Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4525521",
    "label": "Ford Press Releases - Congress, 1965-1966",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525521"
}

{
    "id": "4525521",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525521",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Ford Press Releases - Congress, 1965-1966",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525521",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Press Releases Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "U.S. House of Representatives. (03/04/1789 - )",
        "House Republican Policy Committee (U.S.)",
        "U.S. Congress. (1789 - )",
        "Legislation"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525521/4525521_Page_01.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525521/4525521_Page_01.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525521/4525521_Page_01.jpg",
    "imageCount": 82,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4525521",
    "naId": 4525521,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1966-11-01",
        "month": 11,
        "year": 1966
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1965-05-01",
        "month": 5,
        "year": 1965
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 14,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "photo",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642076/4525521/4525521_Page_15.jpg",
    "mediaId": "0211299bc40537b7",
    "ocrText": "2\nCONGRESSIONAL RECORD\nCONGRESSIONAL RECORD\n3\nGREEN, of Oregon, took the floor to pro-\nprotect the religious liberty of employees\nwell as vocational education and public\nadministration of seeking to \"warp the\nlion does not include additional back-\nsupported by a majority of the House\ntest, \"Today it seems to me we have in\nwhose religious beliefs clash with com-\nassistance programs.\nproposed Federal Public Records legisla-\ndoor spending of $7 billion made possible\nRepublicans. In every case the Repub-\nthe House a determined effort to silence\npulsory union membership, and to in-\nThe Manpower Development and\ntion into an almost unlimited authority\nby the Congress this year. Nor does it\nlican alternative dealt more adequately\nthose who are in disagreement.\"\nsure that employees would be protected\nTraining Act overlaps the poverty pro-\nfor the President to establish broader\ninclude perhaps $5 to $7 billion needed\nwith the problem without unnecessary\nSo little was the elementary and sec-\nfrom compulsion to join a Communist-\ngram.\nsecrecy practices.\" The committee also\nfor the war in Vietnam, a request which\nextension of Federal power.\nondary education bill studied before floor\ncontrolled union.\nOne unfortunate oversight in the laws\nindicted the administration for \"the se-\nthe administration is holding back until\nVOTING RIGHTS\naction that two of the best informed\nThe Washington Post commented:\nof the session can be cited to illustrate\ncrecy on the names of Post Office Depart-\nnext January.\nThe administration's bill on voting\nsupporters of the measure, gave to the\nSeveral important questions were raised\nthe results of hasty and ill-considered\nment employees hired in the summer\nThe Congress failed to exercise any\nrights-H.R. 6400-as originally intro-\nHouse contradictory explanations of its\nin the House debate and left unanswered.\ncongressional action. By increasing\nprogram in 1965; the Defense Depart-\nrestraint on reckless spending. The re-\nduced, provided a remedy for discrimina-\napplication to nonpublic schools.\nThe Democratic majority rammed\nsocial security payments, the Congress\nment continues the October 1962, Sylves-\nduction of administration requests for\ntion only in six Southern States and\nThe higher education bill was reported\nthrough a bill repealing section 14(b)\ninadvertently caused the termination or\nter Directive which requires military and\nappropriations by $2.4 billion is more\nAlaska and in 37 counties in certain\nout of the Education and Labor Com-\nwhich the Post said \"scarcely qualifies as\nreduction of the pensions of tens of thou-\ncivilian personnel to report all contacts\napparent than real. The funds denied\nother States, including one county each\nmittee in great haste, apparently at the\nsands of veterans. The added social\nwell-rounded legislation in the national\nwith the press to Sylvester's office; the\nhave only been deferred until 1966.\nin Arizona, Idaho, and Maine. These\ncommand of the White House. The\ninterest.\"\nsecurity payment meant a reduction of\nincreased centralization of information\nThe following table shows the amount\nstrange results were achieved by lan-\nWall Street Journal noted that the com-\nthe income of these veterans.\nOn the important bill to prohibit dis-\nreleases at the White House, and the in-\nappropriated by Congress in each ses-\nguage which limited the application of\nmittee \"under prodding from an im-\ncrimination in employment and union\nWEAKENING OF CHECKS ON EXECUTIVE BRANCH\ncreasing sensitivity over leaks of infor-\nsion since 1960. It reflects an increase\nthe bill to places which used literacy tests\npatient White House deliberated for all\nmembership, only the briefest of hear-\nOne-party domination of the legisla-\nmation that have no connection with\nof $36 billion, or 43 percent, since 1960.\nor tests of moral character for voters and\nof 20 minutes.\" Democratic Congress-\nings were held by the Committee on Edu-\ntive and executive branches weakens the\nnational security problems; the basic\nOf this $36 billion increase, only $8.3\nin which fewer than 50 percent of the\nman PUCINSKI, of Illinois, called the\ncation and Labor. These hearings con-\nconstitutional system of checks and bal-\nproblem of balancing national security\nbillion is for defense:\nvoting-age population voted in the 1964\nbill's handling \"a mockery of the legis-\ntained no testimony based on experience\nances. The subservient Congress which\ninterests and freedom for the press in\n[In billions]\nelection.\nlative process.\"\nunder the 1964 Civil Rights Act and were\nit produces fails to exercise the restraint\nconnection with Vietnam and the Do-\nRepublican House Members and Re-\nHearings on the administration's orig-\nfollowed almost immediately by a sub-\nwhich it should over the executive\nminican Republic.'\nAppropria-\nChange from\nSession\ninal highway beautification proposals\ntions\npreceding\npublican Senators introduced voting\nwere held by the Committee on Public\ncommittee meeting which reported the\nbranch. The majority leader of the\nThere is no word but arrogance for the\nyear\nrights legislation before the administra-\nbill favorably. An hour later the full\nSenate recognizes that such is the case\nbehavior of administration spokesmen,\n86th Cong.: 2d (1960)\n|\ntion got around to deciding to present a\nWorks on July 20, 21, and 22. These\n$83.8\ncommittee met and reported the bill to\nwhen he urges the Congress now to un-\nincluding the President and the Vice\n87th Cong.:\nbill.\nhearings were adjourned with the un-\nthe House. No amendments were offered\ndertake its neglected function of legisla-\nPresident, when they pointedly imply\n1st (1961)\n1\n95.8\n+$12.0\n(1962)\n102.3\n+6.5\nThe basic difference between the ad-\nderstanding that the complex proposals\nbecause none of the minority members\ntive oversight over executive agencies.\nthat the consideration which the prob-\n88th Cong.:\n1\nshould be studied further and acted upon\n1st (1963)\n102.6\n+.3\nministration proposal and the major Re-\nhad any opportunity to study the long\nThe executive branch unchecked is\nIems of a locality receives in Washington\n2d (1964)\n106.0\n+3.4\npublican alternative, the Ford-McCul-\nearly next year. Without warning, the\n89th Cong.: 1st (1965)\n119.3\n+13.8\nand complex measure and analyze even\nprone to carelessness about legal re-\nwill depend on whether its local officials\nloch bill-H.R. 7896-lay in the fact that\nhearings were reopened on September 3\nits theoretical weaknesses. This bill was\nstraints and about the public interest.\nare Republicans or Democrats. It is\nthe Republican bill provided a remedy\nand 7, while the committee and its staff\nCONSTRUCTIVE REPUBLICAN RECORD\nnot acted on by the House.\nThis carelessness can descend to the\nshocking to learn that responsible na-\nfor unconstitutional discrimination\nwere absorbed with the omnibus rivers\nlevel of arrogance in some instances.\nOn February 3, 1965, the Republican\nand harbors and flood control bill. The\nThe percentages allocated to the vari-\ntional officials would stoop to threaten\nwherever it occurs and regardless of the\nous categories of immigrants in the Im-\nArrogance is a strong word, but there\nany community with reprisals if its citi-\nleadership of the House of Representa-\ndevice used to achieve discrimination.\nact was debated and passed by the House\nmigration and Nationality Act of 1965\nis no other word for the submission to\ntives said:\nzens choose officials who are not of the\nThe administration bill wiped out\non October 7, with the final vote being\ntallied well after midnight. At one point\nwere not discussed either in the Judiciary\nthe Senate of the nomination of Francis\nadministration's party.\nHouse Republicans have a major responsi-\nliteracy and other tests wherever fewer\nCommittee or on the floor.\nX. Morrissey to the Federal judiciary nor\nThe New York Times reacted with in-\nbility as the representatives of approximately\nin the proceedings the House voted 121\nfor the efforts to bull that nomination\n43 percent of the electorate who voted for a\nthan 50 percent of the voting age popu-\nto 84 to allow but 8 minutes of debate on\nOn the voting rights bill, the admin-\ndignation to the threat when it was made\nRepublican House of Representatives in 1964.\nlation voted in 1964. The Ford-McCul-\nistration forces on the Judiciary Commit-\nthrough the Senate. The American Bar\nin\nNew York City. Its editorial\nThat duty, as we conceive it, is to exert what-\nloch bill did not disturb nondiscrimina-\n5 separate amendments.\ntee methodically rejected all significant\nAssociation and the Massachusetts Bar\ncommented:\never influence we can to guide the Nation\ntory qualifications for voting established\nRegarding the very controversial bill to\namendments offered by Republicans.\nOn\nAssociation pronounced this nominee un-\nThis is a remarkable indictment of the\ntoward the goals of freedom, security, peace,\nby States.\nrepeal section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley\nthe floor of the House the same general\nfit for the post. A representative of the\nJohnson administration. It suggests, for\nand well-being with fiscal responsibility.\nThe administration bill required Fed-\nAct, the Democratic majority of the Com-\nAmerican Bar Association testified on the\nmittee on Education and Labor rejected\nattitude prevailed. With the exception\nexample, that Sargent Shriver, the head of\nWe cannot accept the statement, \"The\neral court approval of any new voting\nMorrissey nomination:\nthe antipoverty program and a Democrat,\nduty of the opposition party is to oppose.\"\nall attempts by Republican members to\nof the Cramer amendment to prevent\nFrom the standpoint of legal training,\nwould be less sympathetic and helpful to New\nThis is too narrow and too negative a formu-\nlaws passed by the States to which it\namend the bill so as to provide some\nelection irregularities, any significant\namendment offered by a Republican was\nlegal experience, and legal ability, we have\nYork if its mayor were a Republican. It\nlation of our responsibility.\napplied. The Ford-McCulloch bill did\nbasic protections for rank-and-file em-\nnot had any case where these factors were\nmakes the same innuendo about the officials\nWe must do more than respond to the in-\nnot restrict State authority to enact new\nployees compelled to join unions in order\nblindly voted down.\nso lacking.\nwho run the housing, education, mass tran-\nitiatives of the administration. We must\nnondiscriminatory voting laws.\nto hold their jobs. Because of the re-\nGAPS AND OVERLAPS\nsit, antipollution, and other programs in\ntake the initiative ourselves in two ways.\nThe administration bill, as originally\nThere is no word but arrogance for\nThe defects in the legislation enacted\nwhich New York has a vital interest. It sug-\nFirst, we must offer alternative measures to\nstrictive rule under which the bill was\nthe withholding of Federal funds from\ngests that President Johnson, Vice President\nintroduced, approved of the poll tax, pro-\nduring the session of Congress just\ncope with national problems when the ad-\nconsidered by the House, amendments\nthe city of Chicago in defiance of the\nHUMPHREY, and Senator KENNEDY himself\nministration's proposals are unwise. This we\nviding that Federal examiners would\nwhich would permit compulsory union\nended will come to light as the bills are\nprocedures established by Congress.\nwould not be so helpful to the mayor of the\nare doing, for example, in the matter of\ncollect it in areas in which they operated\nmembership agreements only if the\nput into effect. Problems of duplica-\nThere is no word but arrogance for\nNation's largest city if he were of a political\nlightening the burden of the costs of health\nto register voters. The Ford-McCulloch\nunions involved refrained from racial\ntion and overlap will be encountered.\nfaith different from theirs.\nprocedures in the Congress that silence\ncare for older people.\nbill directed the Attorney General to ini-\nand religious discrimination, refrained\nThe Appalachia bill overlaps several\nFISCAL EXCESSES\ndissent and preclude careful considera-\nSecond, we must press for action to deal\ntiate a speedy court test of the constitu-\nfrom using union funds for political pur-\nexisting Federal-aid programs, notably\ntion of legislation.\nThe carelessness of a Congress over-\nwith the problems to which the administra-\ntionality of the poll tax.\nposes, and refrained from denying em-\nin the fields of highway construction and\nThere is no word but arrogance for\nwhelmingly controlled by the President's\ntion is blind or indifferent.\npublic health.\nMEDICARE\nployees rights guaranteed them by Fed-\nparty is particularly manifested in big\neral law were rejected as not germane.\nThe public works and redevelopment\nopposition to freedom of information leg-\nIn this spirit the Republican Members\nThe medicare bill, included in the So-\nspending. This session of Congress has\nOther amendments offered, on which the\nbill, providing aid to so-called depressed\nislation which would permit the public to\nof the House of Representatives have\nset a new record in appropriations not\ncial Security Amendments of 1965, is an\nHouse was not permitted to vote, were\nareas, overlaps the Appalachia bill.\nknow what is going on in the Govern-\napproached since the Second World War.\ndischarged their responsibility this year.\namalgamation of the administration\ndesigned to insure that unions securing\nThe expanded poverty program over-\nment which it pays for. The Freedom\nThe appropriation of $119.3 billion this\nTheir record is impressive.\nproposal and a Republican alternative\ncompulsory membership agreements\nlaps the elementary and secondary\nof Information Committee of Sigma\nyear is $36 billion more than was ap-\nREPUBLICAN ALTERNATIVES\noffered by Representative JOHN BYRNES,\ntruly represented a majority as demon-\nschool aid bill, which is ostensibly aimed\nDelta Chi, the national society of jour-\npropriated by the last session of Congress\nFor six of the major bills proposed by\nof Wisconsin-H.R.7057\nstrated by winning an NLRB election, to at children from low-income families, as\nnalists, in its annual report, accused the\nduring the Eisenhower administration.\nthe administration and passed in this\nIn contrast to the bill originally pro-\n793-358-0591\nThis staggering figure of almost $120\nbil-\nsession, there were alternative proposals\nposed by the administration early in the\n793-358-0591"
}