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
4525810
label
National Coal Association Convention, New York, June 17, 1964
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525810
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
National Coal Association Convention, New York, June 17, 1964
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Executive-Legislative relations
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525810
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1964-06-30
month
6
year
1964
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1964-06-01
month
6
year
1964
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
59f70ae8066c5b13
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D16, folder "National Coal Association
Convention, New York, June 17, 1964" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D16 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
2mport
June 22, 1964
Mr. A. T. Murphy
Editor
The Black Diamond
Manhattan Building
Chicago 5, Illinois
Dear Mr. Murphy,
Thank you for your complimentary letter of June 18th request-
ing a copy of my talk before the National Coal Association
convention in New York.
Enclosed is a copy of my remarks concerning the Congress and
our form of democracy. My comments on the Warren Commission
were extemporaneous so that I am unable to send anything on
this topic.
I appreciate your kind remarks about the speech and I hope
this copy will be useful.
Kindest personal regards.
Sincerely,
Geral d R. Ford, M.C.
GRF:jb
enc.
GERALD LISAARY A FORD
THE BLACK DIAMOND
The
CHICAGO
BLACK DIAMOND
NEW YORK
FOR MORE THAN SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS
THE LEADING JOURNAL OF THE
COAL INDUSTRY
MANHATTAN BLDG.
CHICAGO 5, ILL
June 18, 1964
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Congress Office Building
Washington, D.C.
My dear Congressman:
I was greatly impressed with your address before
the National Coal Association convention in New York City
on June 17.
I looked in the press department but could not find
any release of your address and they stated that none was
available. I also inquired at the closing session and the
information I received was that you did not turn in a copy
of your address which you referred to continually while you
were delivering it.
If it is available I should greatly appreciate having
you send me a copy.
Sincerely,
THE BLACK DIAMOND
A. T. Murphy
ATM:ew
Editor
Remarks on Warren Comm
were-eAlemporanegy
THE DUSINESS 75th BLACK DIAMOND NEWS JOURNALD
Out remarbs on Congress
as
ANNIVERSARY
19603
of the COAL INDUSTRY
GERALD
Natl loal Risn.
speech
1
June 19, 1964
Most of you probably know what the aeronautical engineer
said after someone gave him the blueprinttfor a bumblebees
"It'll never fly," he said. Well for 188 years now a lot of
people around the world, and some right here at home, have been
having the same reaction when it comes to our form of govern-
ment. It'll never work, they say.
Maybe in theory they have something. It's not a very ef-
ficient form of government. It not only gives every Tom, Dick
and Harry the chance to express his political sentiments, it
even encourages him to become a part of the political system
itself.
Funny thing, though, Bumblebees do fly. And as Winston
Churchill has observed, "Democracy is the worst form of gov-
ernment except for any other that has ever been tried." It
can be said without hesitation or reservation that our form of
representative government has made our people more free and
more properous than any other people on earth.
Maybe it's about time to start thinking and thinking hard
FORD is LIBRARY SERMD
2
about why it has worked and about what we can do to keep it work-
ing. Unless we do, we could easily fall prey to the glib sug-
gestions that what America has just isn't good enough for these
times, that we need streamlining to achieve efficiency, that
we need new ways of government to achieve progress.
At the heart of all these suggestions is the assumption
that government can be judged the same way you judge a cornfield,
a coalmine, or a car factory -- by how much it produces every
year.
To people who feel that way, the product of government
is programs, programs, and more programs. If it produces more,
it's good. If it produces less, it's bad. So these cynics
say.
in less than two certures
In our form of government - that which has permitted 13
poor, struggling colonies to grow into a nation of 50 states,
a most powerful and prosperous one -- we have built in a re-
sistance to the concentration of power by the clear seperation
of government into three equal and coordinate branches: the
3
judicial, the legislative, and the executive branches. Each
However
is assigned a specific role and responsibility. 1 The Consti-
tution assigns no superiority or dominating influence - they
are coordinate branches, equal in all respects.
But what do we hear today? Let me quote the exact re-
cent words of a United States Senator, Joseph Clark of Penn-
sylvania. He wrote: "I have no hesitation in stating my
deep conviction that the legislatures of America, local,
state, and national, are presently the greatest menace to the
successful operation of the democratic process." I respect
Senator
and would defend the right to make the statement, but I vig-
orously disagree with the viewpoint.
How does the Senator propose to remove this menace? His
first recommendation is that "the executive should be strength-
ened at the expense of the legislative." In short, says a
member of the Congress of the United States, don't trust with
power the federally elected representatives of the people, of
4
the fifty states. NO. Put that power in the hands of the
executive! Don't spread power out among all the people,
majority and minority alike, says Senator Clark. Put that
power at the disposal of the mathematical majority, concentrate
it in the single hands of a single branch of government. Does
not the Senator know that "Power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely?"
I respectfully say dissent and debate are the touchstones
of the American experience. National unity does not mean
national conformity. A difference of opinion does not mean dis-
respect. A responsible Congress, one which deliberates in or-
der to produce prudent judgments rather than just flurries of
statistics can never be a rubber stamp: not for this Executive
Branch, not for any particular economic interest, and not even
for the sudden surge of well-intentioned public emotion which
sometimes are poured upon it. The dangerous notion that
the work and worth of Congress can be kept like a bowler's
GERAL
5
scorecard, misses the great point of the legislative process and
of the American political genius which had its birthplace in
Independence Hall.
Actually, rejecting programs and proposals, or amending
them may, be as productive as any roll-over, play dead action
in the Congress. But, to view it that way, you must view the
role of Congress as being mainly involved in serving the gen-
eral interests of the Republic, not just the selfish appetities
of some particular segment of it; as serving and preserving the
freedom of the American people, and not just in taking over more
and more of their responsibilities.
Suppose the House and Senate just rubber-stamped every-
thing that came before us? Would we have been serving your
best interests? Would we have been serving the nation's pre-
sent and future welfare?
We would not! We would, instead, have plunged this nation
into a red tape nightmare of regimentation and controls, mort-
gaged our future and renounced our responsibility.
GERAL
6
Then, much of the work of Congress--your Congress, never
forget, is in areas other than actual legislation.
Congress is your watchdog over the entire federal bureau-
cracy, over the entire five-and-a-half million civilian and
military personnel employed in the Executive Branch of the
it the Evecutive branch
government, Should be permitted to operate beyond control, be
yond restraint, and beyond responsibility to the people it is
supposed to serve.
Let me give you a few illustrationswhich bear directly
upon the ceal industry.
The President intervened in the recent labor negotiation
between railroad management and unions. Rumors persist that
in order to get management to agree to the settlement, he
promised certain legislation as well as tax concessions.
Part of this legislation appears to be a transportation bill
which would include provisions detrimental to the coal indus-
try. While this issue is not yet settled, it is important for
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
7
Congress to determine whether such legislation is in the public
interest, even though the Administration has promised that it
will be enacted. It is significant that the Congress has thus
far successfully resisted the previous attempt to impose on
the coal industry transportation legislation which according
to its spokesman would be adverse to its interests.
The Administration this year proposed legislation which
would give the Secretary of Labor authority to select industries
which would be subject to an owetime work penalty of double
time or more. So far, Congress has shown no inclination to
give such tremendous discretionary authority to the Executive
Branch. In my opinion, this is the sort of power that Congress
or more importanth, leave in the hands of our people.
should retain to itself, The collective judgment of 535 mem-
bers of the House and Senate can see that this power is used
wisely -- far wiser than might be the case it it were in the
hands of a single appointive official who might use it for
various reasons, including punitive ones.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
8
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has tried
vigorously to establish a new administrative empire to control
water pollution in the states and river basins. The Congress
so far has successfully resisted this move on the grounds that
such operations are primarily the responsibility of the states
or the regional river authorities. Similarly, the Department
of the Interior has for some time proposed a program which
would inject the Federal Government into the operation of
surface coal mines through an ostensible nationwide study of
conditions. This legislation has remained with the committees
for further and study since opposition from the various
states has been vigorously presented.
Despite clear and consisely expressed intent of Congress
that mandatory control of oil imports should be based on levels
that would contribute to the maintenance of a strong domestic
industry, the Executive Branch in administering that law has
used its authority to permit increasing volumes of imports to
9
the detriment of the coal industry. Here it can be argued the
Congress seems to have failed to keep the Executive Branch un-
der proper control. Perhaps Congress should enact pending
a part of
bills which would take away the discretionary authority in
this field.
I am sure you all recall the vigorous legislative battle,
stretching over several years. over the Hanford project which
was the Atomic Energy Commission's pet proposal. It is enough
to say that Congress resisted the effort to approve this pro-
ject as proposed by the Administration, and did suceed in
changing its character so as to deny the use of federal funds
in its construction or operation.
Without Congress, or with a Congress that was only a
rubber stamp, there is no question that the national govern-
ment would be more efficient in a cold, mathematical sense.
Manysefforts to streamline the Congress today are aimed in
that direction and based on that false premise. It is well
to remember that the legislative body of the Soviet Union,
GERALD
10
if you can call it such, is most efficient; there is no delay,
no dissent, no debate -- but neither is there the life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness which we treasure.
Those who are so critical of the Congress completely over-
look, and certainly not unknowingly, that the House of Represent-
atives probably has the closest kinship with the electorate (you,
the people) of any segment of the federal government. Every
one of the 435 members of the House must put his record on the
line and obtain the approval of his constituents every two
years. I do not mean to imply that the Congress should not
be criticized or that members of any legislative body always
reflect fully the views of their constituents. On the other
hand, it is the House of Representatives, and all of us who
are elected periodically, who do go directly to the people
for a mandate, We are on the firing ling and expect to re-
ceive our share of the sniping, It is not the criticism that
troubles me but the aura of distrust generated by it; the
11
feeling that Congress is a roadblock, halting progress, and
failing to fulfill its role and, therefore, should relinquish
some of its authority to the executive.
The Congress is often accused of being a negative body, of
obstructing progress. From the viewpoint of those who crave
power, who want to determine your destiny by their will and whim,
itself
the Constitution is negative. This historic document is negative
in many instances -- often a "go slow" or "stop" sign.
Frequently it says "hold on a minute" to those that govern.
Its foundation is laid on the basic belief that a government
not controlled by the people will control the people.
Affirmatively, this means there is a basic faith in the
electorate and in elected representatives.
The accusing finger waved at the Congress frequently
alleges there are evils in the seniority system for
12
committee chairmen. Directly or otherwise they condemn
Congressman Carl Vinson of Georgia, who as chairman
of the House Committee on Armed Services has contributed
significantly to the military security of America. These
critics also condemn a system which has produced Senator
Harry Byrd of Virginia, a statesman whose efforts to achieve
economy in government and fiscal responsibility has saved our
In the recent past Senatons Robt Taft
nation billions of dollars. & arthur Vandenberg were harshly critics id
but they were What acknowledged is offered authorites in place in of /the federal seniority finances system? & Foreign Each of fains Like
services as
alternative suggested in one way or another would raise the
charamh of
Two in portant
committees
ugly menace of behind-the-scenes politics or closed-door deals in the senate
in the selection of committee chairmen. To abandon the
seniority system for committee chairmen would place
another weapon in the hands of the executive for it could use
its influence to pick a chairman who would later on bow to
White House domination. All substantial evidence leads one to
Tafts, and Vandentary
the conclusion that a system which has given us the Vinsons,
Byrds, and other renowned and respected chairmen is the best.
GERAL
13
Those who point the accusing finger at the elected
representatives complain about the appropriation process,
alleging it hamstrings the operationsof the multitude of
federal agencies, bureaus, and departments. Of course those
who seek to place maximum authority in the executive really
Tap
seek authority to spend those hard-earned dollars without
restriction or limitation.
Isn't it better for America that the Congress does
scrutinize the President's budget with care and deliberation?
The answer is crystal clear -- in the past 10 budgets submitted
by the several President's Congress has cut over $34 billion
from the executive department spending demands. As we look
back at this past decade no one would honestly contend that
the bureaucrats in Washington needed that extra $34 billion
plus to run our government.
Another common criticism of the Congress involves the
filibuster in the Senate and the Committee on Rules in the
House. We are told that it is tragic when either House is
GERALD
14
prevented from the immediate consideration of proposals
submitted and demanded by the Chief Executive.
When I first came to Congress as a freshman Representative
I voted for the so-called 21-day rule. Under this rule the
Committee on Rules had 21 days within which to act on any
request for a rule to bring a bill to the floor of the House.
Two years later when the question was on the repeal of the
21-day rule I voted for its retention but after 2 more years
of practical legislative experience I changed my viewpoint.
Experience had shown that the Committee on Rules served a
most useful purpose as the traffic cop in the orderly flow
of legislation to the floor of the House. I was convinced
that little, if any, legislation truly desired by a majority
of the members of the House and truly in the best interests of
the country was ever road-blocked absolutely by the Committee
on Rules.
Should the Committee remain adamant when the majority
GERALD
of the members of the House want in all sincerity to vote on
an issue, there are alternative methods which can be used to bring
15
legislation to the floor.
The Committee on Rules is not an absolute dictator;
actually it was set up to counteract the dictatorial
tactics of Uncle Joe Cannon, Speaker of the House.
While in the House of Representatives a filibuster is
impossible under the rules, action in the Senate last
week is again proof that when there is genuine popular
demand for action on a controversial issue a filibuster
can be broken even under present Senate rules.
It is well to have sufficient delay in order that a
body of public opinion can be developed so that all
interested citizens and groups have sufficient time to
examine proposals and suggest revisons.
It does seem to me that reasonable delay and even
extended debate on extremely controversial issues is
preferable in many instances to the prompt adoption of
on
legislation which may prove unbalance quite unsatisfactory
16
and possibly detrimental.
Unfortunately few Americans today realize the numerical
strength of decision makers in the federal government. Today
Uncle Sam employs approximately 2,500,000 civilians and this
army of bureaucrats that operate)in everyone of the 50
states and worldwide is supplemented by 2,700,000 men on
active duty with the Armed Forces. The annual payroll for
over 5 million federal employees is appr@ximately $30 billion.
Unfortunately those who consistently argued for a bigger and
bigger federal bureauracy never tell our citizens that a
government big enough to give us everything we want is a
government big enough to take from us everything we have.
We in Michigan have recently seen a dramatic and
discouraging example of the abuse of federal executive
authority and the helplessness of a state government in
meeting unwarranted bureaucratic power from the Nation'
Capital.
At the request of Governor Romney the state legislature
passed a law covering aid to dependent children of the
17
unemployed. The bill had been carefully drawn by experts in
the field who consulted with officials in the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare to make certain that the bill
satisfied all departmental regulations. These officials ap-
proved the bill. Moreover, the Congress had said specifically
in the basic legislation that the definition of unemployed
parents was to be "determined by the states." Nevertheless,
after the Michigan bill became law, Secretary Celebrezze re-
fused to release federal funds to Michigan, alleging that
Michigan's definition of an "unemployed person" was discrim-
inatory. While it was perfectly clear from the federal law
and congressional debate, that the definition was to be left
to the states, Michigan to date has not received one cent of
federal funds for this program of aid to dependent children
solely because of the arbitrary action of a federal executive
agency. The state is, however, trying to comply with feder-
al directives.
18
The issue of executive absolutism, whether achieved by
artifice, device, "purchase," or by our own complacency, is a
great threat to our country today. Much has been said recent-
ly about the rantings and ravings and dangers that confromt us
from the "fanatical left" and the "fanatical right." I am
not so concerned about the "fanatical left" and the 'Fanatical
right," as I am about the "complacent center" and the "power-
hungry top."
In addition to the encroschment of the executive branch
into the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, there is an
increasing tendency for the Judicial Branch to get into the
act of dietatorially determining public policy by stretching
at this late date the longuestablished intent of the Consti-
tutionsand what was the law for generations. Whether we feel
the decisions are right or wrong, our Supreme Court has re-
cently handed down major opinions affecting and changing the
ways of life and the political organizations of massive sec-
an example
tions of our population. Examples of this are the rulings on
FORD & LIBRARY
19
medictricing
school segragation casas, the redictring decision last year
in the Baker-Carr case, and just this past Monday in the
Alabama and other cases, the ruling that in each state legis-
lature both houses must have representation based on popu-
lation count.
Without passing judgement on the merits of these cases,
whough story feelings I
we cannot escape the conclusion that the Court in each instance
was doing more than interpretating the Constitution. The Court
was determining public policy; it was making new law, judicial
law, which has the same effect as legislative law. Now these
although 2 dubt it
decisions of the Court may be right, they may be in the public
interest, they may be helpful and practical. But as Justice
Frankfurter stated in his Baker-Carr dissent: "In this sit-
uation, as in others of like nature, appeal for relief does not
does not belong here. Appeal must be an informed, civically.
militant electorate. In a democratic society like ours, relief
must come through an aroused popular conscience that sears the
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
20
conscience of the peoples representatives." As a long time
member of the Court, Justie Frankfurter recognized the necess-
ity of judiciary restraint, and the responsibility of the vot
ers and their representatives in our system of government.
It is worrisome to note that both the Executive and Jud-
icial branches, who are encroching on the law making respon-
sibilities of the Legislative branch are immunized from the
public control at the ballot box.
A Supreme Court Justice and every member of the federal
judiciary enjoys a lifetime appointive position. Only the
President and the Vice President out of the 2½ million em-
ployees in the executive branch of government put their
record to the test of the ballot box, and that once in four
years. The peoples' protection and the people's authority
rest primarily in the legislative branch of the federal govern-
ment.
I submit that rather than change and weaken the Congress
GERALD
21
as Senator Clark and others suggest, we should be everlasting-
ly grateful to the Founding Fathers and to those today who in-
sist on preserving the power of the elected legislature. The
legislative branch rests solidly on the wisdom and judgment
of the electorate. Through it we preserve the sovereignity of
of the people; through it we insure ourselves against dictator-
ship or oligarchy.
The strength of America after allies in our people. You
all can assure a continuance of our strength by wise and stud-
ied selection of your elected representatives and then by giv
ing them your support. Congress will then continue to serve
you well and effectively.
Phetoming Draft
NCA
1
Jane 17,1944
Most of you probably know what the aeronautical engineer said after
someone gave him the blueprint for a bumblebee. "It"ll never fly," he
sàid. Well, for 188 years now a lot of people around the world, and
some right here at home, have been having the same reaction when it comes
to our form of representative government. It'll never work, they say.
Maybe in theory they have something. It's not a very efficient
form of government. It not only gives every Tom, Dick and Harry the
chance to express his political sentiments, it even encourages him to
become a part of the political system itself.
Funny thing, though. Bumblebees do fly. And as Winston Churchill
has observed, "Democracy is the worst form of government exeept for any
other that has ever been tried." It can be said without hesitation or
that
reservation A our form of representative government has made our people
more free and more prosperous than any other people on earth.
Maybe it's about time to start thinking and thinking hard about
why it has worked and about what we can do to keep it working. Unless we
do, we could easily fall prey to the glib suggestions that what America
has just isn't good enough for these times, that we need streamlining
to achieve efficiency, that we need new ways of government to achieve
progress.
At the heart of all these suggestions is the assumption that govern-
commone
ment can be judged the same way you judge a cornfield or a car factory --
by how much it produces every year.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
2.
To people who feel that way, the product of government is programs,
programs, and more programs. If it producess more, it's good. If it
produces less, it's bad. So these cynics say.
In our form of government - that which has permitted 13 poor,
a
struggling colonies to grow into a nation of 50 states, the most
and
one
powerfulA most prospereus- ^ we have built in a resistance to the con-
centration of power by the clear separation of government into three
equal and coordinate branches: the judicial, the legislative, and the
executive branches. Each is assigned a specific role and responsibility. The
Constitution assigns no suppority or dominating influence - they are coordinate
But what do we hear today? Let me quote the exact recent words
end m
of a United States Senator, Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania. He wrote:
all respects
"I have no hesitation in stating my deep conviction that the legislatures
of America, local, state, and national, are presently the greatest menace
to the successful operation of the democratic process." I respect and
would defend the right to make the statement, but I vigorously disagree
with the viewpoint.
How does the Senator propose to remove this menace? His first
recommendation is that "the executive should be strengthened at the
expense of the legislative." In short, says a member of the Congress of
with power
the United States, don't trust the representat ives of the people of
federally elected
the fifty states, NO. Put that power in the hands of
the executive! Don't spread power out among all the people, majority
and minority alike, says Senator Clark. Put that power at the disposal
of the mathematical majority, concentrate it in the single hands of a
single branch of government. Does not the Senator know that "Power
GERALD R.FORD (IBRAR)
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?"
3.
I respectfully say dissent and debate are the touchstones of the
American experience. National unity does not mean national conformity.
A difference of opinion does not mean disrespect. A responsible Congress,
one which deliberates in order to produce prudent judgments rather than
just flurries of statistics, can never be a rubber stamp: not for the
Executive Branch, not for any particular economic interest, and not even
for the sudden surges of well-intentioned public emotion which sometimes
are poured upon it. The dangerous notion that the work and worth of
Congress can be kept like a bowler's scorecard, misses the great point
of the legislative process and of the American political genius which
had its birthplace in Independence Hall.
Actually, rejecting programs and proposals, or amending them may,
be as productive as any roll-over, play dead action in the Congress. But,
to view it that way, you must view the role of Congress as being mainly
involved in serving the general interests of the Republic, not just
the selfish appetities of some particular segment of it; as serving and
preserving the freedom of the American people, and not just in taking
over more and more of their responsibilities.
the Home + henate
us
Suppose we-had just rubber-stamped everything that came before Hap?
Would we have been serving your best interests? Would we have been
serving the nation's present and future welfare?
We would not! We would, instead, have plunged this nation into
a red tape nightmare of regimentation and controls, mortgated our future,
and renounced our responsibility.
Then, much of the work of Congress--your Congress, never forget,
GERALD
is in areas other than actual legislation.
Congress is your watchdog over the entire federal bureaucracy, over
the entire five-and-a-half million civilian and military personnel
employed in the Executive Branch of the government. Except for the
President, this vast bureaucracy cannot be made directly accountable to
the voters. But they can be made accountable by and through the Congress.
And they should be, unless you believe that the largest business in the
land, the Executive Branch of the government, should be permitted to
operate beyond control, beyond restraint, and beyond responsibility to
the people it is supposed to serve.
Let me give you a few illustrations which bear directly upon the coal
industry.
The President intervened in the recent labor negotiation between
railroad managements and unions. Rumors persist that in order to get
management to agree to the settlement, he promised certain legislation as
well as tax concessions. Part of this legislation appears to be a transpor-
tation bill which would include provisions detrimental to the coal industry.
While this issue is not yet settled, it is important for Congress to determine
whether such legislation is in the public interest, even though the Adminis-
tration has promised that it will be enacted. It is significant that the
Congress has thus far successfully resisted the previous attempt to impose
according t is spotimen
on the coal industry transportation legislation which would be adverse to its
1
interests.
GERALD
5
The Administration this year proposed legislation which would give
the Secretary of Labor authority to select industries which would be subject
to an overtime work penalty of double time or more. So far, Congress has
shown no inclination to give such tremendous discretionary authority to the
Executive Branch. In my opinion, this is the sort of power that Congress
should retain to itself. The collective judgment of 535 members of the House
and Senate can see that this power is used wisely - -- far wiser than might
be the case if it were in the hands of a single appointive official who might
use it for various reasons, includeing punitive ones.
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has tried
vigorously to establish a new administrative empire to control water pollution
in the states and river basins. The Congress so far has successfully
resisted this move on the grounds that such operations are primarily the
responsibility of the states or the regional river authorities. Similarly,
the Department of the Interior has for some time proposed a program which
would inject the Federal Government into the operation of surface coal mines
through
an ostensible nationwide study of conditions. This legislation has remained
with the committees for further review and study since opposition from the
various states has been vigorously presented.
Despite clear and concisely expressed intent of Congress that mandatory
control of oil imports should be based on levels that would contribute to the
maintenance of a strong domestic industry, the Executive Branch in administering
that law has used its authority to permit increasing volumes of imports to the
it can be argued
LIBRARY
detriment of the coal industry. Here the Congress seems to have failed to keep
1
Perhaps Compans
the Executive Branch under proper control, and it to me that we should
6.
enact pending bills which would take away the discretionary authority in
this field.
I am sure you all recall
which the vigorous The legislative atomic Every battle, Commission's stretching
over several years, over the Hanford project. It is enough to say that
Congress resisted the effort to approve this project as proposed by the
Administration, and did succeed in changing its character so as to deny
the use of federal funds in its construction or operation.
Without Congress, or with a Congress that was only a rubber stamp,
there is not question that the national government would be more efficient
in a cold, mathematical sense. Many efforts to streamline the Congress
today are aimed in that direction and based on that false premise. It
is well to remember that the legislative body of the Soviet Union, if
you can call it such, is most efficient; there is no delay, no dissent,
no debate - but neither is there the life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness which we treasure.
Those who are so critical of the Congress completely overlook,
and certainly not unknow ingly, that the House of Representatives probably
the
has the closest kinship with the electorate (you people) of any segment of
the federal government. Every one of the 435 members of the House must
put his record on the line and obtain the approval of his constituents
every two years. I do not mean to imply that the Congress should not be
criticized or that members of any legislative body always reflect fully
the views of their constituents. On the other hand, it is the House of
all
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Representatives, and those of us who are elected periodically, who do go
directly to the people for a mandate, We are on the firing line and expect
to receive our share of the sniping. It is not the criticism that troubles
7
me but the aura of distrust generated by it; the [reeling that Congress is a
readblock, halting progress, and failing to fulfill its role and, therefore,
should relinquish some of its authority to the executive.
The Congress is often accused of being a negative body, of obstructing
progress. From the viewpoint of those who crave power, who want to determine
your destiny by their will and whim, the Constitution is negative. This
historic document is negative in many instances -- often a "go slow" or
"stop" signs Frequently it says "hold on a minute" to those that govern.
Its foundation is laid on the basic belief that a government not controlled
by the people will control the people. Affirmatively, this means there
is a basic faith in the electorate and in elected representatives.
The accusing finger waved at the Congress frequently alleges there
are evils in the seniority system for committee chairmen. Directly or
otherwise they condemn Congressman Carl Vinson of Georgia, who as chairman
of the House Committee on Armed Services has contributed significantly
to the military security of America. These critics also condemn a
system which has produced Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia, a statesman
whose efforts to achieve economy in government and fiscal responsiblity
has saved our nation billions of dollars.
What is offered in place of the seniority system? Each alternative
suggested in one way or another would raise the ugly menace of behind-
the- scenes politics or closed-door deals in the selection of committee
chairmen. To abandon the seniority system for committee chairmen would
place another weapon in the hands of the executive for it could use its
influence to pick a chairman who would later on bow to White House domi-
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
nation. All substantial evidence leads one to the conclusion that a
8
system which has given us the Vinsons, and Byrds, and other renowned
and respected chairmen is the best.
Those who point the accusing finger at the elected representatives
complain about the appropriation process, alleging it hamstrings the
operations of the multitude of federal agencies, bureaus, and departments.
Of course those who seek to place maximum authority in the executive
really seek authority to spend those hard-earned dollars without
restriction or limitation.
Isn't it better for America that the Congress does scrutinise the
President's budget with care and deliberation? The answer is crystal
clear ---- in the past 10 budgets submitted by the several President's Congress
has cut over $34 billion from the executive department spending demands.
As we look back at this past decade no one would honestly contend that
the bureaucrats in Washington needed that extra $34 billion plus to run
our government.
Another common criticism of the Congress involves the filibuster in the
Senate and the Committee on Rules in the House. We are told that it is
The immediate consideration 1
tragic when either House is prevented from considering proposals submitted
and demanded by the Chief Executive.
When I first came to Congress as a freshman Representative I
voted for the so-called 21-day rule. Under this rule the Committee on
Rules had 21 days within which to act on any request for a Trule to bring
a bill to the floor of the House.
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
Two years later when the question was on the repeal of the 21-day
retention but after 2 more years of practical legulative you the
rule I voted for its repeal. Experience had shown that the Committee on increpoint. 2 changed my
orderly
Rules served a most useful purpose as the traffic cop in the flow of
9
legislation to the floor of the House. I was convinced that little, if
any, legislation truly desired by a majority of the members of the House
and truly in the best interests of the country was ever
road- blocked absititity by the
Committee on Rules.
Should the Committee remain adamant when the majority of the members
indll sincertly
of the House want to vote on an issue, there are alternative methods
which can be used to bring legislation to the floor.
actually
The Committee on Rules is not an absolute dictator; it was set up
to counteract the dictatorial tactics of Uncle Joe Cannon, Speaker of the
House.
While in the House of Representatives a filibuster is impossible
under the rules, action in the Senate last week is again proof that when
there is genuine popular demand for action on a controversial issue
a filibuster can be broken even under present Senate rules.
It is well to have sufficient delay in order that a body of
so thet
public opinion can be developed and all interested citizens and groups
have sufficient time to examine proposals and suggest revisions.
nearmble wen
It does seem to me that delay and extended debate on extremely
controversial issues is preferable in many instances
anbalance
un
to the prompt adoption of legislation which may prove quite satisfactory
1
and possibly detrimental.
Unfortunately few Americans today realize the numerical strength
of decision makers in the federal government. Today Uncle Sam employs
that operate in every as fhe + worklind 50 states
approximately 2,500,000 civilians and the 5 army of bureaucrats is
supplemented by 2,700,000 men on active duty with the Armed Forces. The
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
annual payroll for over 5 million federal employees is approximately
10
$30 billion. Those who consistently argued for a bigger and bigger federal
bureauracy never tell our citizens that a government big enough to give us
everything we want is a government big enough to take from us everything we
have.
We in Michigan have recently seen a dramatic and discouraging
example of the abuse of federal executive authority and the helpless ness
of a state government in meeting unwarranted bureaucratic power from
the Nation's Capital.
At the request of Governor Romney the state legislature passed
a law covering aid to dependent children of the unemployed. The bill
had been carefully drawn by experts in the field who consulted with
officials in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to make
certain that the bill satisfied all departmental regulations. These
officials approved the bill. Moreover, the Congress had said specifically
in the basic legislation that the definition of unemployed parents was
to be "determined by the states." Nevertheless, after the Michigan bill
became law, Secretary Celebrezze refused to release federal funds to
Michigan, alleging that Michigan's definition of an "unemployed person"
was discriminatory. While it was perfectly clear from the federal law
and congressional debate, that the definition was to be left to the
states, Michigan to date has not received one cent of federal funds
for this program of aid to dependent children solely because of the arbitrary
action of a federal executive agency. The alate is, however, Trying t
couply with federal directives
The issue of executive absolutism, whether achieved by
artifice, device, "purchase," or by our own complacency, is a great threat
GERALD
BRARY
to our country today. Much has been said recently about the rantings and
11
ravings and dangers that confront us from the "fanatical left" and the
"fanatical right." I am not so concerned about the "fanatical left" and
"fanatical right." as I am about the "complacent center" and the "power-
hungry top."
In addition to the encrouchment of the executive branch into the
jarsdiction of the Registere there branch is
public Policy area, an increasing tendency for the Judicial Branch to
get into
the this act, 1 declatorally Whether we determing feel the decisions public policy are right by or stretcheng wrong, our at This Supreme late the late
Court has recently handed down major opinions affecting and changing the
Antergiel
ways of life and the political organizations of massive sections of our
The
population. Examples of this are the rulings on school segregation cases,
Cathows writing
X
the redistricting decision last year in the Baker-Carr case, and just this
and other
the
past Monday in the Alabama ^ cases the ruling that in each state legislature
both houses must have representation based on population count.
Without passing judgment on the merits of these cases, we cannot escape the
Crudusion
that the Court in each instance was doing more than interpretating the
Constitution. The Court was determining public policy; it was making new
law, judicial law which has the same effect as legislative law. Now these
decisions of the Court may be right, they may be in the public interest, they
may be helpful and practic al. But as Justice Frankfurter stated in his Baker-
Carr dåssent: "In this situation, as in others of like nature, appeal for
relief does not belong here. Appeal must be an informed, civically
militant electorate. In a democratic society like ours, relief must come
through an aroused popular conscience that sears the conscience of the
peoples representatives." As a long time member of the Court, Justice Frankfurter
recognized the necessity of judicial restraint and the responsibility of the voters
and their representative in our system of government.
GERALD
LIBRARY
12.
It is worrisome to note that both the Executive and Judicial branches, who
are encrouching on the law making responsibilities of the Legislativelbranch are
immunized from the public control at the ballot box.
A Supreme Court Justice and every member of the federal judiciary enjoys
a lifetime appointive position. Only the President and the Vice President out of
the 2-1/2 million employees in the executive branch of government put their record
and proposals to the test of the ballot box, and that once in four years. The
people's protection and the people's authority rest primarily in the legislative
branch of the federal government.
I submit that rather than change and weaken the Congress as Senator
Clark and others suggest, we should be everlastingly grateful to the founding
who
athers and to those today we insist on preserving the power of the elected
legislature. The legislative branch rests solidly on the wisdom and judgment
of the electorate. Through it we preservee the sovereignity of the people;
through it we insure ourselves against dictatorship or oligarchy.
The strength of America after all lies in our people. You all can
assure a continuance of our strength by wise and studie sselection of your
elected representatives and then by giving them your support. Congress will then
continue to bust serve youndl and effectively
GERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
NATIONAL COAL ASSOCIATION CONVENTION SPEECH - June 17, 1964
Most of you probably know what the aeronautical engineer
said after someons gave him the blueprint for a bumblebea,
"It'll never fly, " he said. Well for 188 years now a lot of
people around the world, and some right here at home, have been
having the same reaction when it comes to our form of govern-
ment, It'll never work, they say.
Maybe in theory they have something. It's not s very ef-
ficient form of government. It not only gives every Tom, Dick,
and Harry the chance to express his political sentiments, it
even encourages him to become all part of the political system
itself.
Funny thing, though, Bumblebees do fly. And as Winston
Churchill has observed, "Democracy is the worst form of gov-
ernment except for any other that has ever been tried." It
can be said without hesitation or reservation that our form of
representative government has made our people more free and
more prosperdomethen any tother people on earth.
Maybe it's about time to start thinking and thinking hard
about why it has worked and about what we can do to keep it work-
ing. Unless we do, we could easily fall prey to the glib sug-
gestions that what America has just isn't good enough for these
times, that we need streemlining to achieve efficiency, that
we need nov ways of government to achieve progress.
of GERALD LISABLY the
2
At the hear of all these suggestions is the assumption
that government can be judgedd the same way you judge a cornfield,
a coalmine, or a car factory -- by how much it produces every
year.
To people who feel that way, the product of government
is programs, programs, and more programs. If it produces more,
it's good. If it produces less, it's bad. So these cynics
say.
In our form of government - that which in less than two
centurées has permitted 13 poor, struggling colonies to grow
into a nation of 50 states, a most powerful and properées one --
wh have built in a resistance to the concentration of power by
the clear separation of government into three equal and coor-
dinate branches: the judicial, the legislative, and the exec-
utive branches. Each is assigned a specific role and responsib-
ility. However, the Constitution assigns no superiority or dom-
insting influence - they are coordinate branches, equal in all
respects.
But what do we hear today? Let no quote the exact recent
werds of a United States Senator, Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania.
He wrote: "I have no hesitation in stating my deep conviction
that the legislatures of America, local, state, and national, are
presently the greatest mennes to the successful operation of the
democratic process." I reppect and would defend the Senators
right to make the statement, but I vigorously disagree with the
viewpoint.
GERALD
2
At the hear of all these suggestions is the assumption
that government can be judgedd the same way you judge a cornfield,
a coalmine, or a car factory -- by how much it produces every
year.
To people who feel that way, the product of government
is programs, programs, and more programs. If it produces more,
it's good. If it produces less, it's bad. So these cynics
say.
In our form of government . that which in less than two
centurées has permitted 13 poor, struggling colonies to grow
into a nation of 50 states, a most powerful and properées one --
wis have built in a resistance to the concentration of power by
the clear separation of government into three equal and GOOD-
dinate branches: the judicial, the legislative, and the
utive branches. Each is assigned a specific role and responsib-
flity. However, the Constitution assigns no superiority or dom-
inating influence - they are coordinate branches, equal in all
respects.
But what do we hear today? Let me quote the exact regist
words of a United States Senator, Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania.
He wrote: "I have no hesitation in stating my deep conviction
that the legislatures of America, local, state, and national, are
presently the greatest mennes to the successful operation of the
democratic process." I reppect and would defend the Senators
right to make the statement, but I vigorously disagree with the
viewpoint.
GERALD
LIBRARY
of
3
How does the Senator propose to remove this menace? His
first recommendation is that the "shecutive should be strength-
ened at the expense of the legislative." In short, says a
member of the Congress of the United States, don't trust with
power the fedBrally elected representatives of the People, of
the fifty states. No. Put that power in the hands of the
executive) Don't spread power out among all the people,
majority and minority alike, says Senator Clark, Put that
power at the disposal of the mathematical majority, concentrate
it is the single hands of a single branch of government. Does
not she Senator know that "Power corrupts and abselute power
corrupts absolutely?"
I respectfully say dissent and debate are the touchetones
of the American experience. National unity does not man
national conformity. A difference of opinion does not mean dis-
respect. A responsible Congress, one which deliberaties in or-
der to produce prudent judgusnts rather than just flurries of
statistics can never be a rubber stamp: not for this Resentive
Branch. not for any particular economic interest. and not even
for the sudden surge of well-intentioned public emotion which
sometimes are poured upon it. The that
the work and worth of Congress can be kept like a bowler's
scorecard, misses the great point of the legislative process
and of the American political genius which had its birthplace in
Independence Hall.
Actually, rejecting programs and proposals, or amending
GERALD
LIBRARY
them may, be as productive as any roll-over, play dead action
in the Congress. But to view it that way, you must view the
3
How does the Senator propose to remove this menace? His
first recommendation is that the "shocutive should be strength-
ened at the expense of the legislative." In short, says a
member of the Congress of the United States, don't trust with
power the fed@rally elected representatives of the People, of
the fifty states. No. Put that power in the hands of the
executive] Don't apread power out among all the people,
majority and minority alike, says Senator Clark, Put that
power at the disposal of the mathematical majority, concentrate
it is the single hands of a single branch of government. Does
not the Senator know that "Power corrupts and absolute power
corrupts absolutely?"
I respectfully say dissent and debate are the touchstones
of the Ametican experience. National unity does not was
national conformity. A difference of opinion does not mean dis-
respect. A responsible Congress, one which deliberaties in or-
der to produce prudent judgesats rather than just flurries of
statisttes can never be a rubber stemp: not for this Executive
Brench, not for any particular economic interest. and not even
for the sudden suree of well-intentioned public emotion which
sometimes are poured upon it. The dangeréessnotion that
the work and worth of Congress can be kept like a bowler's
scorecard, misses the great point of the legislative process
and of the American political genius which had its birthplace in
Independence Hall.
Actually, rejecting programs and proposals, or amending
GERALD
LIBRAR
them may, be as productive as any roll-over, play dead action
R.D the whom " that MAV. you must view the
4
role of Congress as being mainly involved in serving the gen-
oral interest of the Republic, not just the selfish áppetitos
of some particular segment of it; as serving and preserving the
freedom of the American people, and not just in taking over more
and more of their responsibilities.
Suppose the House and Senate just rubber-stamped every-
thing that came before us? Would we have been serving your
best interests? Would we have been serving the nation's pre-
sent and future welfare?
We would not! We would. instead. have plunsed this nation
into a red tape afghtmers of resimentation and controls. nort-
gagad our future and renounced OUE responsiblity.
Then, such of the work of Congress--your Congress, never
forget is in areas other than actual legislation.
Congress is your watchdog over the entire faderal bureau-
cracy, over the antire five-and-a-half million divilian and
military personnel employed in the Executive Branch of the
government, Should it, the Executive Branch, be permitted to
operate beyond centrol, beyond restraint, and beyond responsib-
ility to the people it is supposed to serve?
Let me give you a few illustrationswhhihh bear directly
upon the coal industry.
The President intervened in the recent labor negotiation
between railroad management and unions. Rumors persiet that
A LIBRARY CERALD
4
role of Congress as being mainly involved in serving the gen-
oral interest of the Republic, not just the selfish Appetites
of some particular segment of it; as serving and preserving the
freedom of the American people, and not just in taking over more
and more of their responsibilities.
Suppose the House and Senate filst rubber-stamped every-
thing that came before us? Would we have been serving your
best interests? Would we have been serving the nation's pre-
sent and future welfare?
We would not! We would. instead. have plunged this nation
into a red tape néghtmare of regimentation and controls. mort-
sased our future and renounced our responsibility.
Than, much of the work of Congress--your Congress, never
forget is in areas other than actual legislation.
Congress is your watchdog over the entire federal bureau-
cracy, over the entire five-and-a-half million divilian and
military personnel employed in the Executive Branch of the
government. Should it, the Executive Branch, be permitted to
operate beyond control, beyond restraint, and beyond responsib-
ility to the people it is supposed to serve?
Les me give you a few illustrationswhhihh bear directly
upon the coal industry.
The President intervened in the recent labor negotiation
between vailroad management and unions. Rumors persist that
GERALD
5
in order to get management to agree to the settlement, be
promised certain legislation as well as tax concessions.
Part of this legislation appears to be a transportation bill
hiddh would include provisions detrimental to the coal indus-
try. While this issue is not yet settled, it is important for
Congress to determine thether such legislation is in the public
interest, even though the Administration has premised that it
will be enacted, It is significant that the Congress had thus
far successfully resisted the previous attempt to imposs on
the coal industry transportation legislation which according
to its spokesman would be adverse to its interests.
The Administration this year proposed legislation which
would give the Secretary of Labor authority to select dédustries
which would be subject to an overtime work penalty of double
time or more. So far, Congress has shown no inclination to
give such tremendous discretionary authority to the Executive
Brench. In my opindon, this is the sort of powerrthat the Congress
should retain to itself or more importantly leave in the hands
of our people. The collective judgement of 535 members of the
House and Senate can see that this power is used wisely -- far
visor than might be the case if it were in the hands of a single
appointive official who might use it for various reasons, includ-
ing punitive ones,
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has tried
vigorously to establish a nov administrative empire to control
water pollution in the states and river basins. The Congrees
LIBRARY GERALD
5
in order to get management to agree to the settlement, he
promised certain legislation as well as tax concessions.
Part of this legislation appears to be a transportation bill
hiddh would include provisions detrimental to the coal indus-
try. While this issue is not yet settled, it is important for
Congress to determine thether such legislation is in the public
interest, even though the Administration has promised that it
will be enacted. It is significant that the Congress had thus
far successfully resisted the previous attempt to impose on
the coal industry transportation legislation which according
to its spokesman would be adverse to its interests.
The Administration this year proposed legislation which
would give the Secretary of Labor authority to select dédustries
which would be subject to an overtime work penalty of double
time or more. So far, Congress has shown no inclination to
give such tremendous discretionary authority to the Executive
Branch. In my opindon, this is the sort of powerrthat the Congress
should retain to iteelf or more importantly leave in the hands
of our people. The collective judgement of 535 members of the
House and Senate can see that this power is used visely -- far
wiser than might be the case if it were in the hands of a single
appointive official who might use it for various reasons, includ-
ing punitive ones.
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has tried
vigorously to establish a new administrative empire to control
water pollution in the states and river basins. The Congress
GE
LIBRARY
6
so far has successfully resisted this move on the grounds that
such operations are primarily the responsibility of the states
or the regional river authorities. Similarly, the Department
of the Interior has for some time proposed a program which
would inject the Federal Government into the operation of
surface coal mines through an ostensible nationwide study of
conditions. This legislation has remained with the commitmees
for further review and study since opposition from the various s
states has been vigorously presented.
Despite clear and concisely expressed intent of Congress
that mandatory control of oil imports should be based on levels
that would contribute to the maintenance of a strong domestic
industry, the Executive Branch in administering that law has
used its authority to permit increasing volumes of imports to
the detriment of the coal industry. Here it can be argued the
Congress seems to have failed to keep the Executive Branch un-
der proper control. Perhaps Congress should snact pending
bills which would take away a part of the discretionary authority
in this field.
I an sure you all recall the vigorous legislative battle,
stretching over several years over the Hanford project which
was the Atomic Energy Commission's pet proposal, It is enough
to say that Congress resisted the effort to approve this pro-
ject as proposed by the Administration, and did deceased in
changing its charae ter so as to deny the use of federal funds GERAL
LIBRARY
in its construction or oppration.
6
so far has successfully resisted this move on the grounds that
such operations are primarily the responsibility of the states
or the regional river authorities. Similarly, the Department
of the Interior has for some time proposed a program which
would inject the Federal Government into the operation of
surface coal mines through an ostensible nationwide study of
conditions. This legislation has remained with the committees
for further review and study since opposition from the various s
states has been vigorously presented.
Despite clear and concisely expressed intent of Congress
that mandatory control of oil imports should be based on levels
that would contribute to the maintenance of a strong domestic
industry, the Executive Branch in administering that law has
used its authority to permit increasing volumes of imports to
the detriment of the coal industry. Here it can be argued the
Congress seems to have failed to keep the Executive Branch un-
der proper control. Perhaps Congress should enact pending
bills which would take away a part of the discretionary authority
in this field.
I am sure you all recall the vigorous legislative battle,
stretching over several years over the Hanford project which
was the Atomic Energy Commission's pet proposal, It is enough
to say that Congress resisted the effort to approve this pro-
jeat as proposed by the Administration, and did deceased in
changing its charac ter so as to deny the use of federal funds
in its construction or oppration.
AIBRARK
7
Without Congress, or with a Congress that was only a
rubber stemp, there is no question that the mational govern-
the would be more efficient in a cold, mathematical sense.
Many efforts to streamline the Congress today are aimed in
that direction and based on that false premise. It is well
to remember that the legislative body of the Soviet Union
if you can call it such, is most efficient; there is no delay,
no dissent, no debate -- but neither is there the life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness which we treasure.
Those who are so crifical of the .Congress completely over-
look, and certainly not unknowingly, that the House of Represent-
atives probably has the closest kinship with the electorate (you,
the people) of any segment of the federal government. Every one
of the 435 members of the House must put his record on the
line and obtain the approval of hissconstituents every two
years. I do not mean to imply that the Congress should not
be criticized or that members of any legislative body always
fully reflect the views of their constituents. On the other
hand, is is the House of Representatives, and all of us who
are elected periodically who do go directly to the people
for a mandate. We are on the firing line and expect to re-
ceive our share of the suiping. It is not the criticism that
troubles - but the aura of distrueg generated by it; the
feeling that Congress is a roadblock, halting progress, and
failing to fulfill its role and, therefore, should relinquish
GERALD
LIBRARY
7
Without Congress, or with a Congress that was only a
rubber stamp, there is no question that the national govern-
ment would be more efficient in a cold, mathematical sense.
Many efforts to streamline the Congress today are simed in
that direction and based on that false premise. It is well
to remember that the legislative body of the Soviet Union
if you can call it such, is most efficient; there is no delay,
no dissent, no debate -- but neither is there the life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness which we treasure.
Those who are so crifical of the .Congress completely over-
look, and certainly not unknowingly, that the House of Represent-
atives probably has the closest kinship with the electorate (you,
the people) of any segment of the federal government. Every one
of the 435 members of the House must put his record on the
line and obtain the approval of hissconstituents every two
years. I do not mean to imply that the Congress should not
be certicized or that members of any legislative body always
fully reflect the views of their constituents. On the other
hand, it is the House of Representatives, and all of us who
are elected periodicallyy who do go directly to the people
for & mandate. We are on the firing line and expect to re-
ceive our share of the suiping. It is not the criticism that
troubles me but the aura of distrues generated by it; the
feeling that Congress is a roadblock, halting progress, and
failing to fulfill its role and, therefore, should relinquish
GERALL
BRARK
8
some of its authority to the executive.
The Congress is often accused of being a negative body, of
obstructing progress. From the vieupoint of those who crave
DOWBE, who want to determine your destiny by their will and whim,
the Constitution itself is negative. This historic document is
negative in many instances -- often a "go"slow" or "stop" sign.
Frequently it says "hold on a minute" to those that govern.
Its foundation is hadd on the basic belief that a government
not controlled by the people will control the people.
Affirmatively, this means there is a basic faith in the
electorate and an elected representatives,
The accusing finger waved at the Congress frequently
alleges there are evils in the seniority system for committee
chairman. Directly or otherwise they condean Congressman Carl
Vinson of Georgia, who as chairman of the House Committee on Armed
Services has contributed significantly to the military security of
America. These critics also condomn a system which has produced
Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia, a statesman whose efforts to achieve
economy in government and fiscal responsibility has saved our
nation billioms of dollars. In the recent past Senators Robert Taft
and Arthur Vandenberg were harshly critized buty they were acknow-
ledged authorities in federal finances and foreign affairs while
serving as chairman of two important committees in the Senate.
What is offered in place of the seniority system? Each alter-
native suggested in one way or another would raise the ugly menace
8
some of its authority to the executive.
The Congress is often accused of being 8 negative body, of
obstructing progress. From the viewpoint of those who crave
power, who want to determine your destiny by their will and whim,
the Constitution itself is negative. This historic document is
negative in many instances -- often 8 "go"slow" or "stop" sign.
Frequently it says "hold on a minute" to those that govern.
Its foundation is had on the basic belief that a government
not controlled by the people will control the people.
Affirmatively, this means there is a basic faith in the
electorate and in elected representatives.
The accusing finger waved at the Congress frequently
alleges there are evils in the seniority system for committee
chairman. Directly or otherwise they condemn Congressment Carl
Vinson of Georgia, who as chairman of the House Committee on Armed
Services has contributed significantly to the military security of
America. These critics also condomn a system which has produced
Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia, a statesman whose efforts to schieve
economy in government and fiscal responsibility has saved our
nation billioms of dollars. In the recent past Senators Robert Taft
and Arthur Vandenberg were harshly critised buty they were acknow-
ledged authorities in federal finances and foreign affairs while
serving as chairman of two important committees in the Senate.
What is offered in place of the seniority system? Each alter-
native suggested in one way or another would raise the ugly menace
GERAL
RARY
9
of behind-the-scenss politics or closed-door deals in the sel-
action of committee chairman. To abandon the seniority system
for committee chairmen would place another weapon in the hands
of the executive for it could use its influence to pick a chair-
man who would later on bow to White House domination. All sub-
stantial evidence leads one to the contention that a system which
has given us the Vinsons, Tafts, Vandenberge, and Byrde, and
other renoward and respected chairmen is the best.
Those who point the accusing finger at the elected rep-
resentatives complain about the appropriation process, alleging
it hamstrings the operations of the multitude of federal agencies,
bureaus, and departments. Of course those who seek to place max-
1mum authority th the executive really seek authority to spend
those hard-earned tax dollars without restriction or limitation.
Isn't it better for America that the Congress does scrut-
inise the President's budget with care and deliberation? The
answer is crystal clear -- th the past 10 budgets submitted Ebyn
the several Presidents, Congress has cut over $34 billion from
the executive department's spending demands. As we look back
at this past decade no one would honestly contend that the bureau-
crats the Washington needed that extra $34 billion plus to run
our government.
Another common criticism of the Congress involves the
filibuster in the Senate and the Committee on Rules in the
House. We are told that it is tragic when either House is
GERALD
LIBRARY
9
of behind-the-scenes politice or closed-door deals in the sel-
ection of committee chairman. To abandon the seniority system
for committee chairmen would place another weapon in the hands
of the executive for it could use its influence to pick a chair-
men who would later on bow to White House domination. All sub-
stential evidence leads one to hhe contention that a system which
has given us the Vinsoms, Tafts, Vandenbergs, and Byrde, and
other renoward and respected chairmen is the best.
Those who point the accusing finger at the elected rep-
resentatives complain about the appropriation process, alleging
it hamstrings the operations of the multitude of federal agencies,
bureaus, and departments. Of course those who seek to place max-
inum authority to the executive really seek authority to spend
those hard-tarned tax dollars without restriction or limitation.
Isn't it better for America that the Congress does scrut-
inise the President's budget with care and deliberation? The
answer is crystal clear -- th the past 10 budgets submitted firgun
the several Presidents, Congress has cut over $34 billion from
the executive department's spending demands, As we look back
at this past decade no one would honestly contend that the bureau-
crats the Washington needed that extra $34 billion plus to run
our government.
Another common criticism of the Congress involves the
filibuster in the Senate and the Committee on Rules in the
House. We are told that it is tragic when either House is
BERAAD FORD LIBRAR
10
prevented from the immediate consideration of proposals sub-
mitted and demanded by the Chief Executive.
When I first came to Congress as a freshman Appresentative
I voted for the so-called 21-day rule. Under this rule the
Committee on Rules had 21 days within which to act on any
request for a rule to bring a bill to the floor of the House.
Two years later when the question was on the repeal of the
21-day rule I voted for its retention but after 2 more years
of practical legislative experience I changed try viewpoint.
Experience hadeshown that the Committee on Rules served a most
useful purpose as the traffic copy in the orderly flow of
legislation to the floor of the House. I was convinced that 1
little, Lf any, legislation truly desired by a majority of the
members of the House and truly in the best interests of the
country was ever road-blécked absolutely by the Committee on
Rules.
Should the Committee remain adament when the majority of
the members of the House want in all sincerity to vote on
an issue. there are alternative methods which can be used to bring
legislation on the floor.
The Committee on Rules is not an absolute dictator;
actually it was set up to counteract the dictatorial tactics
of Uncle Joe Cannon, Speaker of the House,
While in the House of Representatives a filibuster is in-
possible under the rules, action in the Senate last week is again
proof that when there is genuine popular demand for action on GERALD a
LIBRARY
of
10
prevented from the immediate consideration of proposals sub-
mitted and demanded by the Chief Executive.
When I first came to Congress as a freshman Representative
I voted for the so-called 21-day rule. Under this rule the
Committee on Rules had 21 days within which to act on any
request for a rule to bring a bill to the floor of the House.
Two years later when the question was on the repeal of the
21-day rule I voted for its retention but after 2 more years
of practical legislative experience I changed by viewpoint.
Experience hadeshown that the Committee on Rules served a most
useful purpose as the traffic copy in the orderly flow of
legislation to the floor of the House. I was convinced that 1
little, if any, legislation truly desired by a majority of the
members of the House and truly in the best interests of the
country was ever road-blécked absolutely by the Committee on
Rules.
Should the Committee remain adament when the majority of
the members of the House want in all sincerity to vote on
an issue. there are alternative methods which can be used to bring
legislation 80 the floor.
The Committee on Rules is not an absolute dictator;
actually it was set up to counteract the dictatorial tactics
of Uncle Joe Cannon, Speaker of the House.
While in the House of Representatives n filibuster is in-
possible under the rules, action in the Senate last week is again
proof that when there is genuine popular demand for action on DERHLD
a
LIBRARY
11
controversial issue a filibuster can be broken even under present
Senate rules.
It is well to have sufficient delay in order that a
body of public opinion can be deteroped so that all interested
citizens and groups have sufficient time to examine proposals and
suggest revisions.
It does seen to me that reasonable delay and even extended
debate on extremely controversial issues is proferrable in many
instances to the prompt adoption of legislation which may prove
on balance quite satisfactory and possibly detrimental.
Unfortunately few Americans today realize the numbescal
strength of decision makers in the federal government. Today
Uncle San employe approximately 2,500,000 civilians and this
army of bureaucrate that operates in everyone of the 50 states
and worldwide is supplemented by 2,700,000 men on active duty
with the Armed Forces. The annushkpayroll for over s million
federal employees is approximately $30 billion. Unfortunately
those who consistently argued for a bigger and bigger federal
bureaucracy never tell our citimens that a government big enough
to give us everyhhing we want is a government big enough to take
from us everything we have.
We in Michigan have recently seen a dramatic and discour~
aging example of the abuse of federal executive authority and the
helplessness of a state government in meeting unverrented bureau-
cratic power from the Nation's Capital.
GERALD
LIBRARY
11
controversiel issue a filibuster can be broken even under present
Senate rules.
It is well to have sufficient delay in order that a
body of public opinion can be deterhoped so that all interested
citizens and groups have sufficient time to examine proposals and
suggest revisions.
It does SOON to me that reasonable delay and even extended
debate on extremely controversial issues is proferrable in many
instances to the prompt adoption of legislation which may prove
on balance quite satisfactory and possibly detrimental.
Unfortunately gow Americans today realise the numbercal
strength of decision makers in the federal government. Today
Uncle Sam employe approximately 2,500,000 civilians and this
army of bureaucrate that operates in everyone of the 50 states
and worldwide is supplemented by 2,700,000 men ORL active duty
with the Armed Forces. The annuahkpayroll for over S million
federal employees is approximately $30 billion. Unfortunately
those who consistently argued for a bigger and bigger federal
bureausracy never tell our citimens that a government big enough
to give us everyhhing we want is a government big enough to take
from us everything we have.
We in Michigan have recently seen a dramatic and discour-
aging example of the abuse of federal executive authority and the
helpleseness of a state government in meeting unwerranted bureau-
cratic power from the Nation's Capital.
GERALD
TBRARY
12
At the request of Governor Ronney the state legislature
passed a law covering aid to dependent children of the unem-
ployed. The bill had been carefully drawn by experts to the
field who consulted with officials in the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare to make certain that the bill satisfied
all departmental regulations. These officials approved the
bill. Moreover, the Congress had said specifically in the basic
legislation that the definition of unemployed peremas was to be
"determined by the states." Neverthelëss, after the Michigan
bill because law, Secretary Celebrease refused to release fed-
oral funds to Michigan, alleging that Michigan's definition of
an "unemployed person" was diserindmatory. While it was par-
fectly clear from the federal law and congrassionel debate, that
the definition was to be left to the states, Michigan to date
has not received one cent of federal finds for this program of
aid to dependent children solely because of the arbitrary action
of a federal executive agency. The state is, however, trying to
complywwith federal directives.
The issue of executive absolution, whether achieved by
artifice, device, "purchase," or by our own complecency, is a
great threat to our country today. Much has been said recently
about the reasings and ravings and dangers that confoont us
from the "fanetical left" and the "fanstical right." I am not
so concerned about the "fanatical left" and the Tenatical right,"
as I am about the "complacent centery and the "power-hungry top."
In addition to the encroachment of the executive branch
into the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, there is an
GERALD LIBRARY
12
At the request of Governor Romney the state legislature
passed a law covering aid to dependent children of the unem-
ployed. The bill had been carefully drawn by experts to the
field who consulted with officials in the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare to make certain that the bill satisfied
all departmental regulations. These officials approved the
bill. Moreover, the Congress had said specifically in the basic
legislation that the definition of unexployed parenes was to be
"decermined by the states." Nevertheläss, after the Michigan
bill becaus law, Secretary Celebresse refused to release fed-
eral funds to Michigan, alleging that Michigan's definition of
an "unemployed person" was discriminatory. While it was per-
fectly clear from the federal law and congressional debate, that
the definition was to be left to the states, Michigan to date
has not received one cent of federal finds for this program of
aid to dependent children solely because of the arbitrary action
of a federal executive agency. The state is, however, trying to
complywvith federal directives.
The issue of executive absolution, whether achieved by
artifice, device, "purchase," or by our own complacency, is a
great threat to our country today. Much has been said recently
about the rathings and ravings and dangers that conformt us
from the "fanatical left" and the "fanatical right." I an not
so concerned about the "fanatical left" and the Tenatical right,"
as I am about the "complacent center! and the "power-bungry top."
In addition to the encroschment of the expective branch
GERALD
LIBRARY
into the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, there is an
13
increasing tendency for the Judicial Branch to get into the
act of distorially determining public policy by stretching
at this late date the long established intent of the Consti-
tution and what was the law for generations. Whether we feel
the decisions are right or wrong, our Supreme Court has re-
cently handed down major dpéséens affecting and changing the
ways of life and the political organizations of massive sec-
tions of our population. An example of this is the rulings on
the redistricting decision last year in the Baker-Carr case, and
just this past Monday in the Alabama and other cases, the ruling
that in each state legislature both houses must have representation
based on population count.
Without passing judgement on the merits of these cases,
we cannot escape the conclusion that the Court in each instance
was doing more than interpretating the Constitution. The Court
was determining public policy; it was making new law, judicial
law which has the same difect as legislative law.
Now these décisions of the Court may be right, although I
doubt 15, they mapybe in the public interest, they may be helpful
and practical. But as Justice Frankfurter stated in this Baker -
Carr dissent: "In this situation, as in others of like nature,
appeal for relief does not belong here. Appeal must be an in-
formad, civisally militant electorate. In a democratic society
like ours, relief must come through an aroused popular conscience
that sears the conscience of the people representatives." As
GERALE FORD ALBRARY
13
increasing tendency for the Judicial Branch to get into the
act of distorially determining public policy by stretching
at this late date the long established intent of the Consti-
tution and what was the law for generations. Whether we feel
the decisions are right or wrong, our Supreme Court has re-
cently handed down major dpiáduns affecting and changing the
ways of life and the political organizations of massive soc-
tions of our population. An example of this is the rulings on
the redistricting decision last year in the Baker-Carr case, and
just this past Monday in the Alabama and other cases, the ruling
that in each state legislature both houses must have representation
based on population count.
Without passing judgement on the merits of these cases,
ve cannot escape the conclusion that the Court in each instance
was doing more than interpretation the Constitution. The Court
was determining public policy; it was making new law, judicial
law which has the same effect as legislative law.
Now these decisions of the Court may be right, although I
doubt it, they mapybe in the public interest, they may be helpful
and prestical. But as Justice Frankfurter stated in this Baker .
Carr discent: "In this situation, as in others of like nature,
appoal for relief does not belong here. Appeal must be an in-
formed, civically militant electorate. In a democratic society
like ours, relief must come through an aroused popular conscience
that sears the conscience of the people representatives." As a
BERALD R.FORD LIBRARY
14
long time member of the Court, Justice FrankfurthBrrecognined the
necessity of judiciary restraint, and the responsibility of the
voters and their representatives in our system of government.
It is worrisons to note that both the Executive and Jud-
cial banches, who are encroaching on the law-making responsib-
ilities of the Legislative Branch are immunised from the public
control at the ballot box.
A Supreme Court Justice and every member of the federal
judiciary enjoys a lifetime appointive position. Only the
President and the Vice President out of the 24 million employ-
cas in the executive branch of government put their record to
the test of the ballot box, and that once in four years. The
people's protection and the people's authority rest primarily
in the legislative branch of the dederal government.
I submit that rather than change and weaken the Congress
as Senator Clark and others suggest, we should be everlastingly
grataful to the Founding Fathers and to those today who insist
on preserving the power of the elected legislatures The legisle-
tive branch rests solidly on the widdom and judgment of the elect-
orate. Through it we preserve the sovereignity of the people;
through it we insure ourselves against distatorshèp or oligarchy.
The strength of America after all, lies in our people. You
all can assure a continuance of our strenghh by wise and studied
selection of your elected representatives and then by giving then
your support. Congress will then continue to serve you well and
effectively.
GERALD
14
long time member of the Court, Justice Frankfurtherrecognined the
necessity of judiciary restraint, and the responsibility of the
voters and their representatives in our system of government.
It is worrisons to note that both the Executive and Jud-
etal buanches, who are encroaching on the law-making responsib-
ilities of the Legislative Branch are immunised from the public
control at the ballot box.
A Supreme Court Justice and every member of the federal
judiciary enjoye a lifetime appointive position. Only the
President and the Vice President out of the 24 million employ-
... in the executive branch of government put their record to
the test of the ballot box, and that once in four years. The
people's protection and the people's authority rest primarily
in the legislative branch of the dederal government.
I submit that rather than change and weaken the Congress
as Senator Clark and others suggest, we should be everlastingly
grateful to the Founding Fathers and to those today who insist
on preserving the power of the elected legislatures The logisla-
tive branch rests solidly on the widdom and judgment of the elect-
orate. Through it we preserve the sovereignity of the people;
through it we insure ourselves against distatorship or oligarchy.
The strength of America after all, lies in our people. You
all can assure a continuance of our strenghh by vise and studied
selection of your elected representatives and then by giving them
your support. Congress will then continue to serve you well and
effectively.
GERALD LIBRAR
1964
DRAFT
spechy
Suggested Material For
Representative Gerald Ford's NCA Convention Remarks
The President intervened in the recent labor negotiation between
railroad managements and unions. Rumors persist that in order to get
management to agree to the settlement, he premised certain legislation as
well as tax concessions. Part of this legislation appears to be a transpor-
tation bill which would include provisions detrimental to the coal industry.
While this issue is not yet settled, it is important for Congress to determine
whether such legislation is in the public interest, even though the Adminis-
th is significant
tration has promised that it will be enacted. z wish to point out that the
Congress has thus far successfully resisted the previous attempt to impose
on the coal industry transportation legislation which would be adverse to its
interests.
The Administration this year proposed legislation which would give
the Secretary of Labor authority to select industries which would be subject
to an overtime work penalty of double time or more. So far, Congress has
shown no inclination to give such tremendous discretionary authority to the
Executive Branch. In my opinion, this is the sort of power that Congress
should retain to itself. The collective judgment of 535 members of the House
and Senate can see that this power is used wisely -- far wiser than might
be the case if it were in the hands of a single appointive official who might
use it for various reasons, including punitive ones.
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has tried very
vigorously to establish a new administrative empire to control water pollution
in the states and river basins. The Congress so far has successfully
resisted this move on the grounds that such operations are primarily the
GERALD LIBRARY
. 2 .
responsibility of the states or the regional river authorities. Similarly,
the Department of the Interior has for some time proposed a program which
would inject the Federal Government into the operation of surface coal mines
theogh
cremained
ostensible nationwide study of conditions. This legislation has-boan-
appropriate committees for further review and study
since opposition from the various states has been vigorously presented.
Despite clear and concisely expressed intent of Congress that mandatory
control of oil imports should be based on levels that would contribute to the
maintenance of a strong domestic industry, the Executive Branch in admin-
istering that law has used its authority to permit increasing volumes of
imports to the detriment of the coal industry. Here the Congress seems
to have failed to keep the Executive Branch under proper control, and
would
it seems to me that we should enact pending bills which take away the
seretionary authority in this field.
The Administration has vigorously pushed numerous public power
projects such as Burns Creek, Devils Jump, Knowles Dam, and many
others. These hydroelectric power projects are an intrusion upon the
investor-owned utilities which are the mainstay of the hopes of an expanding
coal industry. The Congress thus far has resisted authorising these large-
scale public power projects.
I am sure you all recall the vigorous legislative battle, stretching
over several years, over the Hanford project. It is enough to say that the
Congress resisted the effort to approve this project as proposed by the
Administration, and did succeed in changing its character so as to deny
the use of federal funds in its construction or operation.
For years, the Atomic Energy Commission has been spending
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
several billion dollars annually, with only a minor portion -- less than
20 per cent -- subject to scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
. 3 .
Last year, Congress passed a law making all AEC expenditures subject
to review by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. There are encouraging
signs that Congress will exercise an increasing amount of control over the
vast expenditures of this Commission which affects one of coal's fast-rising
competitors.
The Administration has in fact attempted to obstruct the promotion
of free enterprise projects that might in any way interfere with progress of
public power. Duke Power Co. has proposed to build a steam plant next
to the Savannah River, but the public power crowd has prevailed upon the
Administration to support a competitive, federally-subsidized hydroelectric
project farther down the stream. I might add that the Duke Power plant
would burn 3-1/2 million tons of coal from the Appalachian area each year.
Thus far, friends of private power in Congress have not overcome the
Administration opposition to authorization for Duke Power to build the
diversion dam necessary to the operation of its plant, but I am confident
that we are going to be able to muster the strength necessary to permit
this free enterprise project to go forward.
GERALD LIBRARY