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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525531
label
Ford Press Releases - Education, 1965-1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525531
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Education, 1965-1973
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Busing for school integration
Education
Federal aid
Legislation
Private schools
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525531
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-01-31
month
1
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-09-01
month
9
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
567d1a05bbce209f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D7, folder "Ford Press Releases - Education,
1965-1973" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D7 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
PRESS RELEASE ISSUED FOLLCWING A LEADERSHIP MEETING
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
- 2 -
September 9, 1965
The 89th Congress has passed several bills increasing the flow of fed-
eral funds available for education. It has added a cut in excise taxes to a re-
duction of income tax rates in 1964.
Because of Administration opposition, the Congress has not, however,
provided tax relief specifically directed toward lightening the burden of higher
education.
More than 5 million student will settle on the campuses of colleges
and universities throughout the United States this month. In the course of the
next 5 years, college enrollment 18. expected to increase by an additional 1½ mil-
lion students.
The average cost of a year of higher education at a public institution
is now $1560; it is $2370 at a private institution. These costs will continue to
rise in future years. It is estimated that tuition charges will increase by 50
per cent in both public and private institutions in the next decade.
The cost of going to college is a severe strain on the resources of most
of the 5 million students now enrolled and on their families. Millions, who on the
basis of ability deserve a college, ducation, are deprived of one because of the
financial burden.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 will provide federal scholarships for
fewer than 3 per cent of the college students immediately and for fewer than 8 per
cent eventually. It will make bornowing to defray educational expenses somewhat
easier, but these provisions are not enough.
The most effective and irect method of lightening the burden of col-
lege expenses for all is to provide for a credit which those who are paying for
higher education may take against their federal income tax.
Assistance of this kind has been advocated by Republicans for many
years. We shall continue to fight for it.
-- 0000000--
DERALD R.FORD VIBRARY
PRESS RELEASE ISSUED FOLLOWING A LEADERSHIP MEETING
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD
- 2 -
September 9, 1965
The 89th Congress has passed several bills increasing the flow of fed-
eral funds available for education. It has added a cut in excise taxes to a re-
duction of income tax rates in 1964.
Because of Administration opposition, the Congress has not, however,
provided tax relief specifically directed toward lightening the burden of higher
education.
More than 5 million students will settle on the campuses of colleges
and universities throughout the United States this month. In the course of the
next 5 years, college enrollment is expected to increase by an additional 11/4 mil-
lion students.
The average cost of a year of higher education at a public institution
is now $1560; 1t is $2370 at a private institution. These costs will continue to
rise in future years. It is estimated that tuition charges will increase by 50
per cent in both public and private institutions in the next decade.
The cost of going to college is a severe strain on the resources of most
of the 5 million students now enrolled and on their families. Millions, who on the
basis of ability deserve a college education, are deprived of one because of the
financial burden.
The Higher Education Act of 1965 will provide federal scholarships for
fewer than 3 per cent of the college students immediately and for fewer than 8 per
cent eventually. It will make borrowing to defray educational expenses somewhat
easier, but these provisions are not enough.
The most effective and direct method of lightening the burden of col-
lege expenses for all is to provide for a credit which those who are paying for
higher education may take : against their federal income tax.
Assistance of this kind has been advocated by Republicans for many
years. We shall continue to fight for it.
House Republican Policy Committee
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
August 23, 1966
140 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Phone: 225-6168
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Elementary and Secondary Education
Amendments of 1966
From the Morrill Act of 1862 and the creation of the U.S. Office of Education
in 1869, to the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the Manpower Training
Act of 1962, the Republican Party has advocated and supported the important role
of education in advancing the capabilities and opportunities of the citizens of
the United States. We have recognized that it is only through State and local
cooperation that the greatest educational development can be achieved with
federal help.
Under the principle of State and local responsibility, the American education-
al system has grown so that it compares favorably with that of any other country
of the world. In 1960, school enrollments constituted 23.2 percent of total
population in the United States, compared to 11.1 percent in Europe and 14.24
percent in the Soviet Union. In this country, total revenues for public schools
have grown by 376 percent since 1950 and classroom construction has proceeded at
a rate that will provide 653,000 classrooms in the decade 1962 to 1972.
At the time the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was being
considered, we were concerned that this poorly-drafted legislation would too often
impede rather than help the education effort in this country. We were concerned
that it would deprive the State agencies and local school authorities of any real
power to shape educational programs to meet local needs. Centralization of power
was a theme that ran throughout the entire bill. Now, one year and a number of
serious defects later, this Congress is eine asked to broaden and expand the
original Act. In an almost casual mannek, authorizations in excess of $4.6
billion have been requested. Unfortunately, there has been no meaningful attempt
to sort out the vast and confusing tangle of federal programs. Moreover, obvious
defects have been either assed over or totally ignored by the Democratic
majority on the committee.
For example, under the present Act, the distribution of funds within a State
is established by a set formula. As a result, State education agencies have been
unable to channel money to the areas of greatest need. In the past, distribution
on the basis of need has been the traditional administrative device for the
allocation of federal funds. Such distribution permits State-wide concentration
upon the most urgent educational problems. It encourages responsible State
educational planning. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority rejected all
Republican amendments that would authorize State education agencies to distribute
funds in this manner. We believe that an amendment that would give greater flexi
bility to the States should be adopted.
A Republican amendment that would provide added funds for the low-expenditure
States was adopted. This will cure some of the disparity in federal aid between
States. However, it does not change the present unsatisfactory method of distri-
bution within States which scatters funds indiscriminately among wealthy and
needy school districts.
It is generally agreed that the best hope for reducing educational failure
among economically and socially disadvantaged children lies in the area of
(over)
2.
preschool education. However, during the first year of this Act, only 5.7 per-
cent of the funds under title I have been used for preschool education. Moreover,
many of the preschool projects have been enmeshed in the bureaucratic confusion
that exists between the U.S. Office of Education and the Office of Economic
Opportunity (which is responsible for funding Operation Headstart). Certainly,
this program should be unshackled and properly financed so that greater emphasis
can be placed on disadvantaged preschool children.
The greatest threat to the independence of State and local educational
administration is contained in title III of this Act. This title has placed in
the hands of the U.S. Commissioner the sole power to determine which applicant
school districts are to receive funds and which educational purposes are to be
favored in their use. This has caused frustration and confusion and delayed many
worthwhile projects. School administrators from all over the country have
vigorously protested this unwarranted concentration of authority but the Demo-
cratic majority has done nothing to remedy this situation except to express some
pious hopes that in the future administrative excesses would be avoided.
Now, without correcting this serious situation, H.R. 13161 would increase
both the cost and scope of title III. It would convert this title into a con-
struction bill dealing with overcrowding, racial imbalance, and attendant problems.
It would give the U.S. Commissioner the complete authority to determine without
any legislative guidelines which communities are making a reasonable tax effort
to meet educational needs and which are unable to meet such needs. He would be
empowered to determine what constitutes obsolescence in facilities, crowding in
classrooms, and racial imbalance in a school system. These matters involve fiscal,
social and economic decisions that have always been made at the local or State
level. We believe that they should remain at that level rather than being dele-
gated to the U.S. Commissioner of Education as the bill proposes. Unfortunately,
Republican-sponsored amendments to place this authority in the State education
agencies, where it properly belongs, were summarily rejected.
The placing of the Adult Basic Education Program in title II of the Economic
Opportunity Act is a classic example of the fragmentation of educational programs
among the various agencies and departments of the federal government that has
taken place under the Johnson-Humphrey Administration. The predictable result of
this type of "non-planning" has been that States and local communities seeking
federal assistance have been faced with almost insurmountable bureaucratic con-
fusion and unjustified delay. Many of these problems could be eliminated if this
and other educational programs were placed where they logically belong, in the
Office of Education. A Republican amendment which would have transferred the
Adult Basic Education Program to the Office of Education was accepted in subcom-
mittee and then rejected by the full committee after very little discussion. This
amendment will be offered again during House consideration.
In the face of ever-mounting inflation and in spite of the accelerating cost
of the war in Vietnam, this bill, as reported, contains an increase in the spend-
ing authorization of nearly 100 percent for fiscal year 1968. Title III would be
expanded nearly six times over the FY '66 authorization. Even in the event such
expenditures were justified under the present fiscal circumstances, and they
certainly are not, there is nothing in the present record that indicates that the
schools can absorb such an increase with a corresponding improvement in their pro-
grams. Moreover, in the proposed legislation there has been absolutely no attempt
to establish priorities for federal action or to correct the basic and known
defects in the present law.
In its present form this bill is far from satisfactory. We, therefore, urge
the adoption of the Republican amendments. With these changes, the federal
contribution to education under this legislation can be substantially improved
and at far less cost.
House Republican Policy Counittee
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
August 23, 1966
140 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Phone: 225-6168
Republican Policy Committee Statement on Elementary and Secondary Education
Amendments of 1966
From the Morrill Act of 1862 and the creation of the U.S. Office of Education
in 1869, to the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the Manpower Training
Act of 1962, the Republican Party has advocated and supported the important role
of education in advancing the capabilities and opportunities of the citizens of
the United States. We have recognized that it is only through State and local
cooperation that the greatest educational development can be achieved with
federal help.
Under the principle of State and local responsibility, the American education-
al system has grown so that it compares favorably with that of any other country
of the world. In 1960, school enrollments constituted 23.2 percent of total
population in the United States, compared to 11.1 percent in Europe and 14.24
percent in the Soviet Union. In this country, total revenues for public schools
have grown by 376 parcent since 1950 and classroom construction has proceeded at
a rate that will provide 653,000 classrooms in the decade 1962 to 1972.
At the time the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was being
considered, we were concerned that this peorly-drafted legislation would too often
impode rather than help the education effort in this country. We were concerned
that it would deprive the State agencies and local school authorities of any real
power to shape educational programs to meet local needs. Centralization of power
was a theme that ran throughout the entire bill. Now, one year and a number of
serious defects later, this Congress is being asked to broaden and expand the
original Act. In an almost casual manner, authorizations in excess of $4.6
billion have been requested. Unfortumately, there has been no meaningful attempt
to sort out the vast and confusing tangle of federal programs. Moreover, obvious
defects have been either glossed ever or totally ignored by the Democratic
majority on the committee.
For example, under the present Act, the distribution of funds within a State
is established by a set formula. As a result, State education agencies have been
unable to channel money to the areas of greatest need. In the past, distribution
on the basis of need has been the traditional administrative device for the
allocation of federal funds. Such distribution permits State-vide concentration
upon the most urgent educational problems. It encourages responsible State
educational planning. Unfortunately, the Democratic majority rejected all
Republican amendments that would authorize State education agencies to distribute
funds in this manner. We believe that an amendment that would give greater flexi
bility to the States should be adopted.
A Republican amendment that would provide added funds for the low-expenditure
States was adopted. This will cure some of the disparity in federal aid between
States. However, it does not change the present uneatisfactory method of distri-
bution within States which scatters funds indiscriminately among wealthy and
needy school districts.
It is generally agreed that the best hope for reducing educational failure
among economically and socially disadvantaged children lies in the area of
(over)
REpublicAN NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
THURSDAY AM'S
October 6, 1966
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WAS APPROVED OCTOBER 3, 1966
BY THE REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE AND WAS RELEASED
TODAY BY REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RAY. C. BLISS
OUR SCHOOLS SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED FROM WASHINGTON
Democratic Administrations almost inevitably extend the power and
authority of the Federal Government. The Republican Party has pointed to
this danger on many occasions. Weihave put forth constructive proposals to
maintain and strengthen the ntegrity of the artherships among Federal, State
and local Governments.
Today, local control of education continues to be a focus of thi threat.
Democratic officials continue e to seek ways to extend Federal authority into
locally operated educational systems. This 'back-door approach" was voiced
recently y the U.S. U Commissioner of Education n, who said schools must be
guided to respond appropriately
" to calls for national action. Local school instricts
must not sit on their hands and then bellow about
having the reins of educational policy valiked from their
fingers."
-more-
-2-
The Republican Party believes in local control of education, because our
local communities already have made it work. School enrollment in the United
States runs at twice the rate of Europe, and half again the rate of Soviet Union.
The proportion of students who complete high school has grown over fifty
percent since the end of World War II.
A few years ago, a Democratic President declared the need for a Federal
program to finance the construction of 600,000 classrooms within a decade. Yet,
in that same year of 1962, classrooms were constructed at a ten-year rate of
653,000 without the Federal program that had been requested.
The ability of our communities to keep pace with educational need is
shown clearly by the fact that, despite the huge growth in school enrollments,
revenues have grown so that today average State and local expenditures per pupil
exceed $500 per year.
The Democratic Johnson-Humphrey Administration pays lip service to
local control, while actually working in the opposite direction.
We have pointed out before the dangers in the enormous powers given
to the Commissioner of Education to establish criteria for Federal aid under
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. We renew our call for
Congressional action to eliminate unauthorized Federal dictation.
###
REpublican NATiONAL COMMiTTEE
1625 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
NATIONAL 8-6800
NEWS
FOR RELEASE
THURSDAY AM'S
October 6, 1966
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WAS APPROVED OCTOBER 3, 1966
BY THE REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE AND WAS RELEASED
TODAY BY REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN RAY. C. BLISS
OUR SCHOOLS SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED FROM WASHINGTON
Democratic Administrations almost inevitably extend the power and
authority of the Federal Government. The Republican Party has pointed to
this danger on many occasions. We have put forth constructive proposals to
maintain and strengthen the integrity of the partnerships among Federal, State
and local Governments.
Today, local control of education continues to be a focus of this threat.
Democratic officials continue to seek ways to extend Federal authority into
locally operated educationalsystems. This "back-door approach" was voiced
recently by the U.S. Commissioner of Education, who said schools must be
guided to respond appropriately
" to calls for national action. Local school districts
must not sit on their hands and then bellow about
having the reins of educational policy yanked from their
fingers."
-more-
-2-
The Republican Party believes in local control of education, because our
local communities already have made it work. School enrollment in the United
States runs at twice the rate of Europe, and half again the rate of Soviet Union
The proportion of students who complete high school has grown over fifty
percent since the end of World War II.
A few years ago, a Democratic President declared the need for a Federal
program to finance the construction of 600, 000 classrooms within a decade. Yet,
in that same year of 1962, classrooms were constructed at a ten-year rate of
653,000 without the Federal program that had been requested.
The ability of our communities to keep pace with educational need is
shown clearly by the fact that, despite the huge growth in school enrollments,
revenues have grown so that today average State and local expenditures per pupil
exceed $500 per year.
The Democratic Johnson-Humphrey Administration pays lip service to
local control, while actually working in the opposite direction.
We have pointed out before the dangers in the enormous powers given
to the Commissioner of Education to establish criteria for Federal aid under
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. We renew our call for
Congressional action to eliminate unauthorized Federal dictation.
###
19 April 1967
IIIII
MIIIII.
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE URGES BASIC REFORM IN THE
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
In 1965 and again in 1966, the Republican Members of the House of Repre-
sentatives expressed grave concern regarding the broad sweep of the proposed elementa-
ry and secondary education legislation. We were concerned that under the loosely
drawn provisions of this legislation, the education effort in this country would be
divided, overlapping and wasteful. We were concerned that the State agencies and
local school authorities would be deprived of authority to shape educational programs
to meet local needs. Centralization of Dower in the Federal government was a theme
that ran through the key sections of the legislation.
It has now become apparent that all too often the Federal support intended
to improve elementary and secondary education has been used to undermine State and
local initiative and responsibility. The administrative burdens and the Federal
controls under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act have increased each year.
Today, the United States Office or Education administers approximately 30 different
programs in the field of elementary and secundary education. The total authorizations
for these programs are well above $3 billion. This proliferation of programs has
thrust upon school administrators a baffling maze of applications, justifications,
questionnaires and accountings. The heavy hand of the Federal government in the
process of educational decision-making grows lever heavier.
It is absolutely essential that the unwarranted intrusion of the Federal
government into the local educational systems be alininated. The administrative com-
plexities and overload which accompany this intrusion must be reroved. Educator after
educator has testified that the present system of categorical grant-in-aid programs
is at the root of the problem. Under this system, Federal control has been maximized
and an educational program determined by local priorities could not be established.
We believe that in the education field, as well as in many other fields, a
system of Federal tax-sharing would provide the essential funds without the many con-
trols and administrative complexities that presently accompany Federal programs. This
type of reform cannot be accomplished in this bill. However, as an initial step in
this direction, the Republican members of the Education and Labor Committee have
recommended that H.R. 7819 be amended to provide block grants to the States for
(over)
education purposes. These grants would replace the multiplicity of categorical
grant-in-aid programs. If this is done, States and local communities would receive
the financial assistance that they need without the Federal controls and dictation
that has proven to be the greatest weakness of the present elementary and secondary
education program.
Virtually all major groups in elementary and secondary education are opposed
to placing in the hands of the U. S. Commissioner, the sole power in Title III to
determine which applicant school districts are to receive funds and which educational
purposes are to be favored in their use. The $500 million authorization in Title III
is a gigantic carrot by which the United States Commissioner of Education can "coax"
local school systems and even entire States to adopt educational practices currently
favored by a few individuals in the United States Education Office. It is not enough
that the Commissioner of Education has professed a desire to turn over this program
to State administration at some unspecified date in the future. State administration
of the program should begin now. Title III projects must be consistent and coordi-
nated with overall State educational plans and programs. This cannot be done as long
as the control remains in the United States Office of Education.
Once again, this bill does nothing to correct the inequitable formula for
distributing Title I funds to local school districts. Funds continue to be scattered
indiscriminately among both wealthy and needy school districts. Under the present
system, State education agencies are unable to channel the money to the areas of
greatest need. The proposed study of the formula's obvious defects is an acknowledg-
ment of this serious problem. The jerry-built distribution formula in Title I must
be abandoned and the formula advanced by the Renublican Members of the Committee
must be adopted.
We are opposed to a National Teachers Corps recruited and controlled by
the Federal government. Without question, there is a need to increase efforts for
the recruitment and training of teachers for problem schools. However, these efforts
should be made at the State and local level and not be controlled by a Federal Bureau.
The Federal government should not be the agent for the recruitment, selection,
assignment and compensation of teachers.
We believe that teacher training for problem schools, the prime objective
of the Teachers Corps, should be handled as a part of other on-going programs. For
example, Title XI of the National Defense Education Act authorizes institutes for
teachers who are engaged or preparing to engage in teaching in such schools. In
fiscal 1966 and 1967, 1,046 such institutes were arranged with 43,591 teachers
participating. This highly successful program should be further expanded to meet
the pressing need for additional training in this most difficult area. Moreover,
Title V of the Higher Education Act authorizes the Commissioner of Education to
initiate fellowship programs which he could specifically design to prepare teachers
for problem schools.
19 April 1967
IIIII
U. S. HOUSE
REPUBLICAN POLICY
COMMITTEE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE URGES BASIC REFORM IN THE
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
In 1965 and again in 1966, the Republican Members of the House of Repre-
sentatives expressed grave concern regarding the broad sween of the proposed elementa-
ry and secondary education legislation. We were concerned that under the loosely
drawn provisions of this legislation, the education effort in this country would be
divided, overlapping and wasteful. We were concerned that the State agencies and
local school authorities would be deprived of authority to shape educational programs
to meet local needs. Centralization of Dower in the Federal government was a there
that ran through the key sections of the legislation.
It has now become apparent that all too often the Federal support intended
to improve elementary and secondary education has been used to undermine State and
local initiative and responsibility. The adninistrative burdens and the Federal
controls under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act have increased each year.
Today, the United States Office of Education administers approximately 30 different
programs in the field of elementary and secondary education. The total authorizations
for these programs are well above $3 billion. This proliferation of programs has
thrust upon school administrators a baffling maze of applications, justifications,
questionnaires and accountings. The heavy hand of the Federal government in the
process of educational decision-making grows ever heavier.
It is absolutely essential that the unwarranted intrusion of the Federal
government into the local educational systems be eliminated. The administrative com-
plexities and overload which accompany this intrusion must be removed. Educator after
educator has testified that the present system of categorical grant-in-aid programs
is at the root of the problem. Under this system, Federal control has been maximized
and an educational program determined by local priorities could not be established.
We believe that in the education field, as well as in many other fields, a
system of Federal tax-sharing would provide the essential funds without the many con-
trols and administrative complexities that presently accompany Federal programs. This
type of reform cannot be accomplished in this bill. However, as an initial step in
this direction, the Republican members of the Education and Labor Committee have
recommended that H.R. 7819 be amended to provide block grants to the States for
(over)
education purposes. These grants would replace the multiplicity of categorical
grant-in-aid programs. If this is done, States and local communities would receive
the financial assistance that they need without the Federal controls and dictation
that has proven to be the greatest weakness of the present elementary and secondary
education program.
Virtually all major groups in elementary and secondary education are opposed
to placing in the hands of the U. S. Commissioner, the sole power in Title III to
determine which applicant school districts are to receive funds and which educational
purposes are to be favored in their use. The $500 million authorization in Title III
is a gigantic carrot by which the United States Commissioner of Education can "coax"
local school systems and even entire States to adopt educational practices currently
favored by a few individuals in the United States Education Office. It is not enough
that the Commissioner of Education has professed a desire to turn over this program
to State administration at some unspecified date in the future. State administration
of the program should begin now. Title III projects must be consistent and coordi-
nated with overall State educational plans and programs. This cannot be done as long
as the control remains in the United States Office of Education.
Once again, this bill does nothing to correct the inequitable formula for
distributing Title I funds to local school districts. Funds continue to be scattered
indiscriminately among both wealthy and needy school districts. Under the present
system, State education agencies are unable to channel the money to the areas of
greatest need. The proposed study of the formula's obvious defects is an acknowledg-
ment of this serious problem. The jerry-built distribution formula in Title I must
be abandoned and the formula advanced by the Republican Members of the Committee
must be adopted.
We are opposed to a National Teachers Corps recruited and controlled by
the Federal government. Without question, there is a need to increase efforts for
the recruitment and training of teachers for problem schools. However, these efforts
should be made at the State and local level and not be controlled by a Federal Bureau.
The Federal government should not be the agent for the recruitment, selection,
assignment and compensation of teachers.
We believe that teacher training for problem schools, the prime objective
of the Teachers Corps, should be handled as a part of other on-going programs. For
example, Title XI of the National Defense Education Act authorizes institutes for
teachers who are engaged or preparing to engage in teaching in such schools. In
fiscal 1966 and 1967, 1,046 such institutes were arranged with 43,591 teachers
participating. This highly successful program should be further expanded to meet
the pressing need for additional training in this most difficult area. Moreover,
Title V of the Higher Education Act authorizes the Commissioner of Education to
initiate fellowship programs which he could specifically design to prepare teachers
for problem schools.
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R.-MICH.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 1967--
WASHINGTON -- Virtually every state would receive more funds under pro-
grams covered by a Republican plan for block sum Federal grants to elementary-
secondary schools and private schools would share equitably in the additional
money, House GOP Leader Gerald R. Ford, R.-Mich., said today.
Ford said it appears the Johnson Administration is seeking to derail the
GOP block grant approach to elementary-secondary Federal school aid by misleading
officials of private schools. He said this can be the only explanation for private
school leaders' fears that the GOP plan would deprive their schools of Federal
assistance.
"There is absolutely no truth to the contention that the Republican pro-
posal to substitute block grants would eliminate assistance tooprivate schools,"
Ford declared. "The facts are that the Republ an continues ART the benefits
of the present plan for pupils and teachers imporivate schools and does this
without Federal dictation.
"It is typical of the Johnson Administration," Ford said, "that attempts
are being made to mislead the American people as to legislation which spells out
a far better way to improve education in this country than the method now dictated
and closely controlled by Washing on bureaucrats."
Ford noted that the GOP block sum grant lah provides that at least 50
per cent of the funds going to any state must befused for special programs for
educationally-deprived children and that rivate school children must be included
in those programs.
"That should set at rest all of the fears stirred up by those spreading
false propaganda among officials of our private schools," Ford said.
The block grant approach espoused by the GOP would not take effect until
July 1, 1969, because states and school districts would not have time to adjust
their planning and programming if the plan were to begin operating with the start
of fiscal year 1968.
A total of $3 billion would be authorized under the GOP plan for fiscal
1969. This would be roughly $200 million less than the Administration is seeking
more
- 2 -
for the programs the GOP plan would replace. But it would be $1.5 billion more
than the Administration request for fiscal 1968.
"It should be remembered there would be tremendous savings in administra-
tive costs under the block sum grant approach," Ford said.
Assuming an appropriation of less than $2.4 billion under Title I of
ESEA for fiscal 1969, the Republican plan would provide more funds for Titles
I, II, III, and V than the Administration bill except in the case of New York
State and the District of Columbia, Ford asserted.
Ford said the GOP plan would cut administrative costs by many millions,
reduce paperwork and red tape, permit better planning by local school officials,
allow local people to set educational priorities, and reduce the power the U.S.
Commissioner of Education now has over local school decisions.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R.-MICH.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 1967--
WASHINGTON -- Virtually every state would receive more funds under pro-
grams covered by a Republican plan for block sum Federal grants to elementary-
secondary schools and private schools would share equitably in the additional
money, House GOP Leader Gerald R. Ford, R.-Mich., said today.
Ford said it appears the Johnson Administration is seeking to derail the
GOP block grant approach to elementary-secondary Federal school aid by misleading
officials of private schools. He said this can be the only explanation for private
school leaders' fears that the GOP plan would deprive their schools of Federal
assistance.
"There is absolutely no truth to the contention that the Republican pro-
posal to substitute block grants would eliminate assistance to private schools,"
Ford declared. "The facts are that the Republican plan continues all the benefits
of the present plan for pupils and teachers in private schools and does this
without Federal dictation."
"It is typical of the Johnson Administration," Ford said, "that attempts
are being made to mislead the American people as to legislation which spells out
a far better way to improve education in this country than the method now dictated
and closely controlled by Washington bureaucrats."
Ford noted that the GOP block sum grant plan provides that at least 50
per cent of the funds going to any state must be used for special programs for
educationally-deprived children and that private school children must be included
in those programs.
"That should set at rest all of the fears stirred up by those spreading
false propaganda among officials of our private schools," Ford said.
The block grant approach espoused by the GOP would not take effect until
July 1, 1969, because states and school districts would not have time to adjust
their planning and programming if the plan were to begin operating with the start
of fiscal year 1968.
A total of $3 billion would be authorized under the GOP plan for fiscal
1969. This would be roughly $200 million less than the Administration is seeking
more
1
- 2 -
for the programs the GOP plan would replace. But it would be $1.5 billion more
than the Administration request for fiscal 1968.
"It should be remembered there would be tremendous savings in administra-
tive costs under the block sum grant approach," Ford said.
Assuming an appropriation of less than $2.4 billion under Title I of
ESEA for fiscal 1969, the Republican plan would provide more funds for Titles
I, II, III, and V than the Administration bill except in the case of New York
State and the District of Columbia, Ford asserted.
Ford said the GOP plan would cut administrative costs by many millions,
reduce paperwork and red tape, permit better planning by local school officials,
allow local people to set educational priorities, and reduce the power the U.S.
Commissioner of Education now has over local school decisions.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.), House Minority Leader
For Release at 10:30 a.m., Friday, April 28, 1967
President Johnson has made wild and irresponsible charges against the House
Republican Leadership and leading advocates of the Republican substitute for the
Administration's elementary-secondary school aid bill.
This Administration is playing fast and loose with the truth and has been en-
gaging in such tactics ever since Rep. Quie unveiled his substitute measure on
April 20. This further widens the Credibility Gap.
It is the Administration which has revived the church-state issue in connection
with elementary-secondary school aid, not House Republicans. Administration of-
ficials did this by falsely asserting that aid to private schools would be virtually
eliminated under the Quie Amendment. They deliberately fed misinformation about
the Quie Amendment to private school officials. The truth is, of course, that the
Quie Amendment from the outset has contained assurances that private schools would
continue to receive full benefits. These assurances were couched in the same
language found in the existing Elementary-Secondary School Aid Act. The truth
is on our side.
We have one purpose and one purpose only in seeking adoption of the Republican
substitute. That is to cut federal red tape in the channeling of federal aid to
elementary and secondary schools and to let state and local educators set priori-
ties. We would do that with bloc sum grants.
The President has falsely asserted that Republicans "trot out a new version"
of their school aid substitute each day. The truth is we have made slight
additions to the language in our legislation to calm the fears of private school
leaders--groundless fears stirred up by the Administration through a scare campaign
based on false statements.
The church-state issue actually is not involved in this matter. This is a
choice between the Administration's categorical kind of elementary-secondary school
aid and the Republican approach of bloc sum grants. The only issue is more local
control and less federal influence. The present pattern of benefits for private
schools will continue. We are heartily in favor of it.
#
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford (R-Mich.), House Minority Leader
For Release at 10:30 a.m., Friday, April 28, 1967
President Johnson has made wild and irresponsible charges against the House
Republican Leadership and leading advocates of the Republican substitute for the
Administration's elementary-secondary school aid bill
This Administration is playing fast and loose with the truth and has been en-
gaging in such tactics ever since Rep. Quie unveiled his substitute measure on
April 20. This further widens the Cred: ility Gap.
It is the Administration which has revived the church-state issue in connection
with elementary-secondary school aid, not House Republicans. Administration of-
ficials did this by falsely assetting that aid to private schools would be virtually
eliminated under the Quie Amendment. They deliberately fed misinformation about
the Quie Amendment to private schooltofficials. The truth is, of course, that the
Quie Amendment fir of the obtset has ongained assurances that private schools would
continue to receive full behefits. These assurances were couched in the same
language found In the existing Elementary-Secondary School id Act. The truth
is on our side
We have one purpose and one purpose only in seeking adoption of the Republican
substitute. That is to cut federal red tape in the channeling of federal aid to
elementary and secondary schools and to let state and local educators set priori-
ties. We would do thadguith bloc sum grants.
The President has falsely asserted that Republicans "trot out a new version"
of their school at substitute each day. The truth is we have made slight
additions to the language in our legislation to calm the fears of private school
leaders--groundless fears stirred up by the Administration through a scare campaign
based on false statements.
The church-state issue actually is not involved in this matter. This is a
choice between the Administration's categorical kind of elementary-secondary school
aid and the Republican approach of bloc sum grants. The only issue is more local
control and less federal influence. The present pattern of benefits for private
schools will continue. We are heartily in favor of it.
HHH
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
JOINT STATEMENT BY
Hon. Gerald R. Ford, House Minority Leader
and
Hon. Albert H. Quie, First District, Minnesota
April 28, 1967
ADMINISTRATION HAS MOUNTED AN ATTACK OF INCREDIBLE PROPORTIONS
TO SAVE ITS ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT BILL,
FIRST MAJOR TEST OF STRENGTH IN 90TH CONGRESS
The Administration, in an attack almost unpr cedented in its scope and
bitterness, has within the loast week launched an all-out assault on the Republican
amendment to the Blementary and Secondary Education Act (H. R. 8983).
Twice the Administration has postponed debate and action on the Administration
bill, H. R. 7819. When it will finally be brought up even the Administration will
not say. We believe we have the votes win as of today.
If we win OR thi vital issue, it could create a pattern for the 90th Congress.
That is the reason the Johnson Administration is employing outright misrepresentation
against the Republican substitute, known as the Quie amendment
So widespread has been this attack, so unfair has it been, that we are forced
to make this statement to bring the truth to the American people.
Here are the facts on the four major issues raised by the Administration:
1. The President has charged we are behaving recklessly for partignn
advantage by opposing the Administration's extentions of the ESEA through
the 1968-69 school year.
ANSWER: It is not the supporters of the Republican amendment who are behaving
recklessly for partisan political advantage. It is the Administration. The public
must understand that the Administration regards thi as the first major test of
strength of the 90th Congress. If the Republican alternative should win, as now
appears quite possible, the tenor and tone of the entire 90th Congress will change.
Other alternatives to Great Society programs may also be enacted. For this reason
the Administration has postponed consideration of ESEA. Over the past week, since
the Republican amendment was announced, we have been subjected to an attack of
almost incredible proportions. This attack has dealt in misinterpretation and fear
to such an extent that it is almost impossible to reply to each distortion.
more
-2-
The Administration has marshalled its largest-bore guns----from the President,
who attacked the proposal Thursday, to the U. S. Commissioner of Education, the
chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and individual Members of
Congress with statements in the Congressional Record. The magnitude of the attack
is truly awesome. Again, the reason for the attack is that the Administration
feels it MUST win this first test of strength in the 90th Congress or it will lose
the whole ball game in the 90th Congress.
2. The President has accused opponents of his measure of trying to
revive bitterness between church and public school leaders.
ANSWER: This totally untrue accusation is the most serious, the most regrettable
and the most unfair. The widely-disseminated rumor that the Republican bloc
grant approach would penalize pupils in private (and parochial schools) is an out-
right deception. The Quie amendment was announced on Thursday (April 20.) The
following Sunday, when scarcely a handful of private school officials had even read
the Quie amendment, a false report spread across the nation: "This means the end
to benefits for private school pupils." Obviously, a few strategically-placed
telephone calls from the Administration caused the unjustified reaction. Private
school people were, in truth, victimized by Administration officials.
The Quie Amendment from the very beginning contained the same language as the
present act respecting participation of private school children in the benefits of
the program. The amendment even increased the types of assistance which could be
made available.
We have even gone a step farther by writing in clarifying language to make
even more explicit the intent that the Federal bloc grants would not be commingled
with State funds to be spent for general educational purposes, but would be funds
to be spent for special programs. Secondly, the Republican amendment specifically
states that private school children would enjoy the same degree of participation in
these programs under the Quie amendment as they now do under ESEA.
In truth, it was the subtle, behind-the-scenes maneuvering of the Administration
that tended to "revive the bitterness between church and public school leaders."
The Administration has deliberately tried to cause confusion and fear in the hearts
of private school authorities, for its own political advantage.
3. The President said we have tried to revive bitterness and distrust
between the so-called poor and rich states.
ANSWER: The allegation that the "poor would get poorer and the rich would get
richer" is a classic example of Administration misrepresentation. This is absolutely
more
-3-
untrue. Beginning with the 1968-69 school year, under the Republican plan,
$3 billion would be available for distribution under a formula used for nine years
in the National Defense Education Act which takes into account the ability of each
State to support education, and thereby favors poorer States. The main formula in
the present Elementary-Secondary Act is so inequitable that it provides a payment
of $129.64 for each poor child counted in Mississippi and $393.14 for each child
counted in New York.
To dispel any fears of reduced allocations, the Quie Amendment would require
that a state's allotment could not be less than its total allotments for the year
ending June 30, 1968, under Titles I, II, III, and V of ESEA.
The Republican amendment would assure the states of a continuing authorization
of $3 billion in aid, starting with the 1968-69 school year. States would know
well in advance what they could expect. On the other hand, if the Administration
bill becomes law, states could not know for certain what would be available. It
could range as low as $2.3 billion, based on the actual appropriations under the
present act.
4. The President said Thursday, this is "a time of testing for American
education."
ANSWER: We agree that this is a time of testing, but not in the sense the President
meant. It is a time of testing because America must choose between the path of
more and more Federal control over education and the other path, which will assure
the states and local communities their rightful control over education. After all,
it was America's local schools that built our educational system into the best in
the world. It was not control from Washington which produced this superb
educational system. This is the one issue before us in the consideration of the
Quie Amendment.
We must all understand that with Federal money goes Federal influence. The
Republican amendment seeks to reduce the danger of Federal control. It also seeks
to greatly reduce the endless red tape which is strangling local school boards in
their dealings with the vast bureaucracy in Washington.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
JOINT STATEMENT BY
Hon. Gerald R. Ford, House Minority Leader
and
Hon. Albert H. Quie, First District, Minnesota
April 28, 1967
ADMINISTRATION HAS MOUNTED AN ATTACK OF INCREDIBLE PROPORTIONS
TO SAVE ITS ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT BILL,
FIRST MAJOR TEST OF STRENGTH IN 90TH CONGRESS
The Administration, in an attack almost unprecedented in its scope and
bitterness, has within the past week launched an all-out assault on the Republican
amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (H. R. 8983).
Twice the Administration has postponed debate and action on the Administration
bill, H. R. 7819. When it will finally be brought up even the Administration will
not say. We believe we have the votes to win as of today.
If we win on this vital issue, it could create a pattern for the 90th Congress.
That is the reason the Johnson Administration is employing outright misrepresentation
against the Republican substitute, known as the Quie amendment.
So widespread has been this attack, so unfair has it been, that we are forced
to make this statement to bring the truth to the American people.
Here are the facts on the four major issues raised by the Administration:
1. The President has charged we are behaving recklessly for partisan
advantage by opposing the Administration's extentions of the ESEA through
the 1968-69 school year.
ANSWER: It is not the supporters of the Republican amendment who are behaving
recklessly for partisan political advantage. It is the Administration. The public
must understand that the Administration regards this as the first major test of
strength of the 90th Congress. If the Republican alternative should win, as now
appears quite possible, the tenor and tone of the entire 90th Congress will change.
Other alternatives to Great Society programs may also be enacted. For this reason
the Administration has postponed consideration of ESEA. Over the past week, since
the Republican amendment was announced, we have been subjected to an attack of
almost incredible proportions. This attack has dealt in misinterpretation and fear
to such an extent that it is almost impossible to reply to each distortion.
more
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
The Administration has marshalled its largest-bore guns----from the President,
who attacked the proposal Thursday, to the U. S. Commissioner of Education, the
chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and individual Members of
Congress with statements in the Congressional Record. The magnitude of the attack
is truly awesome. Again, the reason for the attack is that the Administration
feels it MUST win this first test of strength in the 90th Congress or it will lose
the whole ball game in the 90th Congress.
2. The President has accused opponents of his measure of trying to
revive bitterness between church and public school leaders.
ANSWER: This totally untrue accusation is the most serious, the most regrettable
and the most unfair. The widely-disseminated rumor that the Republican bloc
grant approach would penalize pupils in private (and parochial schools) is an out-
right deception. The Quie amendment was announced on Thursday (April 20.) The
following Sunday, when scarcely a handful of private school officials had even read
the Quie amendment, a false report spread across the nation: "This means the end
to benefits for private school pupils." Obviously, a few strategically-placed
telephone calls from the Administration caused the unjustified reaction. Private
school people were, in truth, victimized by Administration officials.
The Quie Amendment from the very beginning contained the same language as the
present act respecting participation of private school children in the benefits of
the program. The amendment even increased the types of assistance which could be
made available.
We have even gone a step farther by writing in clarifying language to make
even more explicit the intent that the Federal bloc grants would not be commingled
with State funds to be spent for general educational purposes, but would be funds
to be spent for special programs. Secondly, the Republican amendment specifically
states that private school children would enjoy the same degree of participation in
these programs under the Quie amendment as they now do under ESEA.
In truth, it was the subtle, behind-the-scenes maneuvering of the Administration
that tended to "revive the bitterness between church and public school leaders."
The Administration has deliberately tried to cause confusion and fear in the hearts
of private school authorities, for its own political advantage.
3. The President said we have tried to revive bitterness and distrust
between the so-called poor and rich states.
ANSWER: The allegation that the "poor would get poorer and the rich would get
richer" is a classic example of Administration misrepresentation. This is absolutely
more
-3-
untrue. Beginning with the 1968-69 school year, under the Republican plan,
$3 billion would be available for distribution under a formula used for nine years
in the National Defense Education Act which takes into account the ability of each
State to support education, and thereby favors poorer States. The main formula in
the present Elementary-Secondary Act is so inequitable that it provides a payment
of $129.64 for each poor child counted in Mississippi and $393.14 for each child
counted in New York.
To dispel any fears of reduced allocations, the Quie Amendment would require
that a state's allotment could not be less than its total allotments for the year
ending June 30, 1968, under Titles I, II, III, and V of ESEA.
The Republican amendment would assure the states of a continuing authorization
of $3 billion in aid, starting with the 1968-69 school year. States would know
well in advance what they could expect. On the other hand, if the Administration
bill becomes law, states could not know for certain what would be available. It
could range as low as $2.3 billion, based on the actual appropriations under the
present act.
4. The President said Thursday, this is "a time of testing for American
education."
ANSWER: We agree that this is a time of testing, but not in the sense the President
meant. It is a time of testing because America must choose between the path of
more and more Federal control over education and the other path, which will assure
the states and local communities their rightful control over education. After all,
it was America's local schools that built our educational system into the best in
the world. It was not control from Washington which produced this superb
educational system. This is the one issue before us in the consideration of the
Quie Amendment.
We must all understand that with Federal money goes Federal influence. The
Republican amendment seeks to reduce the danger of Federal control. It also seeks
to greatly reduce the endless red tape which is strangling local school boards in
their dealings with the vast bureaucracy in Washington.
#HH
IIIII
IIIIIII
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
91st Congress
April 15, 1969
First Session
Statement Number 5
EXTENSION OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 TO JUNE 30, 1972
Elementary and Secondary Education programs established under the ESEA Act
of 1965 will expire June 30, 1970. If forward funding provisions are to be operable
and if advance program planning is to be encouraged, the Act must be extended now.
The House Republican Policy Committee recommends extension of the Act to June 30,1972.
Cogent reasons exist for establishing a practical limitation on the extension
of the 1965 Act.
The Nixon Administration is currently conducting a comprehensive review of
all ESEA programs in the context of our total national effort to overcome educational
and social problems; this badly needed study and evaluation is being given major
emphasis by the President and by the Office of Education. A two-year extension
would assure the Congress a seasonable opportunity to act upon the recommendations
based upon this review and would enable prompt elimination of inequities and
weaknesses found to exist in ESEA programs.
Further, census data, the basis upon which federal educational grants are
distributed, will be updated in 1970. Significant population shifts in this decade
demand accommodation, and if the Act is extended excessively, in its present form,
the inequitable disbursement of federal assistance would be prolonged.
The five-year extension of the 1965 Act proposed by H.R. 514 would also
impede Congressional consideration of the employment of "block grants". The
consolidation of similar State-grant programs must not be delayed. The crushing
(over)
--2
administrative burden upon state, local and institutional officials must be
lessened and their capacity to meet their responsibilities in education strengthened.
In view of the ongoing Executive analysis of ESEA programs; in view of
Jaff
significant changes in population distribution throughout the nation, on which the
1970 census will give the Congress accurate and current information; and recognizing
the need for timely legislative action; we recommend extension of the Elementary
JOA ASBS stit reban bedahidates emergorq notisoubs bas
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to June 30, 1972.
sidazogo 9d of STS satbout biswrod BI . OTCS ,OE saul extqxe to
.won ad Jeum JOA add beganuoons ad 03 at goinnelq sonavbs at box
sres, DE of DA and to notameixe votiod nachiduqe? saucH griT
notansixe 9dd по Inclusing B 107 welne 8008893 Inaged
.JOA caer odd to
to welver B gntioubnoo at похтИ edT
of smoke lanolism Injoj TUO to sild of amstgorq Ansa He
20tm nevig golad at notisvlave bas youte bebeen vibed aids ;ameIdorq Isloos has
took-owd A to sottio sild vd brin gift vd alasdgmo
add noqu 308 of efdenoases B essigned add stueas bloow
bon astitupent to squirq eldens bluow bas welver ald) noqu beard
.emsigorq AREA nt jalxe 03 bruet assessisew
935 stores Isrebel doldw naqu alead gift ,BIsh auameo
absoeb alds at suitte notislugoq .ores nt bedabqu ad Hlw
ett nt bebrease at JOA sità no bris ,nottebommoos brameb
.bagnolorq ed bfuow Isrebel to eidnilupsh} arts
oals bluow 412 .Я.Н Vd besoqoiq JOA eaes add 10 notansixe IB9Y-SVIT edT
edI ""ejnets Acoid" to inemyolque 989 to ebsqui
goldewro edT .beysleb ad Jon Jaum amergorq valimia 10 notiabiloanos
(xevo)
Distribution : Full
O Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
-FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON--
March 3, 1970
A Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
Improving the quality of the American educational system has long been one
of this Nation's most urgent and compelling needs.
President Nixon has wisely concluded that an administration in which reform
is the watchword would be failing in its overall mission if reform of our educational
system were not made a high priority objective.
I have carefully studied the President's Message on Education Reform. I
not only fully concur with his recommendations but also urge that the Congress
act with the greatest possible dispatch in implementing them. Nothing is more
important than a quality education for all of America's young people. I believe
the President's proposals will help us move toward that goal.
The overall thrust of the President's proposals clearly is to promote as
good an education for the child from the slums as the youngster from the suburbs.
This, I believe, is the key to solving many of America's most perplexing social
problems. We must bend every effort to achieve equality of educational opportunity.
Meantime, let the President's words be particularly heeded by those who would
spend additional billions on Federal aid to education without measuring the results.
As the President said, we are willing to spend more on education but we must also
learn how to invest those dollars wisely.
###
GERALD LIGRARY
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON--
March 3, 1970
A Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
Improving the quality of the American educational system has long been one
of this Nation's most urgent and compelling needs.
President Nixon has wisely concluded that an administration in which reform
is the watchword would be failing in its overall mission if reform of our educational
system were not made a high priority objective.
I have carefully studied the President's Message on Education Reform. I
not only fully concur with his recommendations but also urge that the Congress
act with the greatest possible dispatch in implementing them. Nothing is more
important than a quality education for all of America's young people. I believe
the President's proposals will help us move toward that goal.
The overall thrust of the President's proposals clearly is to promote as
good an education for the child from the slums as the youngster from the suburbs.
This, I believe, is the key to solving many of America's most perplexing social
problems. We must bend every effort to achieve equality of educational opportunity.
Meantime, let the President's words be particularly heeded by those who would
spend additional billions on Federal aid to education without measuring the results.
As the President said, we are willing to spend more on education but we must also
learn how to invest those dollars wisely.
###
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-
March 24, 1970
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
The President has taken a strong sensible approach to the problems of
integration.
Certainly the President's commitment to upholding the law of the land
cannot be questioned, particularly in view of his willingness to earmark
$1.5 billion in Federal funds to help local school districts with their desegre-
gation problems. I applaud the President's pledge to help make desegregation
work. At the same time I agree completely with his position that the neighborhood
school is the cornerstone of the local school system and that students should not
be bused outside of their neighborhoods merely to achieve an artificial racial
balance in schools. Like the President, I believe that funds spent on forcible
busing of students might better be spent on improving the quality of education in
our elementary and secondary schools. The President's statement was noteworthy
for its honesty and realism.
###
Distribution Full
O Office Copy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
March 24, 1970
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
The President has taken a strong sensible approach to the problems of
integration.
Certainly the President's commitment to upholding the law of the land
cannot be questioned, particularly in view of his willingness to earmark
$1.5 billion in Federal funds to help local school districts with their desegre-
gation problems. I applaud the President's pledge to help make desegregation
work. At the same time I agree completely with his position that the neighborhood
school is the cornerstone of the local school system and that students should not
be bused outside of their neighborhoods merely to achieve an artificial racial
balance in schools. Like the President, I believe that funds spent on forcible
busing of students might better be spent on improving the quality of education in
our elementary and secondary schools. The President's statement was noteworthy
for its honesty and realism.
###
all F ifth District news media
Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
Issued October 7, 1970
Rep. Gerald R. Ford of Grand Rapids has declared his outright opposition
to Proposal "C" on the Nov. 3 Michigan ballot.
Ford said that in response to inquiries he was making public his position
as expressed in letters sent last Sept. 29 to Ivan Zylstra, administrator of
government relations, National Union of Christian Schools, and Msgr. H. H. Zerfas,
superintendent of the Grand Rapids diocesan schools.
Ford wrote Msgr. Zerfas and Mr. Zylstra as follows:
"I agree that Proposal C should not be made a part of our State
Constitution. There are too many unanswered questions relating to its provision
to have it written into our basic law. Although this is a state issue and not
one before the Congress, I, as a citizen of Michigan, will vote 'no' on Proposal
C on November 3."
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
Issued October 7, 1970
Rep. Gerald R. Ford of Grand Rapids has declared his outright opposition
to Proposal "C" on the Nov. 3 Michigan ballot.
Ford said that in response to inquiries he was making public his position
as expressed in letters sent last Sept. 29 to Ivan Zylstra, administrator of
government relations, National Union of Christian Schools, and Msgr. H. H. Zerfas,
superintendent of the Grand Rapids diocesan schools.
Ford wrote Msgr. Zerfas and Mr. Zylstra as follows:
"I agree that Proposal C should not be made a part of our State
Constitution. There are too many unanswered questions relating to its provision
to have it written into our basic law. Although this is a state issue and not
one before the Congress, I, as a citizen of Michigan, will vote 'no' on Proposal
C on November 3."
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
For Release at 12 noon Thursday, Jan. 13, 1971
Congress appears certain to approve an increase in G.I. Bill benefits in
1972, Rep. Gerald R. Ford predicted today.
Ford said the House Veterans Affairs Committee will take up educational
assistance for Vietnam veterans early in the next session of Congress, probably
as its first item of business.
The Subcommittee on Education and Training has already conducted hearings
on the subject, and the Nixon Administration has proposed an 8.6 per cent boost
in educational assistance allowances, Ford noted.
Ford said the subcommittee plans to recommend a veterans' education bill
to the full committee and expects favorable action by the committee.
Ford said he has long felt that educational benefits for Vietnam veterans
are inadequate. He said he will support a substantial increase.
"I don't think there is any question but that Congress will approve an
increase in veterans educational allowances this year," Ford said. "The only
question is as to the amount. I wrote to the Veterans Affairs administrator last
August 30, pointing out that the Vietnam veteran is being breated unfairly when
his situation is compared with that of the World War II veteran. This is a
situation which must be remedied."
The World War II veteran received $50 a month under the G.I. Bill, plus up
to $500 a year for tuition, fees, supplies and travel expenses. The Vietnam
veteran originally received $100 a month, but nothing for tuition. In 1967 this
was raised to $137 a month; and on February 1, 1970, to $175 a month.
"Considering the increases in the cost of living," Ford said, "the Vietnam
veteran definitely is being shortchanged in relation to the benefits given the
World War II veteran. I therefore favor a substantial increase in educational
benefits for the Vietnam veteran."
###
Fifth District media only
Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
For Release at 12 noon Thursday, Jan. 13, 1971
Congress appears certain to approve an increase in G.I. Bill benefits in
1972, Rep. Gerald R. Ford predicted today.
Ford said the House Veterans Affairs Committee will take up educational
assistance for Vietnam veterans early in the next session of Congress, probably
as its first item of business.
The Subcommittee on Education and Training has already conducted hearings
on the subject, and the Nixon Administration has proposed an 8.6 per cent boost
in educational assistance allowances, Ford noted.
Ford said the subcommittee plans to recommend a veterans' education bill
to the full committee and expects favorable action by the committee.
Ford said he has long felt that educational benefits for Vietnam veterans
are inadequate. He said he will support a substantial increase.
"I don't think there is any question but that Congress will approve an
increase in veterans educational allowances this year," Ford said. "The only
question is as to the amount. I wrote to the Veterans Affairs administrator last
August 30, pointing out that the Vietnam veteran is being treated unfairly when
his situation is compared with that of the World War II veteran. This is a
situation which must be remedied."
The World War II veteran received $50 a month under the G.I. Bill, plus up
to $500 a year for tuition, fees, supplies and travel expenses. The Vietnam
veteran originally received $100 8 month, but nothing for tuition. In 1967 this
was raised to $137 a month; and on February 1, 1970, to $175 a month.
"Considering the increases in the cost of living," Ford said, "the Vietnam
veteran definitely is being shortchanged in relation to the benefits given the
World War II veteran. I therefore favor a substantial increase in educational
benefits for the Vietnam veteran."
###
Full Distribution
0 Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
February 22, 1971
Remarks on the Floor of the House by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
Mr. Speaker: The President has again urged action on a problem that cries
out for attention--the difficulty young people are having throughout the nation
in financing their higher education.
No qualified student should fail to go to college for lack of funds. If
we accept that statement--and I think every member of Congress does-then the
Congress should not fail to act this year on proposals to expand funding
opportunities for prospective college students.
The President's proposals in this area of difficulty make great good sense.
Under his program, Federal funds would go first and in the largest amounts to the
neediest students. But loan money would be readily available to students from
higher income families.
The creation of a National Student Loan Association has been delayed far
too long. All of us know that in many communities it is virtually impossible
for a prospective college student to get a loan from a bank. This situation must
be remedied, and the proposed National Student Loan Association appears to be the
obvious answer.
We must open higher education to all of our qualified young people. America
must truly be the land of opportunity.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
February 22, 1971
Remarks on the Floor of the House by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
Mr. Speaker: The President has again urged action on a problem that cries
out for attention--the difficulty young people are having throughout the nation
in financing their higher education.
No qualified student should fail to go to college for lack of funds. If
we accept that statement--and I think every member of Congress does-then the
Congress should not fail to act this year on proposals to expand funding
opportunities for prospective college students.
The President's proposals in this area of difficulty make great good sense.
Under his program, Federal funds would go first and in the largest amounts to the
neediest students. But loan money would be readily available to students from
higher income families.
The creation of a National Student Loan Association has been delayed far
too long. All of us know that in many communities it is virtually impossible
for a prospective college student to get a loan from a bank. This situation must
be remedied, and the proposed National Student Loan Association appears to be the
obvious answer.
We must open higher education to all of our qualified young people. America
must truly be the land of opportunity.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
January 25, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
I have today signed the discharge petition which would take H. J. Res. 620,
the anti-busing constitutional amendment, out of the hands of the House Judiciary
Committee and bring it to the House floor for a vote.
Ordinarily I do not sign discharge petitions as a matter of principle.
However, I have made an exception in the case of H. J. Res. 620, because of the
extreme urgency of the question involved.
On Oct. 28, 1971, the Michigan Legislature adopted Senate Concurrent
Resolution No. 172, which applies to the Congress for a convention to propose as
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the following article:
"No student shall be assigned to nor compelled to attend any particular
public school on account of race, religion, color or national origin."
H. J. Res. 620, introduced by Rep. Norman F. Lent, R-N.Y., reads as follows:
"Section 1. No public school student shall, because of his race, creed, or
color, be assigned to or required to attend a particular school."
I subscribe to the language of the Lent Amendment and the Michigan
Legislature's Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 172.
My view on school segregation is that we should act to end dual school
systems wherever possible but there should be no forced busing of school children
great distances from their homes to achieve racial balance. I believe in the
concept of the neighborhood school.
Our concern should be with quality education, not with forced busing to
achieve racial balance. Instead of spending huge sums to transport students to a
distant school, we should concentrate on upgrading our disadvantaged schools for
the benefit of disadvantaged students. I believe taxpayers would be willing to pay
to do that although they are unalterably opposed to expensive plans involving forced
busing.
We should attack school segregation vigorously by various legal and voluntary
means--but without forced busing.
###
GERALD LIBRARY
Full distribution
0 Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
January 25, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
I have today signed the discharge petition which would take H. J. Res. 620,
the anti-busing constitutional amendment, out of the hands of the House Judiciary
Committee and bring it to the House floor for a vote.
Ordinarily I do not sign discharge petitions as a matter of principle.
However, I have made an exception in the case of H. J. Res. 620, because of the
extreme urgency of the question involved.
On Oct. 28, 1971, the Michigan Legislature adopted Senate Concurrent
Resolution No. 172, which applies to the Congress for a convention to propose as
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the following article:
"No student shall be assigned to nor compelled to attend any particular
public school on account of race, religion, color or national origin."
H. J. Res. 620, introduced by Rep. Norman F. Lent, R-N.Y., reads as follows:
"Section 1. No public school student shall, because of his race, creed, or
color, be assigned to or required to attend a particular school."
I subscribe to the language of the Lent Amendment and the Michigan
Legislature's Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 172.
My view on school segregation is that we should act to end dual school
systems wherever possible but there should be no forced busing of school children
great distances from their homes to achieve racial balance. I believe in the
concept of the neighborhood school.
Our concern should be with quality education, not with forced busing to
achieve racial balance. Instead of spending huge sums to transport students to a
distant school, we should concentrate on upgrading our disadvantaged schools for
the benefit of disadvantaged students. I believe taxpayers would be willing to pay
to do that although they are unalterably opposed to expensive plans involving forced
busing.
We should attack school segregation vigorously by various legal and voluntary
means--but without forced busing.
###
Office Capy
NEWS
CONGRESSMAN
GERALD R.FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
-FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Monday, March 6, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
Prospects for Federal aid to nonpublic schools are the most promising they have
ever been, due to two developments.
First of all, House Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills, D-Ark., and Ways and
Means member James A. Burke, D-Mass., have introduced bills identical with the
Byrnes-Ford bill which calls for a 50 per cent personal income tax credit on
nonpublic school tuition, up to a limit of $400 per dependent.
Second, the President's Commission on School Finance has urged tax credits or
deductions for nonpublic school tuition in a report made public today.
I have been pushing for financial aid to nonpublic schools for more than 10
years. It seems to me that chances for such aid are the brightest now that they
have ever been.
The next step is hearings before the Ways and Means Committee. It is my
understanding that hearings will be scheduled.
######
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 6, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
I welcome the appeals court decision in the Richmond school case.
This is the first encouraging court action with regard to the busing problem.
I hope this decision will be the forerunner of like decisions by other
courts.
I trust it will have an impact on cases in Michigan and elsewhere.
###
Full distribution
O Iffice Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Tuesday, June 6, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
I welcome the appeals court decision in the Richmond school case.
This is the first encouraging court action with regard to the busing problem.
I hope this decision will be the forerunner of like decisions by other
courts.
I trust it will have an impact on cases in Michigan and elsewhere.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
August 1, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
I am pleased that the House Rules Committee has voted to take the proposed
anti-busing Constitutional Amendment away from the House Judiciary Committee and
bring it to the House Floor for a vote. I strongly support the proposed
amendment.
However, it will take perhaps as long as two years to bring about
ratification of the anti-busing amendment. It is therefore urgent that the Rules
Committee also discharge the President's busing moratorium legislation from the
Judiciary Committee and allow the House to work its will on that bill.
The moratorium bill would have immediate effect, estopping all action on
forced busing until the Congress can lay down school desegregation guidelines
for the courts, as in the bill now before the House Education and Labor Committee.
This Congress should not adjourn until it has enacted busing moratorium
and guidelines legislation, as well as approving a proposed Constitutional
Amendment to ban forced busing to achieve racial balance.
###
Full Distribution
office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
August 1, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
I am pleased that the House Rules Committee has voted to take the proposed
anti-busing Constitutional Amendment away from the House Judiciary Committee and
bring it to the House Floor for a vote. I strongly support the proposed
amendment.
However, it will take perhaps as long as two years to bring about
ratification of the anti-busing amendment. It is therefore urgent that the Rules
Committee also discharge the President's busing moratorium legislation from the
Judiciary Committee and allow the House to work its will on that bill.
The moratorium bill would have immediate effect, estopping all action on
forced busing until the Congress can lay down school desegregation guidelines
for the courts, as in the bill now before the House Education and Labor Committee.
This Congress should not adjourn until it has enacted busing moratorium
and guidelines legislation, as well as approving a proposed Constitutional
Amendment to ban forced busing to achieve racial balance.
###
House Halleries only
0 Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
September 20, 1972
JOINT STATEMENT BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, (R-MICH.) REPUBLICAN LEADER OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND SENATOR ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, (R-MICH.) ASSISTANT REPUBLICAN
LEADER OF THE SENATE.
While Senator McGovern is campaigning in Michigan, we feel he owes the
people of our state a candid explanation of how he plans to vote on the
House-passed Anti-Busing Bill which is pending on the Senate calendar.
This is no longer a hypothetical question nor one which can be obscured
in campaign rhetoric. It is one which will require a "Yea" or "Nay" vote in
the United States Senate, if Senator McGovern cares to be present for that
roll call. The voters of Michigan deserve a straight answer to the question:
Is Senator McGovern for or against the Anti-Busing Bill, H.R. 13915?
###
Full Distribution
a Offia Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
October 11, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
George McGovern is a do-nothing senator on busing.
While President Nixon uses his powers of persuasion and Sen. Robert P.
Griffin pulls out every possible stop to push the anti-busing moratorium bill
through the Senate, George McGovern sits in Detroit and tells the Detroit Free
Press in an interview that "there is nothing that either Nixon or I can do" about
busing.
President Nixon has laid before the Congress a bill which would place a
moratorium on busing and provide alternative choices which the courts must select
before resorting to a busing order. And even that last resort busing order could
not take a pupil beyond the school second nearest to his home. Yet George McGovern
insists there is nothing that can be done about busing and stays away from the
Senate where the anti-busing fight is being waged. He is simply evading and
avoiding the busing issue.
Chances are that if George McGovern were not running for President and was
in his Senate seat, he would be assisting in the filibuster which is preventing a
vote on the President's anti-busing moratorium bill. Michigan's up-and-doing
senator, Bob Griffin, is on the Senate floor every minute, fighting those senators
who are trying to filibuster the anti-busing bill to death. And that's what
George McGovern could be doing about busing--instead of telling the people of
Michigan through the Detroit Free Press Wednesday that "there is not one thing
that either Nixon or I can do to stop those buses from rolling."
But McGovern's attitude is not surprising. The Democratic platform
implicitly supports busing by saying that "transportation of students is another
tool to accomplish desegregation," and McGovern himself has called it "a concept
worthy of our support" (Washington Post, Feb. 15, 1972).
# # #
GERALD LIDRARY
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
October 11, 1972
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford
George McGovern is a do-nothing senator on busing.
While President Nixon uses his powers of persuasion and Sen. Robert P.
Griffin pulls out every possible stop to push the anti-busing moratorium bill
through the Senate, George McGovern sits in Detroit and tells the Detroit Free
Press in an interview that "there is nothing that either Nixon or I can do" about
busing.
President Nixon has laid before the Congress a bill which would place a
moratorium on busing and provide alternative choices which the courts must select
before resorting to a busing order. And even that last resort busing order could
not take a pupil beyond the school second nearest to his home, Yet George McGovern
insists there is nothing that can be done about busing and stays away from the
Senate where the anti-busing fight is being waged. He is simply evading and
avoiding the busing issue.
Chances are that if George McGovern were not running for President and was
in his Senate seat, he would be assisting in the filibuster which is preventing a
vote on the President's anti-busing moratorium bill. Michigan's up-and-doing
senator, Bob Griffin, is on the Senate floor every minute, fighting those senators
who are trying to filibuster the anti-busing bill to death. And that's what
George McGovern could be doing about busing--instead of telling the people of
Michigan through the Detroit Free Press Wednesday that "there is not one thing
that either Nixon or I can do to stop those buses from rolling."
But McGovern's attitude is not surprising. The Democratic platform
implicitly supports busing by saying that "transportation of students is another
tool to accomplish desegregation," and McGovern himself has called it "a concept
worthy of our support" (Washington Post, Feb. 15, 1972).
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON--
Wednesday, January 3, 1973
Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., and Rep. Herman T. Schneebeli, R-Pa., today
introduced a bill which would give parents a tax credit of 50 per cent for tuition
paid to send their youngsters to a nonprofit nonpublic elementary or secondary
school, up to a limit of $200 per child.
The legislation introduced by Minority Leader Ford and by Schneebeli, who
is ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, is a bill which was
reported out by the Ways and Means Committee late last year. Congress adjourned
without acting on it.
Ford in 1972 authored a bill which provided for a tax credit of up to
$400 per child for tuition paid to a nonprofit nonpublic school.
In introducing the $200 version, Ford said he thought it had the best
chance of enactment and pledged every effort to win passage of the legislation.
He said he thought the bill's prospects were "fairly good," particularly since it
is backed by House Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills, D-Ark.
Commenting on the tax credit legislation, Ford said:
"Parents in our country are entitled to freedom of choice. They should
have the freedom to send their children to nonpublic schools if they so choose.
Parents have a constitutional right to send their children to nonpublic schools.
That right is impaired when the financial burden is so great that it cannot be
borne without unusual hardship. That right is also impaired if increasing numbers
of nonpublic schools are forced to shut down because parents can't pay rising
tuition costs.
"Parents of nonpublic students carry a double financial load. They pay
taxes to support public education, and they pay tuition so their youngsters may
receive the special spiritual guidance offered by a nonpublie 'school. We should
subtract at least part of what they pay in nonpublic school tuition from their
Federal income tax bills. That's only fair. These parents already pay their
full share of local taxes for our public schools."
###
GERALD LISANA
full Distribution
Iffice Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON--
Wednesday, January 3, 1973
Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., and Rep. Herman T. Schneebeli, R-Pa., today
introduced a bill which would give parents a tax credit of 50 per cent for tuition
paid to send their youngsters to a nonprofit nonpublic elementary or secondary
school, up to a limit of $200 per child.
The legislation introduced by Minority Leader Ford and by Schneebeli, who
is ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, is a bill which was
reported out by the Ways and Means Committee late last year. Congress adjourned
without acting on it.
Ford in 1972 authored a bill which provided for a tax credit of up to
$400 per child for tuition paid to a nonprofit nonpublic school.
In introducing the $200 version, Ford said he thought it had the best
chance of enactment and pledged every effort to win passage of the legislation.
He said he thought the bill's prospects were "fairly good," particularly since it
is backed by House Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills, D-Ark.
Commenting on the tax credit legislation, Ford said:
"Parents in our country are entitled to freedom of choice. They should
have the freedom to send their children to nonpublic schools if they so choose.
Parents have a constitutional right to send their children to nonpublic schools.
That right is impaired when the financial burden is so great that it cannot be
borne without unusual hardship. That right is also impaired if increasing numbers
of nonpublic schools are forced to shut down because parents can't pay rising
tuition costs.
"Parents of nonpublic students carry a double financial load. They pay
taxes to support public education, and they pay tuition so their youngsters may
receive the special spiritual guidance offered by a nonpublie school. We should
subtract at least part of what they pay in nonpublic school tuition from their
Federal income tax bills. That's only fair. These parents already pay their
full share of local taxes for our public schools."
###