end of this month and during the first of May other subcommittees will
be listening to the pros and cons of the President's proposals for an increase in
postal rates and an increase in salaries for federal employees including those in the
post office.
RECENT VISITORS: From Ada: Mr.& Mrs. Richard Houskamp. From Grand Rapids:
Mr.& Mrs. Robert Hennink; Mrs. Esther VanderTuig; Paul Kravitz; Mr.& Mrs. Wm. C. Banta;
Mr.& Mrs. James Robinette; Mr.& Mrs. R. Schwartz; Rev. & Mrs. Carlos Page, Joe and
Lynn; Mr.& Mrs. Silas F. Albert, Wendy and Lindy Cogan; Sue Myers; Thomas J. Jackoboice;
Robert L. McKay; Mr.& Mrs. Henry R. Post, Jr., Carol Krombeen, Nancy Post, Karen Post;
Mr.& Mrs. L. E. Dooge, Jr., and Family; Mr.& Mrs. Robert Sawdey and Family.
Elaine - See last Paragagh.
Your Washington Review
KENT
IONIA
Congressman
5
JERRY FORD
April 26, 1967
The House of Representatives soon will consider a federal-aid-to-education bill
Entitled, "Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967" (H.R. 7819), it
would continue many of the federaraid programs now in effect, and extends some others
including the National Teachers Corps. Republican members of the Committee on Educa-
tion and Labor and the Republican Policy Committee have recommended that the present
system of categorical grant-in-aid programs be replaced by "block grants" (lump-sum
payments) to the states for such local educational programs. This would lessen
federal control over local education, and would permit state and local school districts
to use federally-collected tax dollars to meet their most pressing educational needs.
As it is now, federal money is doled out by federal bureaucrats in Washington, D. C.
to specific programs and projects regardless of basic state and local needs. This is
an example of Washington bureaucracy at its worst.
Many inquiries have been received by my office as to the effect of the Republi-
can proposal on non-public schools. I can report that the "block grant" will in no
way alter any assistance which may be available to such schools. In fact, the Repub-
lican amendment lists more specifically and clearly the services to be provided
children attending non-public schools than does the original bill.
COMMISSION ON OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY: The Committee on Education and Labor
has under consideration a bill to create a special commission to study the problems
relative to the distribution of obscene material. We receive many complaints from
those who receive this sort of material through the mails. I hope the Commission is
established. It will analyze present law and court decisions, examine methods used to
distribute the material, study the effects of obscenity on minors and on crime, and
will recommend legislation and administrative action to get at the problem.
RESPECT FOR THE FLAG: Recent public demonstrations in which the American flag
has been burned and mutilated have renewed the demand for a federal law against the
desecration of our country's flag. Most citizens are surprised to learn that there
is no federal criminal statute, except in the District of Columbia, to punish those
who desecrate or otherwise show disrespect for the flag.
Federal law does enumerate the rules and customs pertaining to the display and
use of the flag by civilians and civilian groups. These are guidelines only. The law
does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance, nor does it contain any provision
for enforcing the rules and customs. Neither is there any federal agency authorized
to issue "official" rulings on the use of the flag. The law or code summarizes the
situation by stating: "That no disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United
States of America."
Twenty-two bills have been introduced in the House to make violation of the
flag code a criminal offense punishable by fine or imprisonment. These bills have
been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary which has assigned them to a sub-
committee for hearings scheduled to begin on May 8th. It should be pointed out,
however, that each of the 50 states has criminal penalties for flag desecration. But
the penalties vary as does the definition of "desecration."
FIFTH DISTRICT IN WASHINGTON: Last week saw a flurry of activity by Fifth
District citizens in Washington. On Monday, Attorneys Paul Strawhecker and Wendell
Miles appeared before the U. S. Supreme Court in a case involving the Kent County
Board of Education. They argued the question of "one-man, one-vote" as it applies to
the Board.
Attorneys William Azkoul, George Cook, and Niel Weathers were admitted to
practice before the Supreme Court last week. I had the privilege of "moving the
admission" of Bill Azkoul.
On Wednesday, I was able to introduce John Martin to the House Committee on the
Judiciary. He was here as Chairman of the Michigan Commission on Crime and testified
on the bill which would restrict the use of electronic listening devices (electronic
bugging) to matters involving national security only. Mr. Martin opposed such a
restriction and said, "It is our belief that organized crime and its related activity
of bribery and corruption of public officials requires the use of electronic devices
for the protection of Society." He expressed concern for any improper and unwarranted
invasion of the rights of privacy but warned that the battle against organized crime
would be a losing one without the lawful use of electronic listening devices.
We were able to set up some appointments in the Office of Education for the
Assistant Superintendent of Grand Rapids Schools, Mr. Robert Muth. He was in
Washington primarily in connection with the Cultural-Educational Park being considered
by the Grand Rapids Board of Education.
Finally I was pleased to have the opportunity on Wednesday to meet with thir-
teen 4-H leaders from Ionia County who were here attending a citizenship conference.
They were: Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Horrocks, Mr. and Mrs. Gaylord Brooks, Mrs. Sterrey
Stout, Mrs. Elmer Miller, all from Ionia; Mr. and Mrs. Marion Thompson and Mrs. Norma
Bever, Portland; Mrs. W. H. Linebaugh, Lyons; Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Bird, Belding; and
Mrs. F. Bowen, Jr., from Saranac.
OUR AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: The 1967 edition of the 44-page pamphlet entitled,
"Our American Government: What Is It? How Does It Function?" is now available through
my office. You may have a copy by calling my Grand Rapids office at GL 6-9747 or by
writing me at the House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. The pamphlet contains
175 questions and answers on our history and government, and a current list of
members of Congress and of the President's Cabinet.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
May 3, 1967
Last week we received over 4000 letters and telegrams in opposition to the
Quie Amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Approximately 2000 of
these were from the Fifth District. This is by far the greatest volume of mail
received in my office in one week on any one issue since I have been in Congress.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (originally passed in 1965) provides
federal funds for the education of the disadvantaged (remedial reading and instruction
in the language arts; educational equipment, etc.); for textbooks, library books,
instructional materials; for supplemental educational centers and services (such as
the language and speech center in Grand Rapids to train teachers and parents to better
assist children with speech difficulties); and for grants to state educational
agencies to improve these agencies and education within the states. Presently, and
under the bill recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor to continue and
expand these programs, administration of the funds is primarily in the hands of the
bureaucrats in Washington. Approval of specific local projects must come from
Washington where the money is doled out and where the control rests.
Rep. Quie (R-Minn.) a member of the Committee has suggested a plan of "block
grants" for continuing these programs financed through a single grant to the indi-
vidual state for distribution to all school children in that state. This would permit
each state to set its own priorities within broad limits and to meet its own specific
needs within the framework of the programs for which the funds are made available.
(States could not, for instance, use these special funds for general expenses such as
teachers' salaries or school construction.) The Quie plan would cut down costly
Washington, D.C. administration expenses, and reduce federal control over local
schools to a minimum.
The letters and telegrams of opposition and protest were not concerned primari-
ly with "block grants" or the degree of federal control. All expressed the fear that
Mr. Quie's amendment would eliminate or decrease the federal assistance under the
ESEA now going to non-public schools. This expression arose out of a serious mis-
understanding of Mr. Quie's proposal. The fact of the matter is, the Quie amendment
would continue every form of assistance now available for private and parochial school
pupils and teachers, and would somewhat expand these benefits. To further alleviate
the fears of non-public school patrons, Mr. Quie has clarified his amendment to be
absolutely sure that programs in the local schools financed through the block grant
must include arrangements for non-public school children to participate. If it
appears that a state under its constitution cannot legally provide for the needs of
the non-public schools, Mr. Quie's amendment authorizes the U. S. Commissioner of
Education to arrange for the loan of textbooks, materials, and equipment in that
state on an equitable basis from the funds allotted to that state.
May I reiterate, the Quie Amendment guarantees to non-public school pupils and
teachers every benefit provided under the current Elementary and Secondary Education
Act and under the 1967 Amendments recommended by the Committee in H.R. 7819.
FHA FOR HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION: Community leaders in Grand Rapids tell me that
during the next ten years our four largest hospitals will be required to expand their
facilities to the extent of $35 million. Most of this money will come from private
sources although there is direct federal assistance for hospital construction under
the Hill-Burton Act. For the fiscal year 1967, a total of $270 million has been
appropriated for this work and $10,047,643 was allotted to Michigan. But something
more is needed if we are to meet the problem.
It was suggested to me that our non-profit hospitals might be able to borrow
more money for construction at lower rates of interest if the federal government
would insure hospital mortgages, as FHA now insures home mortgages. While FHA may
now assist certain nursing homes in this manner, it has no authority to help hospitals.
Last week, therefore, I introduced legislation (H.R. 9179) to permit FHA to insure
mortgages obtained for construction purposes by non-profit hospitals. The bill has
been referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency.
JOINT BILLS: Until last Tuesday when the House approved H.Res. 42, if another
Congressman wanted to sponsor my proposal for broadening FHA authority, he had to
introduce an identical bill. He could not join with me in presenting one bill. By
adopting H.Res. 42, the House permits up to 25 members to introduce jointly any bill
or resolution. This is a sensible change and one which will save money. The cost of
printing ten identical bills with an average of eight pages is $1,006. If ten members
jointly introduce one bill, the cost is $164.
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS: On Thursday the House approved the
third regular appropriation bill of the session when it voted $1.3 billion to operate
the Department of Interior and Related Agencies during fiscal year 1968. The pattern
was the usual one: the appropriation is up $32 billion over the current year even
after the Committee cut $78 million from President Johnson's request.
In an effort to further reduce non-essential spending and to act responsibly in
behalf of the taxpayers, Republicans attempted to make a 5-percent across-the-board
reduction in the appropriation. This would have saved over $68 million. But the
Democrat-controlled House rejected this savings by a vote of 231 to 158.
Your Washington Review
RENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
May 10, 1967
A joint resolution requested by President Johnson to extend the "cooling-off"
period in the threatened railroad strike for 45 days to June 19 was approved by the
House of Representatives last Monday by a vote of 301 to 56. The previous resolution
to hold off the strike for 20 days was approved on April 11 by a vote of 396 to 8.
Those who spoke in opposition to Monday's action stressed the fact that during the
20-day extension no progress was made in negotiations and President Johnson had made
no recommendations to the Congress for settling this dispute. It was also felt that
the Congress needed to know more about the basic facts involved in the disagreement
before halting the strike for a month and a half.
I supported the President's request, especially because of the serious impli-
cations of a breakdown in essential transportation facilities. But I voted for the
resolution only upon receiving assurances from Mr. Johnson that he would submit to the
Congress shortly his recommendations for a solution to the current strike situation.
He did so last Thursday.
I also hope that Mr. Johnson will submit to the Congress soon his general
legislative recommendations in the area of labor-management relations. In his State-
of-the-Union Message on January 12, 1966, President Johnson stated, "I also intend to
ask the Congress to consider measures which without improperly invading state and
local authority will enable us effectively to deal with strikes which threaten irrep-
arable damage to the national interest." That was said 16 months ago. But to date no
recommendations have been received from the President and our labor-management prob-
lems continue to mount. Something must be done, and the sooner the better. The
credibility of that promise by President Johnson will be in jeopardy if these recom-
mendations are not forthcoming.
U. S. AID TO RUSSIA: The Johnson Administration through the Export-Import
Bank, an agency of the U. S. Government, wants to help finance the construction of an
automobile plant in the Soviet Union. The Bank would finance $50 million of the cost
of building a factory in Russia to manufacture Fiat (Italian) automobiles.
Republicans on the Committee on Banking and Currency tried to kill the proposal
by amending a bill (H.R. 6649) expanding the lending authority of the Bank. Every
Republican but one voted to stop this deal but they were joined by only two Democrats
so the attempt lost 18 to 15.
Republicans will fight the proposal when it comes to the floor of the House.
There is no justification for any agency of our government helping to strengthen the
Soviet economy while the Russian Government is encouraging and assisting the Communist
aggressors in Vietnam. Eighty percent of the North Vietnamese-Viet Cong military
equipment comes from the Soviet Union.
MORE ON THE QUIE AMENDMENT: Our mail on the Quie Amendment to the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act has slackened off but only after we received more than
5500 letters and telegrams. As I have mentioned before, these communications
expressed concern that non-public schools would lose benefits under the Quie Amendment
which is designed solely to return federal aid to public and non-public schools in the
form of "block grants" to the states. There is nothing in the Quie Amendment which
can take from any non-public school student any benefit to which he is entitled under
law or under H.R. 7819 as recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor.
Rep. William J. Scherle (Towa) and Rep. John N. Erlenborn (I11.) have written
to editors of Catholic publications on this important issue. They wrote: "Let us say,
first of all, that we are Roman Catholics, and that both of us are products of
parochial schools. We believe that erroneous information and even more erroneous
interpretation has been circulated about this amendment. It is NOT an anti-Catholic
amendment, but it IS anti-Federal bureaucracy. It intends to give school children
better educational opportunities; and it intends to afford school administrators --
both public and parochial -- a better chance of bringing those opportunities to the
children in their care."
I recently received a letter dated April 28 from the Executive Secretary of
the State Relations Committee of the National Union of Christian Schools endorsing
the Quie Amendment. Writing for the Committee he said: "After having reviewed the
most recent changes in the proposed Quie Amendment to H.R. 7819 and finding them to
be very acceptable, we feel compelled to make it known to you that we support the
proposal enthusiastically.
The Quie Amendment, in its revised edition, does protect
the rights and welfare of all children."
SALINE WATER CONVERS ION PROGRAM: Since 1952 when the federal government
initiated research activities to obtain fresh water from the sea or brackish sources,
Congress has appropriated about $110 million for research and demonstration plants.
Last week the House authorized an appropriation of nearly $27 million to continue the
work in fiscal 1968. When the program was first authorized in 1952, it was hoped that
low-cost desalting could be achieved within a five-year period at a cost of about $2
million. This goal was not attained but progress is being made. The serious nature
of the problem involving an adequate water supply for a growing population makes imper-
ative future research and plant development. Since 1952, the installed capacity of
desalting plants around the world has nearly doubled every three years as improved
technology lowers the cost. During 1966 alone, U.S. manufacturers sold desalting equip-
ment sufficient to produce an additional 22.5 million gallons of fresh water daily.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
May 17, 1967
The most significant legislation considered by the House of Representatives
last week was the bill authorizing appropriations for the procurement of aircraft,
missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat vehicles, and for research and development
for the Armed Forces. The Department of Defense had requested $21 billion which the
Committee on Armed Services had upped to $21.43 billion. The House itself added
another $46 million for additional research and development in anti-submarine warfare.
Work is to be done to extend the range of the anti-submarine rocket.
Among the changes in Administration recommendations made by the Committee was
the substitution of two nuclear-powered guided-missile frigates for two conventional
guided-missile destroyers. The Committee also added funds to provide more attack
fighters, cargo planes, air medical evacuation aircraft, and short take-off planes.
WITH THE COMMITTEES: The Committee on Ways and Means has been considering in
executive session since April 12 the social security changes which it will recommend
to the House. It is expected that these sessions will continue for at least two more
weeks. Prior to going to work on its specific recommendations and the exact language
of the social security bill, the Committee held five weeks of public hearings on the
subject.
The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce has held a week of hearings on
the President's proposal for settling the potential railroad strike. Public hearings
will continue for another week or more. It is evident that Mr. Johnson's recommenda-
tion is going to be carefully and fully analyzed.
Changes in the draft law have been the subject of public hearings by the
Committee on Armed Services for the past two weeks. The Committee is expected to go
into executive session this week to further consider the bill and determine what
specific changes it will suggest in the Selective Service System.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FUND: In the closing days of the last Congress an Act
was passed giving each taxpayer the opportunity to check off voluntarily $1 of his
federal income taxes to be applied to a Presidential Election Campaign Fund. The Fund
would provide about $30 million every four years to each of the two major presidential
candidates for campaign purposes.
For six weeks, the Senate debated repeal of this Act while it held up considera-
tion of restoration of the 7-percent Investment Tax Credit approved by the House on
March 16. Last week it sent both measures to the joint House-Senate conference after
deciding to permit no contributions to the Campaign Fund until Congress writes guide-
lines for use of the money.
Why has there been great opposition to permitting each taxpayer to voluntarily
assign one dollar of his income tax to a Presidential Campaign Fund? On a procedural
basis it was argued, and properly so, that the provision for this Fund was attached to
a bill having nothing to do with election campaigns. There were no committee hearings
to examine and analyze the plan or to determine the long-range effects of the power it
created. There were no guidelines on how the money was to be used. Opponents also
pointed out that with $30 million flowing into its: coffers without any effort on its
part, the national committee of each party would become independent and extremely
powerful. There is danger of such a centralization of party power in the national
headquarters that these headquarters would be less and less responsive to the wishes
of party members. State organizations could be weakened to an undesirable extent.
The Campaign Fund Act ignores one of the major problems in our election system
-- the raising of funds by local, state, and Congressional candidates. It is often
easier to raise money for presidential candidates than it is to obtain funds for other
candidates, or to get money in a non-presidential year.
I favor a different approach to the problem, an approach which has been endorsed
by the House Republican Policy Committee and by President Johnson. Political contri-
butions to any party, political committee, or candidate should be made a deductible
item for income tax purposes. The deductible limit may be set at $100, but such a
plan would encourage political contributions on a broad base (a healthy situation),
would permit each contributor to control the distribution of his campaign gifts, and
would prevent the establishment of an independent national organization with too much
money and too much power.
CRIME IS ON THE INCREASE: Often it is said that we have more crime today only
because we have more people. The Chairman of the Republican Task Force on Crime
pointed out recently that this is simply not true. FBI crime reports covering the
period from 1960 to 1965 show that major crimes increased by 46 percent; in the same
period, the nation's population grew by only 8 percent. Crime grew nearly six times
greater than population.
Nor is it true that population concentration in cities is the cause of more
crime in these areas. A study of population and crime in 18 major cities during a
ten-year period demonstrates that there is little correlation between population
growth and the crime epidemic. In seven of these cities the population growth ranged
from 10 to 71 percent while crime increases ranged from 47 to 186 percent. In only
one of these seven cities, Dallas, was the rate of crime increase less than the rate
of population increase. The other 11 cities showed, not an increase, but a decrease
in population ranging from less than 1 percent to 13 percent. Yet all 11 cities had
a total crime increase ranging between 11 and 168 percent.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
5
IONIA
JERRY FORD
May 24, 1967
The controversial bill (H.R. 7819) to amend the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) is scheduled for consideration by the House of Representatives
this week. Rep. Quie will offer his equally controversial amendment to provide for
"block-grants" to states in order to cut administrative costs and to reduce the amount
of federal control over local education. We have received over 7500 letters and
telegrams on this issue.
The ESEA does not provide general federal-aid-to-education. Federal money can
be used only for specific projects designed to benefit educationally disadvantaged or
culturally deprived children, to purchase textbooks and library and instructional
materials, and to establish educational centers for specific purposes. Under present
law, local plans for carrying out the purposes of the Act must be approved in
Washington. This means red-tape, delay, federal bureaucratic control. Under the Quie
Amendment all programs would be administered through a single state plan submitted by
the state educational agency and approved by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Each
state would be afforded greater flexibility within guidelines established by Congress
and the Commissioner. Each state could establish its own priorities and organize its
own programs in those specific areas covered by the ESEA.
The Quie plan would become effective on July 1, 1968. States would be required
to use at least one-half of their federal funds on programs for the educationally
deprived child to be carried out by local school districts having a high concentration
of such children. Seven percent of a state's funds must be reserved for textbooks and
library materials. The remaining 43 percent could be used for these projects or for
others described in current law with emphasis on those areas with concentration of
educationally and culturally deprived children.
Under the Quie Amendment no state would receive less money from Uncle Sam than
it would under H.R. 7819, the bill which Mr. Quie wants to amend. The Quie Amendment
has no provision for, and does nothing about, civil rights, aid for handicapped
children, or the Teacher Corps.
And this I must repeat and re-emphasize: The Quie Amendment guarantees to each
non-public school all the benefits to which it has been entitled under the present law
and to which it would be entitled under H.R. 7819. In fact, it expands these benefits
by providing for the loan of laboratory and other instructional equipment on the same
basis as textbooks and library materials are now supplied.
When the ESEA was passed in 1965, Congress indicated that it wanted programs
under this Act to help educationally deprived children whether enrolled in public or
non-public schools. Mr. Quie agrees with this 100 percent and deliberately wrote
into his amendment specific provisions to make certain that teachers and students in
non-public schools would continue to receive the same benefits they enjoy under the
present Act.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: A food stamp program designed in 1964 to aid the needy and
to help dispose of surplus farm products expires June 30th. President Johnson
requested permanent extension of the program, and that there be no limit to the annual
appropriation for its operation. The Democratic-controlled Committee on Agriculture
recommended a one-year extension of the program and an authorized appropriation of
$195 million, the amount requested by the President. I agree with the Committee that
the Congress should have the opportunity each year to review and analyze the Food
Stamp Program and to annually determine the limit of the appropriation. Congress must
be a check on the Administration, not a rubber stamp for the President.
The Committee went one step further and adopted a provision opposed by the
President. This provision requires each state or local political subdivision to pay
20 percent of the cost of free (bonus) stamps distributed to eligible households
within its borders. I also favor this proposal.
In those areas of the country desiring to participate in the program, families
receiving public assistance or having low incomes may be certified to receive and use
food stamps. A caseworker then determines under a formula approved by the Secretary
of Agriculture, the amount of food stamps the family must purchase and the allotment
of free stamps. This is generally $16 worth of stamps for $10 in cash. This deter-
mination is based on the number of persons and gross income of the household. The
value of free stamps issued is scaled to each family's needs and ability to purchase
food. The federal government presently pays for all the free stamps and all the
federal administrative expenses and part of those of the various states.
Ten members of the Committee on Agriculture recommended that the Food Stamp
Program be discontinued. They said that it was inefficient, too costly, and that it
"is progressively destroying state and local responsibility while doing next to
nothing for the benefit of American agriculture and failing to meet the needs of truly
destitute persons." They pointed out that, "the Food Stamp Program is merely a food
subsidy to people who already have money; not food aid to those who have no money."
On the other hand the Direct Distribution Program of our government "provides a
variety of food to the needy regardless of the fact that they do not have any money."
They concluded that "the present Stamp Program provides a so-called free ride for
everyone - except the U. S. taxpayer, the American farmers, and the acutely poor.'
The House debated this issue last week but put off the final decision.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
May 31, 1967
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was approved by the House of Repre-
sentatives just after midnight last Wednesday. The Quie Amendment was defeated, but
the House approved an amendment offered by Rep. Edith Green (Dem. -Oregon) which
means less federal control and more state control over the use of federal funds
allotted to the states. This is what Mr. Quie was attempting to accomplish. Although
it did not go as far as I would have liked, I supported Mrs. Green's amendment which
was passed 230 to 185. In debate Rep. Green pointed out that in 1955 the federal
Office of Education had 555 employees and spent $166 million. In 1965 the Office had
3,198 employees and spent $3.3 billion.
Another major change made by the House affects the distribution of federal
funds and results in more money going to a number of poorer states. The Teacher Corps
was transferred from this bill to the Higher Education Act presently being considered
by the Committee. So we don't know yet what will finally be done about that program.
Another amendment requires that the regulations relative to the problem of segregation
in the schools be applied uniformly in the 50 states.
Although the bill was improved by these changes, I feel so strongly about
federal control of our local schools, and am so concerned about deficits, debts, and
taxes that I voted "No" on final passage.
DEMONSTRATION CITIES: An attempt was made in the House recently to save $225
million by reducing the 1968 appropriation for "Demonstration Cities" by that amount.
Those of us who voted to save that amount were accused of being insensitive to the
needs of urban areas or of just being "agin" everything. Fortunately, most of our
folks know that there are many federal programs to help our cities, that there is much
duplication of effort, and that Congress has a responsibility to check on Administra-
tion proposals. Moreover, they will agree that the taxpayers, the huge annual deficit,
and the expanding national debt must be kept in mind while judging any spending
program.
We cannot be insensitive to the fact that the 1968 deficit will go beyond $20
billion, that the President has requested an increase in the debt limit to $365
billion, and that Mr. Johnson will be demanding more and more taxes from everyone.
But I must mention some of the other expenditures left in the same appropria-
tions bill from which we tried to cut $225 million for "Demonstration Cities." There
was $750 million for the traditional urban renewal program, $275 million in contribu-
tions to low-rent public housing, $175 million for mass transportation, $165 million
for water and sewer programs, $27 million for neighborhood facilities (parks, play-
grounds, swimming pools), $20 million for housing for the elderly and the handicapped
with an additional $100 million to be raised through the sale of participation certi-
ficates (a form of federal borrowing at higher interest rates), $75 million for metro-
politan incentive and planning grants, $5 million for urban research and technological
research, $2.5 million for community development training programs, $2 million for
urban information and technical assistance, and $2 million for low-income housing
demonstration projects. This totals $1.6 billion in federal assistance to urban areas
to which must be added more than $172 million for administrative expenses for HUD. In
fact, Secretary Weaver of HUD testified before a Senate Committee last year that the
federal government is expending $28 billion a year in programs and projects that are
directly related to urban populations.
Furthermore, it must be recognized that most of the federal funds under the
"Demonstration Cities" program go to help a few chosen cities pay their own local
share of the federally-assisted projects.
In view of all these considerations, I voted to save the $225 million. But we
lost 213 to 193.
RENT SUPPLEMENT: The taxpayers won when the House voted 232 to 171 to curtail
the rent supplement program. The House cut off all funds for making any new agree-
ments by which Uncle Sam promises to pay part of a family's rent. The Administration
had asked for $40 million to be used to finance new contracts; the Committee cut the
amount to $10 million. But these rent agreements or contracts run for 40 years. So
new contracts worth $10 million would cost the taxpayers up to $400 million over a
40-year period.
Contracts which have been made will be continued at a cost of $32 million
annually. The Congress was told originally that the rent supplement per family unit
would average about $40 a month. Those contracts which have been signed call for an
average of $75 a month in subsidy.
I have joined a large number of Republican Senators and Representatives in
sponsoring the National Home Ownership Foundation Act. Under this Act $2 billion
would be raised through private enterprise to assist poorer families in obtaining a
home. The federal treasury would contribute a maximum of $60 million a year for
interest assistance which could be recovered. This would support 200,000 family units.
Under rent supplements a maximum appropriation of $150 million a year could support
no more than 167,000 units. Benefits under the Home Ownership Act would be three
times more per dollar than through rent supplements. And our plan would dramatically
increase incentives to home ownership by bringing it within the reach of poor but
aspiring families.
Your Washington Review
Congressman
JERRY FORD
June 7, 1967
We hope you will like this special
A PFC writes from Vietnam: "I want
edition of our weekly newsletter.
to thank you very much for assisting
Instead of discussing legislation,
me in correcting my mail situation.
we are presenting a pictorial review
Now that the locator cards are esta-
of some other aspects of Congres-
blished, the service is excellent.
Sen. Griffin and I meet the Senior Class
sional activity.
I wish it had not been necessary to
of Caledonia High School
On Saturday, May 20th I enjoyed
bother you with the problem but I
taking part in the parade at Saranac
got the run-around and hit a blank
and in seeing and hearing the Drum
wall each time I spoke to someone
Four school groups from home have
TEN STUDENTS IN OFFICE THIS SUMMER
and Bugle Corps. State Senator Bob
about it."
visited us at the Capitol this year.
Vander Laan was also there and we
A senior citizen writes from Grand
In addition to Caledonia, we have
Ten students from the Fifth Dis-
had our picture taken as you will
Rapids: "I'm grateful to you for
been pleased to greet the senior
trict will be serving in our office
see below. The previous Thursday I
your help in getting me re-instated
classes of Portland and Lee High
this spring and summer to obtain
was at G.R. Central High to partici-
in Social Security. I received my
Schools and the ninth graders of
practical experience in politics and
pate in a program honoring Astronaut
check retroactive to November. I'm
Oakleigh School. We have had a pic-
to see how one congressional office
Roger Chaffee.
thankful not only for the check but
ture taken on the steps of the Capi-
operates. Those who will be with us
for you showing interest
tol with each class and will supply
for at least one month each are:
in us small fry.'
each student with a copy.
Ann Branston, 933 Lakeside Dr., SE
A local official writes:
Tom Brewer, 4301 Bill-Mar St. Gdvl.
"Let me express my appre-
Over 350 visitors have signed our
Dirk Hoffius, 2730 Bonnell Ave., SE
ciation to you for the ex-
guest book in the office since the
Dennis Kolenda, 344 Baynton St., NE
cellent service you have
first of the year. This is not a
Ronald Kregel, 2516 Almont Ave., SE
given to me when I have
record, however. A few years ago we
Robert Kulgren, 1337 Rosewood, SE
sent problems to your of-
had 450 persons sign the guest book
Mary Makowski, 2140 Hamstead Dr. NW
fice."
in the one week preceding Easter.
Maryellen Olman, 2630 Oakwood, SE
We hope everyone in the
We invite every one who visits
Tom Silver, 7441 Sheffield, SE
5th District knows that
Washington to come to the office for
Carolyn Woolpert, 2247 RidgecroftSE
the services of my office
passes to the House and Senate gal-
are available to him. Our
leries, for illustrative material,
Any college student from Kent or
telephone number in Grand
for helpful information, and to see
Ionia Counties who would like to
Rapids is GL6-9747. Write
an ornate Capitol suite. We are in
work in my office next summer (1968)
me: House of Representa-
Room H-230, near the Rotunda.
should write me before December 15.
tives, Washington, D. C.
(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
10
Since the Congressional session
opened in January, I have an-
swered 57 out of 62 "yes or no"
roll call votes for an atten-
dance record of 92 percent. I
missed only 4 of the 45 quorum
calls.
Each week while Congress is in
session we prepare a five-minute
radio tape for use by our stations
at home. In this radio report I
discuss current legislation or ana-
lyze some controversial issue. Here
is the schedule showing when you can
The Joint Republican Leadership of
hear these reports:
the Congress is composed of the
Friday: Shortly after 1:00
WERX
leaders of both the Senate and the
Saturday:
8:05
AM
WION
On a recent trip home I visited
House. The group meets about once a
3:30 PM
WJEF
the plant of Pneumo-Dynamics on
week to coordinate the minority's
4:55 PM
WFUR
Kraft Road to help in the dedication
position on various issues and to
6:15 PM
WXTO
of additional plant facilities.
Speaking to the Millburn-Short Hills
approve statements to be made by
Sunday:
7:20 AM
WMAX
Above I am greeted by an employee.
(N.J.) Republican Club. As Minority
Senator Dirksen and me at the joint
8:45 AM
WGRD
Below we see a group of 4-H lead-
Leader, I have traveled over 56,000
press conferences. After presenting
9:25 AM
WLAV
ers from Ionia County gathered at
miles to make 46 speeches to over
these statements we answer questions
10:00 PM
WOOD
my desk in the Capitol. They were
34,000 people in 19 states since the
from the newsmen to enunciate Repub-
Monday:
1:00 PM
WJPW
here for a training conference.
first of the year.
lican policy.
Here House Republican Leaders are
ACADEMY APPOINTMENTS
shown meeting newsmen
Our appointments to
to explain one of the
the service academies
Minority's alternative
are selected through
legislative proposals.
civil service tests.
I also meet with
Douglas Streeter of
newsmen at private
Cedar Springs is going
luncheons to present
to West Point. Donald
background information
Moss, Grand Rapids to
and hear suggestions.
Annapolis. Richard L.
Periodically we meet
Friedrich who gradu-
groups of local civic
ated from Caledonia
leaders who come to
High School will enter
Washington for a pri-
the Air Force Academy.
vate special briefing.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
June 14, 1967
The American people won a victory last Wednesday when the House of Representa-
tives rejected President Johnson's demand for a $29-billion increase in the public
debt limit. The vote was 210 to 197 with every Republican voting for a responsible
fiscal policy.
The House in effect told the President that it is time to reevaluate deficit
financing as one of the "easy ways" to achieve The Great Society. It was a rebuff to
the President who is dedicated to spending and more spending, to debt and more debt,
all of which means higher taxes and higher prices for everyone at home, and a concern
over the integrity of the American dollar abroad. When Mr. Johnson took office the
debt stood at $307 billion; today it totals $331 billion, and he wants to go all the
way to $365 billion.
Republican members of the Committee on Ways and Means (which considered the
legislation) and the Republican Policy Committee had urged defeat of the bill raising
the debt ceiling to $365 billion on July 1st. They pointed out that non-defense
spending has increased from about $46 billion in fiscal 1965 to approximately $66
billion for fiscal 1968. Two-thirds of the $28.3 billion increase in federal expendi-
tures from calendar year 1963 through 1966, as measured in the national income
accounts, is accounted for by non-defense spending. The Administration cannot blame
all our fiscal troubles on the Vietnam War.
The minority members also stressed the fact that "during the past three years
federal tax revenues have increased sufficiently to more than offset any costs
attributable to the war. The Administration seeks this debt increase notwithstanding
its estimate that federal revenues in fiscal 1968, even without a tax increase, will
exceed by $28 billion tax collections for fiscal 1965. If the Administration had
held the line on the domestic front, the increased tax revenues would be more than
adequate to finance all present and projected costs of the war."
I have voted against all increases in the debt limitation during the past four
years. My vote has been a protest against wasteful spending and deficit financing.
It has been a vote against higher prices and higher taxes. We must either cut
federal expenditures or raise federal taxes. I know that the vast majority of the
citizens of the Fifth District prefer reduced spending.
Republicans have now introduced legislation to continue the present $336
billion debt ceiling until September 30. We will also continue our efforts to get
the President to submit a new, reduced budget for fiscal 1968.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS: The eighth of the 13 regular appro-
priation bills which must be approved by the Congress to operate the government in
fiscal year 1968 (starts July 1) was passed last week. A total of $4.7 billion was
made available to the Department of Agriculture under the bill as passed by the House.
We attempted to make a 5-percent across-the-board cut in the President's request
(except in school lunch and milk programs) but on a roll-call vote we lost 222-175.
I voted against the $4.7 billion expenditure on final passage because I think
further reductions can be made and we must exert a greater effort to cut down on
federal spending.
It was interesting to note in the Committee's report on this bill that the
Department of Agriculture will be employing at the end of June a total of 120,500
employees of which 85,800 are permanent employees, and that more than 12,000 of these
live in the Washington, D.C. area. Yet the farm population has decreased to about
12 million today, compared to more than double that number in 1950. Nearly 800,000
people have left the farms in each of the last five years. The number of farms has
gone down from 5.6 million in 1950 to 3.3 million in 1966. But it is most significant
that the average investment of capital required per farm has increased from $16,976 in
1950 to $65,960 in 1966.
MAIL FOR SERVICEMEN: All U. S. servicemen overseas, as well as those hospi-
talized as a result of disease or injury incurred while on active duty, will be per-
mitted to mail letters, cards, and recordings without payment of postage under a bill
approved by the House last week. Under present law this privilege is accorded only
to those in combat areas (Vietnam).
Equally significant is a provision in the bill which reduces the cost of the
rapid shipment of packages to servicemen overseas. Currently it costs $8.08 to send
a 10-pound package from Grand Rapids to Vietnam by air parcel post. If this bill
(H.R. 10226) becomes law, the same package can be mailed airlift for $3.40. Shipment
by "airlift" of packages up to 30 pounds would be on a space available basis from the
point of mailing to any armed forces post within the U. S. or overseas at the regular
surface postage rate plus a $1 airlift fee. Packages sent by "air parcel post" with
full postage paid will receive preferential treatment and may arrive more quickly.
But the Congress has been assured that in most instances there will be prompt delivery
of packages by "airlift."
FLAG DESECRATION: Today is Flag Day. The House may consider this week a bill
(H.R. 10480), approved last week by the Committee on the Judiciary, to make it a
federal offense to desecrate the flag of the United States. Under the provisions of
this bill, anyone who casts contempt upon any flag of the U.S. by publicly mutilating,
defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon it shall be fined not more than $1,000
or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
June 21, 1967
After two days of debate the House of Representatives last Thursday evening
rejected President Johnson's plan for halting the threatened railroad strike. Instead
it simply approved a resolution extending for 90 days the "cooling off" period without
providing any solution. I supported the President's plan because of the essential
need of railroad service in our national defense and in the prosecution of the war in
Vietnam.
Forty percent of the total freight shipped by the Defense Department is moved
by the railroads. Over 80 percent of the 210,000 tons of ammunition shipped in April
went by rail. Sulphuric acid, a key ingredient for ammunition, moves only by rail,
as do M-48 tanks and other heavy equipment. We cannot afford to risk railroad
stoppage while our men are fighting in Vietnam.
I share the concern of both labor and management with compulsory arbitration.
I would have preferred a settlement of this dispute through the normal procedures of
collective bargaining. But this did not appear possible and the national interest
had to be protected. At this writing, we don't know what the final outcome will be.
If there is to be legislation the House and the Senate must agree on a proposal.
Before the House took its action, the Senate had approved the President's plan.
Without legislation there could be a strike beginning at 12:01 a.m. Monday by ten
railroad brotherhoods of shopcraftsmen representing 28 percent of railroad employees.
DEFENSE APPROPRIATION: The $70 billion defense spending bill passed by the
House last Tuesday was the largest single appropriation bill ever approved by any
legislative body in the history of the world. The Committee added $404 million to
the President's request but made reductions totaling $1.6 billion for a net cut of
$1.28 billion. The reduction will not hamper the war effort in Southeast Asia. We
must support fully our fighting men in Vietnam and provide adequately for our national
defense in the nuclear age. But as the budget grows, Congress' responsibility for
careful review and proper reduction increases. Wasteful or nonessential spending
must be curbed wherever it may be found.
SILVER AND SILVER CERTIFICATES: Anyone holding silver certificates ($1-$5-$10
bills with a "promise to pay in silver") will have one year to redeem his paper money
for silver under legislation (H.R. 7476) approved by the House last Monday. No silver
certificates have been issued since October 1964 but at the end of May over $552
million were outstanding. To back these certificates the U. S. Treasury must keep on
hand 426 million out.ces of silver.
The enactment of H.R. 7476 will release eventually this amount of Treasury
silver for sale to legal users. The Government must do this to hold the domestic
price of silver to $1.29+ per ounce against a constantly increasing demand by indus-
try. If the price of silver goes too high our silver coins could disappear into the
melting pots of industry. On May 18 the Secretary of the Treasury issued an order
prohibiting the melting of silver coins or the export of silver coins. The Treasury
predicts that within a year it will have enough coins of the "sandwich" or clod type
to meet all needs. Of these coins now being minted, only half-dollars contain any
silver.
I supported this legislation reluctantly. It had to be passed. Industry needs
the silver. Our coins must be protected. The bill requires the assignment of 165
million ounces of silver to the national defense stockpile. But I share the concern
of those who see in this development a danger to our monetary system unless the
Administration adopts a more responsible fiscal policy.
MIDDLE EAST SIDELIGHT: It was pointed out on the floor of the House last
Thursday that the Foreign Assistance Act of 1966 required the President to report to
the Congress within 30 days of his finding that aid to the United Arab Republic was
in the best interest of the United States, and that such aid would neither directly
nor indirectly assist in aggressive acts by the UAR. Republicans backed this require-
ment. But it was reported that since that time over $1 million in technical assis-
tance has been extended to the UAR - but no public report or announcement has been
sent by. the President to either chamber. This would appear to be a violation of the
law and is certainly contrary to the intent of the Congress. I deplore strongly the
secrecy involved. The Congress and the American people should have been kept advised.
RECENT VISITORS: Mr. & Mrs. Carl Larson, Sparta. Theodore Miller, Portland.
From Wyoming: William A. Potrafke and family, Donald D. Weber, Marianne Cholewin,
Barbara Mlynarchek, Mrs. Emma Wood, Mrs. Eugene Weaver, Craig, Lori, Kerri, Lillian
Annis, Mildred Annis, Mrs. Jennie Annis, Mr. Leo J. Vargaz, Mr. & Mrs. Don L. Chaffee.
From Ionia: Angela Croel, Vicki McMahon, Carolyn Smith, Mrs. Fred Post, Lois K. Kidd.
From Grandville: Ruthann Miller, Sally Shoemaker, Mr. & Mrs. Roland Miller, Claire
and Linda. From Rockford: Mr. Lynn Post, Mr. & Mrs. Jim Emery. From Belding: Mrs.
Mary Knapp, Mrs. Luther M. Berry. From Ada: Dr. C. Allen Payne, A. G. Sivitous.
From Kent City: Mrs. Isabel Weston. From Grand Rapids: Mr. & Mrs. R. Chase and
Doug, David Dutcher, Trude Mann, Mr. & Mrs. Roy Breen and family, Mrs. Evelyn Phillips,
Mr. & Mrs. Ross Reid and family, Mr. & Mrs. Calvin Owen and family. Mr. & Mrs. Gordon
Spykman and sons. Mr. H. S. Felton, Jack and Martha, Mr. & Mrs. Charles A. Kant,
Charles, Katherine and Julie, Nancy A. Wiersum, Bonnie Boerema, Jane Ludema, Mary
VanderWoude, Mr. & Mrs. Ben P. Field, Jr., and family, Dr. & Mrs. Aldridge and family.
Your Washington Review
KENT
5
IONIA
Congressman
JERRY FORD
June 28, 1967
The American people lost the second battle on the public debt limitation. Two
weeks ago they won when the House of Representatives rejected President Johnson's
demand for a $365 billion ceiling. Last Wednesday the House voted to set the limit at
$358 billion for the fiscal year beginning July 1 and to provide a "supplementary $7
billion limit" for any time during subsequent years except on June 30. This is simply
a gimmick to achieve the $365 billion limitation. Every Republican voted against this
gimmick as they did against the original proposal two weeks ago. But enough Democrats
altered their position that the bill carried 217 to 196.
Republicans offered a substitute proposal to set the debt limit at $336 billion
but this was defeated 224 to 191. Our purpose is to encourage a reduction in federal
spending in order to balance the budget and hold off a tax increase. I was pleased to
note that the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means said that "tight control of
non-military expenditures is even more essential today than it has been in the past in
view of our rising military costs." Not only do we need "tight control," we need sub-
stantial cuts in all non-essential spending.
MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT: The House and Senate have agreed on the final
version of the Selective Service bill, extending the basic law for four years. The
President is authorized to draft men between 19 and 26 and may order the induction of
a younger age-group first. But the bill prohibits any lottery system for selection of
draftees without further specific authorization by Congress. This means a continua-
tion of the "oldest first" system. While the President could designate the 19- to 20-
year group or any other age group as the "prime age group for induction," within the
designated group, the oldest must be selected first.
Undergraduates in college will be deferred as long as they carry a full load
satisfactorily and have not reached age 24. This eliminates any possible requirement
for special tests or consideration of relative class standings. Those who receive
student deferments will be put in the "prime age group" for possible induction after
graduation regardless of their actual age. They will not be eligible for a deferment
based on fatherhood or hardship to dependents except under most extraordinary circum-
stances. Deferments for graduate students are to be severely restricted under orders
issued by the President.
Occupational and professional deferments will be permitted under criteria
established by the President. Authority to defer individuals in apprenticeship
training and in agriculture is continued. Of course, local boards will be permitted
to defer registrants on basis of severe family hardship. The bill clarifies the
law relating to conscientious objectors. They may be deferred only on the basis of
"religious training and belief," which may not include "essentially political, socio-
logical, or philosophical views, or a merely personal moral code."
MIDDLE EAST: I endorse the five principles for peace in the Middle East set
forth by President Johnson last week. We in the Congress should and will support him
as he works through the UN, and with our allies and the nations directly involved, to
establish peace and stability in the area. We know that the Soviet Union and all
communist nations will continue to foment dissent and disorder wherever they can
including the Middle East and Vietnam.
RAILROAD STRIKE LEGISLATION: President Johnson has asked the Congress to find
the answer to the threatened rail strike and other industrial disputes. Senate
Majority Leader Mansfield said the President has tried to come up with a formula but
without success, and would now like to see the Congressional committees "take the
ball." Although this appears to be another "slip, slide, and duck" maneuver, I
believe the Congress should take the initiative and accept the responsibility.
Mr. Johnson promised in his State of the Union message on January 12, 1966
"to ask Congress to consider measures
which will enable us effectively to deal with
strikes which threaten irreparable damage to the national interest." We have waited
18 months for his "measures" to revise and improve the labor-management statutes.
Now that the President acknowledges his inability to solve the problem, Congress can
go to work on legislation which will best protect the interests of labor, management,
and the general public.
FLAG DESECRATION: Six days after Flag Day, the House passed the bill making it
a federal offense to "cast contempt upon any flag of the U. S. by publicly mutilating,
defacing, defiling, or trampling upon it." As a result of a parliamentary fluke, the
word "burning" was deleted from the bill although this act in recent months is what
spurred consideration of the bill. However, authorities tell us that "mutilating,
defacing, or defiling" will cover "burning."
WITH THE COMMITTEES: The Committee on Ways and Means is continuing in execu-
tive session its consideration of the social security bill. It is not expected to
report its recommendations until at least the middle of July.
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service expects to conclude this week
its hearings on the proposed increase in postal rates. It will then go into executive
session to decide on its final recommendations to the House.
The bills involving further control of firearms and the use of wiretaps are
with the Committee on the Judiciary which has adjourned its hearings subject to the
call of the Chairman. The Committee may, therefore, obtain the views of more
interested parties before making further decisions.