Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to Douglas MacArthur, Voice of America, St. Lawrence Seaway, Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526517
label
Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, 1949-1952
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526517
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, 1949-1952
description
This file contains material relating to Douglas MacArthur, Voice of America, St. Lawrence Seaway, Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Weekly Radio Reports
subjects
Alaska
Hawaii
Korea
Marshall Plan
Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-
Affirmative action programs
Agriculture
Appropriations and expenditures
Commerce
Compulsory national service
Economic stabilization
Federal budget
Foreign aid
Government reorganization
Housing
Industrial relations
Korean War, 1950-1953
Legislation
Minimum wage
National security
Postal matters
Social security
State of the union messages
Statehood (American politics)
Taxation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526517
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1952-01-31
month
1
year
1952
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1949-06-01
month
6
year
1949
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
53dfcf9fede6c2a1
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D35, folder "Fifth District Weekly Radio
Reports, 1949-1952" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 D35 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS
BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For release Sunday, June 12, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 23rd weekly radio Congressional
report from the nation's capital.
On Wednesday the House considered the "Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949. The title of this bill would lead
one to believe it was a rather innocuous matter-a measure that could be
adopted with little or no dispute. Actually, however, just the opposite
was true because, in the first place, it was a bill aimed at accomplishing
a part or 8 portion of the recommendations of the Hoover Commission and,
secondly, the consideration of the proposal lighted the fire under a
smoldering behind-the-scenes controversy over the inexcusable delays for
the adoption of the necessary enabling legislation for the Hoover Commis-
sion recommendations.
In my estimation the Congress and the President have a great
resoonsibility to make certain that this proposed legislation becomes law
immedistely. From the discussion on the floor of the House on Wednesday
the situation looks discouraging because of the adamant attitude, on one
crucial compromise issue, by Majority Leader McCormack, who is one of the
House conferees. Mr. NcCormack will not budge or give an inch from the
House version on how Congress should eventually approve or disapprove a
President's reorganization olan. Until the majority leader's attitude
changes, it appears the entire Hoover Commission recomuendations are
doomed for 2. pigeonhole.
A quick review of the situation might be most helpful. On Feb-
ruary 7, 1949, the House passed its version of the reorganization-enabling
legislation and early in May the Senate did likowise, but there are three
differences between the two bills. Under the rules of the Congress, immed-
iately the Speaker appointed five House conferces, three Democrats and two
Republicans, and the Vice President on behalf of the Senate did the same.
To date, the House and Senate conferees are deadlocked on just
one issue, even though the minority party House conferees are apparently
willing to agree to the Senate proposals.
The Senate version of the enabling legislation requires that the
reorganization law terminate in 1953; the House says there should be no
termination date. Apparently, this di ference can be easily adjusted.
The House bill requires separate reorganization proposals by the President
for seven governmental agencies; the Senate says no a ency shall be
handled separately. It appears the conferees can reconcile this difference.
On the third point the conf crees at present can reach no compromise. The
Senate bill would permit either the House or Senate by a majority of those
voting to veto a reorganization plan submitted by the President. The
House version says both the Senate and House must take joint unfavorable
action before a reorganization proposal can be defeated. In effect, the
House bill denits the right of either the Senate or the House, acting alone
without the concurrence of the other, to disapprove a reorganization plan.
On this one point Majority Leader HcCormack will not yield. Many
Hembers of the House feel this attitude is obstructing conference committee
compromise. Since the majority leader in the House represents the party
in power, nothing can be done until there is a change in his attitude.
To date, the Hoover Commission activities and the proposals for
the reorganization of the Executive branch of the government have been a
non-partisan matter. It must romain so if we are to achieve success
in this long-ovordue program, which citizens on a nationwide basis are
demanding. However, as in all legislative controversies, there must be
reasonable compromise and in this instance we have no exception.
Thanks for listoning and I will be back next week with another
of your weekly radio Congressional reports,
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN.
For Release Sunday, June 26, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 24th weekly radio Congressional report from
the Nation's capital.
Both the House and Senate during the past week have been sawing diligently
away on two extremely important legislative matters. The Senate has been
tussling with the proposed labor-management legislation aimed at repealing the
Taft-Hartley Act, and after some verbal shadow-boxing for a couple of weeks,
the toe -to-toe slugging has now begun. The decisive question is whether the
Senate will write a labor-management law like the Sims bill, which was narrowly
defeated in the House a month ago, or whether the Senate will approve legisla-
tion similar to the Wood bill, which the House initially approved and subse-
quently sent back to committee.
The Administration is desparately striving to hold the compromise line at
the Sims bill level, while the anti-Administration forces in the Senate are
fighting for a revised Wood bill. When the Senate has concluded its delibera-
tions on this vital legislation, the Senate version will come back to the
House for further consideration.
The House at the same time has been considering the bill for Federal aid
on slum clearance and low rent public housing. It now appears a final vote on
this measure will come either late Friday or Monday. The Senate has already
approved a similar bill which was supported by our Michigan Senators Vandenberg
and Ferguson.
The atmosphere on the floor of the House during the debate on this issue
is anything but calm and peaceful. For example, on Wednesday afternoon, 84-
year-old Rep. Sabath of Illinois and 69-year-old Rep. Cox of Georgia traded a
few punches because Mr. Sabath, who had charge of allocating debate time for
the Democrats, allegedly would not permit Mr. Cox, who is a Democrat opposing
the bill, sufficient time to discuss his point of view on this legislation.
I am certain this display of fisticuffs supplied more heat than light on
the merits or demerits of the proposed housing legislation. Later in the day
it was gratifying to see apologies and handshakes all around, for nothing is
gained, legislatively speaking, by inept physical violence or derogatory name
calling.
The proposed legislation includes four rather distinct programs, namely,
slum clearance, low-rent public housing, housing research for the development
of more efficient and less costly housing construction, and financial assistance
for farm housing. Unfortunately, this is a one-package deal. In other words,
a Representative must either accept all or none. Few will dispute the need
for Federal assistance in the field of true slum clearance, nor is there much
controversy over the housing research portion of the bill. There is some ques-
tion being raised over the $500 loans that can be made to sub-marginal farmers
so they can put their housing facilities in better condition. The subsection
of the bill that supplements the Farmers' Home Administration is desirable.
I believe this to be true because last fall I personally saw how the Farmers'
Home Administration operates in our district and this agency of the Federal
government does do excellent work in rehabilitating farm properties.
The real controversy on the housing bill arises over Title II, which is
the low-rent public housing section. This portion of the bill is opposed by
many Representatives who favor the other three features in the proposal because
it authorizes public housing in raw or undeveloped suburban areas and because
it further involves approximately three-quarters of the estimated cost of the
bill. If Title II were eliminated the rest of the bill would be given nearly
unanimous approval. As of now, no one can predict whether the bill in its
entirety will be approved by the House.
Thanks for listening and I will be back next week with another edition of
your weekly radio Congressional report.
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERAID R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For release Sunday, July 3, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 26th weekly radio Congressional report from the
nation's capital.
The rough and tumble, ding-dong battle between the Administration forces
and Republicans continued unabated this past week in both the Senate and the
House. The labor-management issue for all practical purposes was lost by the
Administration in the Senate by the slim margin of two votes on the crucial
Lucas amendment. In the House, the Administration prevailed on the housing
bill, but only after the tide of battle had shifted first one way, then another.
On the all-imoortant roll call vote on the Rees amendment the margin of victory was
a slim five votes.
The vote for or against the housing bill on final passage was not the real
test. Actually, the showdown on this knockdown struggle took place on three
separate votes on the Rees amendment Wednesday afternoon.
A play by play analysis might be helpful and enlightening. During the
consideration of the housing bill, Rep. Rees of Kansas offered an amendment
striking out Title II of the committee bill. Title II provided for the low-rent
public housing. The other provisions in the bill included a legitimate slum
clearance feature, provisions for housing research and development in order to
cut down costs and for the improvement of methods, plus farm housing assistance
and extensions of F.H.A. financing. The Administration launched its most power-
ful forces against the Rees amendment. Every persuasive method was used. The
salvos by the Administration were countered by effective and determined opposi-
tion from those who did not favor low-rent public housing. After considerable
vehement debate the initial vote was taken and the Rees amendment was defeated
136 to 135. By a subsequent teller vote the Rees amendment was approved 168 to
165.
This see-saw battle continued with both sides doing their utmost to achieve
victory and no one could hazard a guess as to the eventual outcome. On the final
roll call vote where each representative was called upon to go on record for or
against the specific question of low-rent public housing, the Rees amendment was
defeated 209 to 204. On all occasions I voted down the line for the Rees amendment
to delete Title II from the bill.
As inevitably happens some members of the House are absent when roll calls
are taken. In this specific instance certain absences were crucial, particularly
for the anti-Administration forces. I believe the record will show that four and
possibly five members of the House, who would have voted against the low-rent
public housing provision, were in the hospital because of injury or sickness.
These absences might have turned the tide.
After the Rees amendment was defeated by the slimmest of margins, a motion
to recommit the bill was offered by Rep. Wolcott. This motion to recommit also
would have deleted the controversial Title II but at the same time would have
provided for true slum clearance. I also favored this motion to recommit but
unfortunately we were again defeated, 241 to 170.
Beginning next week the House moves its activities from the Capitol building
to a large caucus room in the Old House Office Building. We are being evicted so
that badly-needed and long-overdue repairs can be made in the House Chamber. It
is hoped that the necessary repairs, which were delayed during World War II, can
be accomplished before we convene next January, but in the meantime, members of
the House, the Senate, visitors and the press will put up with cramped quarters.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with another edition of your
Washington Congressional report.
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERAID R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN.
For Release Sunday, July 10, 1949.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with the 27th edition of your weekly radio Congres-
sional report from the nation's capital.
Three matters of consequence were on the agenda this past week in the
House of Representatives. As you probably know, both the Senate and House have
been evicted from the Capitol in order that long-overdue and badly-needed repairs
could be made. As a sort of warm-up or preliminary for the more difficult con-
troversies to follow, On Tuesday, when we convened in our cramped temporary quarters
the House considered the Yugoslavia Claims Act of 1949. This legislation in some
form appeared necessary in order to facilitate equitable distribution among
American claimants of 17 million which the State Department retained from Yugo-
slavian assets frozen in this country during horld har II. By the terms of the
bill, an International Claims Commission under State Department jurisdiction will
be set up and the commission's job is to hear all American claims and within four
years parcel out this 17-million-dollar kitty to the legitimate claimants. There
are several encouraging points to be noted: First, the setting up of this commis-
sion is in keeping with the policy recommended by the Hoover Commission, and,
Secondly, all administrative costs of the commission will come out of the 17 mil-
lion and not out of general treasury funds.
On wednesday the House began work on the job of removing the fog and fuzz
from the "basing point" dispute. The need for this legislation has been urged ever
since the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the Cement Insti-
tute and Rigid Steel Conduit cases. The fundamental problem is whether the absorption
of freight rates by basic producers of cement, steel or any other product is illegal
per se. The proposed legislation, which has strong bi-partisan support and which
has already been overwhelmingly approved by the Senate, clarifies the right of
sellers--for example, cement manufacturers--in the absence of combination, con-
spiracy, or collusive agreement, or monopolistic, oppressive, deceptive, or fraudu-
lent practices, to quote and sell at delivered prices, to absorb freight, and to
meet competition in good faith. The two Supreme Court decisions have disrupted
long-established business practices and seriously injured the competitive position
of western Michigan, according to a number of small manufacturers in our district.
It is contended by others, however, that certain businesses such as
independent grocery and drug stores will be harmed by this legislation unless
corrective amendments are added. The proponents of the bill strongly dispute this
assertion and are therefore opposed to any amendments. In the Senate two amend-
ments were offered by Senator Kefauver and both were accepted. The House Committee
on the Judiciary did not include these amendments because of a strong feeling that
the law should not discourage active business competition by preventing the meeting
of competition in good faith.
As you can see, this is extremely technical legislation with plenty of
arguments pro and con that would confuse even the best Philadelphia lawyers. The
bill has the recommendation of the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission,
officials in the Department of Justice and Senator O'Mahoney, a strong believer in
the rights of small business. Many members of the House feel that the opponents
of the proposed legislation are dragging in a few of the well-known "red herrings"
in order to cover up and protect other alleged interests.
The House also will have legislation before us pertaining to increases
in salaries for top executives in the Federal government. The Hoover Commission
recommends some increases but the conversation between members on the floor can
be summed up in this way: Will salary increases mean better and more qualified
appointments by the President or will higher pay simply mean bigger and better
political plums.
Thanks for listening and I will be back next week with another edition
of your weekly radio Congressional report.
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS
BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT MICHIGAN
For release Sunday, July 17, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 28th weekly radio Congressional report from
the nation's capital.
This past week was significant primarily because of the statements made
by President Truman in his Mid-year Economic Report to the Congress. When the
President made his initial address on January 5th to a joint session of the House
and Senate, we and the nation were told that "the state of the Union was good" and,
at the same time he strongly suggested certain legislative proposals, including a
four-billion dollar tax increase. Last Monday's report stated the United States
is "in a transition period" economically speaking and with that comment I agree.
However, a careful scrutiny and survey of the President's legislative recommenda-
tions as contained in the latest report reveals a concurrence in part and a dis-
agreement in certain respects. I cannot, for instance, follow the President's
recommendations when he says we should retain our wartime-imposed excise taxes
on such items as railroad tickets, luggage, handbags, electric light bulbs, toilet
articles and many other commodities and services. The President indicates such
taxes should remain even though the basic reason for enactment during world War II
has now vanished. You will recall that the prohibitive excise tax rates were
imposed in order to curtail rail and air travel and to restrict the sale and pur-
chase of certain items that were indirectly and directly essential to the national
defense. I ask you, is it now fair and equitable to keep these rates at the
present high level? If we do, it penalizes both consumers generally and certein
industries specifically.
A concrete example is the excise tax on musical instruments. In our dis-
trict we have at least two piano factories, a band instrument company and numerous
retail stores selling such merchandise. During the war a prohibitive excise tax
was imposed on all musical instruments. The manufacturers, the retailers and the
consumers did not object, for it was part of the war effort, but now this segment
of our society demands equality of treatment and I think they should get it without
further delay. If not, unemployment conditions in this industry will be seriously
aggravated. I repeat, these are not luxury items; actually, musical instruments
are a distinct part of our over-all educational program and should be so treated
under our internal revenue laws.
You should know what is being done to relieve the situation. President
Truman says no action should be taken. Many Members of Congress, including myself,
feel otherwise. The Senate Finance Committee on June 30th approved a bill which
would greatly reduce these taxes. Several months ago Rep. Martin introduced a
similar bill to reduce most of the wartime-imposed excise taxes, but the Adminis-
tration leaders in the House have refused to take any action. To force the issue
Rep. Martin initiated a discharge petition which must be signed by 218 Members
of the House before the bill can be brought to the floor for consideration. To
date about 100 Representatives, including myself, have signed this petition. I
see no reason for pigeon-holing this important proposal. Undeniably some Federal
revenue will be lost, but that is not a sound argument for the everlasting per-
petuation of an outmoded method of taxation which is discriminatory.
Next week the House will consider legislation aimed at giving the Brannan
farm plan a trial run-at least, the Administration wants to give it a fling on a
few select commodities. Actually, the fight on the floor of the House will go far
deeper, with plenty of political implications. The issue will revolve around three
fundamental alternatives, namely, the presently-in-effect straight 90% of parity
program, the Aiken flexible price support long-range program, and the Brannan
outright subsidy plan. What the outcome on this all-important legislation will be
is a hazardous guess. I am no prophet. Next week I will make a full report on the
House action.
Thanks for listening.
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN.
For Release Sunday, July 24th, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with the 29th weekly radio Congressional report from
the nation's capital.
As indicated in my previous broadcast, the House of Representatives for
the past few days has been laboring--and that puts it mildly-over the intricate
question of a future farm policy. Few will deny the basic importance of agricul-
ture in our over-all economy and the necessity for at least a minimum of agricul-
tural stability. The statisticians can illustrate graphically, and I should say
convincingly, that our total national income moves, upward or downward, with farm
income and, further, that every depression or period of prosperity begins with
the farmer.
Assuming that to be true, the $64 question is, "what can be done on a
legislative level to stabilize our farm economy so the farmers are protected from
the perils and disasters of a severe depression without gouging consumers and
bankrupting the Federal treasury?" Over the years several plans have been tried
and discarded as unworkable. After a good bit of experimentation, the present
law is with us, including a complicated parity formula and a price support system
for many commodities. Few claim it is utopia, but until Secretary Brannan let
fly his "golden goose, all things to all people" program, no one wanted to junk
completely the existing law.
Early this year the Brennan Plan made its initial appearance as the
panacea or sure cure for all evils. Hardly a member of the House anticipated
any action on this proposal by the Congress during this session. Instead, it was
generally assumed the Committee on Agriculture was to propose corrective amendments
to the present law in order to obviate for example re-occurrences of the potato
fiasco of recent years. Somehow, signals were missed and the House was presented
with a trial run of the Brannan Plan.
During the debate, Secretary Brannan's proposal was logically and un-
mercifully condemned by both Democrats and Republicans. Loyal Administration
stalwarts led the battle against Speaker Rayburn, who made a futile last-minute
plea for party unity. Sound logic and reason were victorious by a 69-vote margin
and for the time being at least the Brannan Plan is on the shelf.
The Administration wanted a "trial run" for the Brannan Plan on three
commodities: Eggs, potatos and shorn wool. Rep. Gore of Tennessee, normally a
staunch supporter of the President's policies, ripped into the proposed egg
experiment. According to Mr. Gore, under the Brannan Plan the four million
families that sell eggs regularly in the United States would dispose of their
products each week at the current market price. The difference between the market
price and the support price for each dozen eggs would in turn be paid to the four
million farmers by the Secretary of Agriculture from the treasury with general tax
dollars. What would these day-to-day transactions involve? First, every farmer
(remember, four million) who sold eggs at the market must send to the Department
of Agriculture a receipt showing the sale; a second copy as evidence of the sale
must be kept by the purchaser and lastly the chicken raiser who sells the eggs
must keep a copy of the receiptfor future verification when he gets his subsidy
from the government. Simple arithmetic illustrates the red tape involved in just
this one commodity. The four million egg producers selling their eggs in one year
would produce automatically over 200 million such receipts in triplicate!
The peculiar thing about the debate on this issue was the failure of the
proponents to show or even claim that the Brannan Plan would work effectively or
that it would cost less. Neither was it denied that the proposal involved
absolute control over all land and production.
The House action was decisive. The Committee on Agriculture now has the
job of correcting the faults in the present agriculture laws. This can and must
be done.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with another report from
the nation's capital.
RADIC ADDREDD TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
For Release Sunday, July 31st, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 30th weekly radio Congressional report.
The legislative activity in the House of Representatives has been mighty
slow during the last week, principally because we are well ahead of the Senate
and while they catch up our schedule is somewhat lighter.
Perhaps a few may be interested in the question of when the first session
of the 81st Congress will adjourn. Speaker Rayburn has interpreted the law so
that Congress can go beyond the July 31st date without taking formal action to
extend the present term. Under the rules of the Congress, adjournment on July
31st each year is mandatory unless a state of emergency is proclaimed by the
President, or unless the United States is at war. The prescribed adjournment date
under the rules can be changed by a concurrent resolution approved by both the
Senate and the House, but on this particular occasion Sam Rayburn obviated the
need for such action by ruling that the United States is still at war, or at
least World war II has not been terminated. This decision indicates that we will
probably be in session through the month of August, maybe longer.
On Monday the House renewed one of the battles that has been on the legis-
lative agenda every other year ih the House for the past ten years. I refer to
the proposal which seeks to ban or outlaw poll taxes in all Federal elections.
On four previous occasions the House has approved this type of legislation
but the measure has always died in the Senate where it was invariably road-blocked
by a threatened Senate filibuster by the southern Democrats. The House this year
approved the anti-poll tax bill overwhelmingly by a vote of 273 to 116. Under the
new anti-filibuster rule in the Senate favorable action may result in that body
and if so, the long-sought Congressional action may become a reality.
In the House during the consideration of this bill, the Southerners did
everything legitimately possible to delay and hinder passage. In the first place,
the Committee on Rules refused to schedule the bill. Consequently, Rep. Norton,
chairman of the committee reporting the bill, took advantage of the new House
rule which permits the by-passing of the Rules committee.
In order to further delay the consideration of the anti- poll tax bill, the
Southerners used every conceivable parliamentary maneuver. On Monday, the House
had eight roll calls and each roll call takes approximately 30 minutes. For
example, there were two motions to adjourn, both of which were defeated. The
opponents also forced a vote on whether the House should approve the journal as
read, then a separate vote on whether the journal itself should be approved,
All of these and several other roll calls had no relationship whatever to the
business of the day and in the long run were ineffective, for the bill was
approved the following day by a substantial margin.
The merits of the problem perhaps should be discussed. The opponents of
anti-poll tax legislation claim it is purely a state problem under the Constitu-
tion of the United States. Their purely legal arguments are rather convincing
but failed to affect the results. The Southerners contend Congress should take the
necessary steps to submit a Constitutional amendment on the question, rather than
resolve the issue by statutory enactment. The proponents of the bill, to the
contrary, claim Congress itself has authority to regulate voting requirements
in Federal elections, including state primaries. If the Senate now takes favor-
able action the Constitutional question will eventually be resolved for certainly
someone in the South will fight the issue to the Supreme Court.
The battle that has been waged for over ten years in Congress has brought
substantial results for those interested in civil rights. Ten years ago 15
states had poll tax restrictions on the voting privilege, while now only eight
retain this requirement and Texas will probably abolish its law this year. It
may seem that justice has a tortuous course but I am certain time, if nothing
else, will correct the present situation.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with another edition of
your radio Congressional report.
FORD BRART
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERAID R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN.
For Release Sunday, August 7th, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 31st weekly radio Congressional report
from the nation's capital.
The most publicized issue during the past week was the action taken
byCongress for the more complete unification of the National Military Establish-
ment. Many Members of the House, including some of the best-informed members
of the Conmittee on Armed Services, have grave and serious doubts as to the
need and necessity for this legislation. The misgivings expressed during the
debate do not stem from any super loyalty to any single branch of the armed
services, but rather from a sincere distrust of a colossal concentration of
power in the hands of any one governmental department, particularly the
military.
At the outset, you should know that my vote was for the proposal,
principally because so many people in the Fifth district favored the legisla-
tion and because there are some desirable features included, but at the same
time I think our citizens should become acquainted with a dangerous philosophy
that is slowly but surely sweeping over influential personnel in the military
establishment and some of our civilians.
A vast majority of the Representatives favored the new bill because
the proponents promised a tremendous financial saving in our military expendi-
tures. It was also alleged that the Hoover Commission favored this or a similar
proposal, better known as the Tydings bill.
Just what are the facts? Little or no specific evidence of any annual
billion-dollar saving was actually produced before the committee during its long
deliberations on this proposal. It will be interesting to see if this predicted
result does accrue. Personally, I think the monetary savings would have re-
sulted from the fiscal and procurement reforms which were included in the
original bill passed by the House several weeks ago.
However, the House bill was not far-reaching enough for some of the
folks who want more power concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of National
Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Under the law enacted on Tuesday the
Secretary will unquestionably have clear-cut and unlimited authority to run his
department. Congress retained only limited safeguards. For example, the
Secretary on his own initiative cannot transfer, re-assign, abolish or consoli-
date combatant functions of any branch of the service, nor can he accomplish
the same purpose by indirection. It is hoped this provision will protect the
Marine Corps and other important branches of the service. Further, there were
certain limitations placed on the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
These were but a few of the wise curtailments of power but despite
these restrictions we are constantly edging closer and closer to the concept of
a super-powerful General Staff philosophy in conjunction with a single executive
department for the entire military establishment. Actually, the Hoover Commis-
sion task force report recommended against a single executive department and
many able and well-informed civilians have counselled against a general staff
controlling our military preparations and operations. Germany had a general
staff set-up which looked good in an unsavory political atmosphere in peace-
time but in the last war its weaknesses predominated.
The desire for an ultimate merger of all branches: The Army, Navy
Air and Marine Corps, has come from a small group of military-minded individuals.
No longer is this group suggesting only military legislation for the military
establishment. Instead they now propose civilian legislation for the military
establishment. This bill was a good example. If this military clique takes the
next step, namely, civilian legislation for civilians, the United States will no
longer be a republic, but rather a military dictatorship.
The bill was approved overwhelmingly by the Congress and I voted for
it, but it is my intention, now that the Secretary of National Defense has all
the authority he wanted, to hold him entirely responsible for any and all errors
or omissions in the performance of his duty. The burden is on him to effectuate
the stipulated savings and at the same time strengthen our military forces.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back again next week with another
radio Congressional report.
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For release Sunday, August 14, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 32nd weekly radio Congressional report.
On Tuesday the House had as its guest the President of the Philippine
Republic. President Quirino made a rather good impression, which was aided by
the fact that he spoke to us in English. This was in contrast to the President
of Brazil who spoke in Portuguese to a joint session of the Congress several months
ago. Most of us on that occasion were a little confused, and I think understand-
ably so.
The important business last week on the House legislative calendar was
the proposed changes in the law prescribing minimum wages and maximum hours for
some 20 million employees throughout the United States. The original Fair Labor
Standards Act, which is the accurate but seldom-heard title of the law, was
enacted in 1938 with a 40¢ minimum wage. In reality the increase in the minimum
wage was a bi-partisan measure with only a few of the Southern Democrats opposed
to an increase from 40¢, but for some unknown reason in the past few years no
action has been taken.
The big dispute, and this may account for the delay, was really limited
to whether or not the coverage of the law should be extended in order to include
many new businesses and their employees. Early in this session, the Administra-
tion proposed and supported a bill that would have gone far afield by putting
every little small town corner-store businessman under the terms of the act.
Furthermore, the Administration's original bill planned to give to the Wage-Hour
Administrator almost unlimited rule-making authority.
However, as this session of Congress rolled along it became increasingly
evident that the House was not going to abdicate its legislative authority by
turning over to non-elected public officials such unlimited power to harass and
brow-beat small business.
Several weeks ago the Administration proposed a compromise in the form of
a new bill by Rep. Lesinski, chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, but
even this was unacceptable, so a counter proposal was prepared by Rep. Lucas of
Texas. The Lucas bill had one new and interesting feature, namely, a base minimum
of 65$ per hour with a sliding scale tied to the cost of living index. In other
words, on January 1, 1950 the minimum wage would be set at 65¢ but if the cost of
living went down the minimum wage would be correspondingly less and vice versa if
the cost of living index went up.
The Lucas bill also redrafted many of the coverage provisions where the
Wage-Hour Administrator had gone astray and usurped authority in the last eleven
years. The evidence indicates that on many occasions since 1938 the administrator
has constantly sought to extend his control and authority in direct contravention
of the previous intent of Congress. This is typical bureaucratic procedure and
the House was ready and anxious to do something about the situation.
When the compromise Lesinski bill came to the floor of the House for
consideration the Lucas bill was immediately substituted under permissible parlia-
mentary procedure. The Administration used all its influence to defeat the Lucas
bill but to no avail. On the crucial vote, 225 favored the Lucas substitute and
181 were opposed. Rep. Lesinski and the Administration followers were decidedly
in the minority but despite his adverse vote an Associated Press news story
indicated that Mr. Lesinski was pleased at the outcome. This attitude by a
Representative who fought the bill to the end is a little confusing.
The Lucas bill while going through the House legislative mill was amended
to some extent. The principal change being the rejection of the sliding scale
minimum wage provision and the substitution of a flat 75$ as the wage floor. The
possible complexities of a sliding scale provision spelled defeat for that pro-
posed innovation.
The Senate plans to consider this same legislation next week and I hope
they are as successful as the House in clearing up some of the past abuses and
ambiguities.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with still another of
your regular weekly radio Congressional reports from the nation's capital.
LIBRARY
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERAID R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For Release Sunday, August 21, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 34th weekly radio Congressional report.
In the House for the past few days the spotlight has been focused on the
Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949. The proposal is officially designated as a
bill to promote the foreign policy and provide for the defense and general welfare
of the United States by furnishing military assistance to foreign nations.
This legislation has followed in the shadow of the Atlantic Pact and now
that the Pact has been ratified by the Senate the question arises: Is the United
States necessarily obligated or is it desirable to furnish substantial military
aid because this nation has become a member of a group of nations that will aid
and abet each other in the event any aggressor commits an overt military attack.
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs held exhaustive hearings and the
bill as sponsored by the Administration ran the committee gantlet fairly well
despite serious attack by both the Democratic and Republican committee members.
The divergence of opinion on the committee was so pronounced that 11 of the 25
members signed minority reports indicating partial or complete disapproval of the
program.
The proponents who go down the line with the Administration, the State
Department and our military leaders say we must authorize one billion, 450 million
for military aid to our Atlentic Pact allies, as well as aid for Greece, Turkey,
Iran, Korea and the Philippines. This group contends such arms aid is essential if
the anti-communist nations throughout the world are to resist successfully invasion
by an unfriendly and aggressive enemy. The best argument for the full authoriza-
tion is the unanimous recommendation of skilled military leaders like Generals
Marshall and Bradley, who now warn us against half-hearted defense measures like
those of the 1930's.
Another group on the committee agrees that some military assistance is
essential at the present time but doubt the advisability of going more than half
way immediately. In their estimation any additional military aid after our first
commitment should depend upon the degree of mutual cooperation attained and the
development of agreed, unified plans for the common defense, Although plans are
in the making as yet there has been no opportunity for agreement on a unified defense
program. Rep. Vorys of Ohio and kep. Richards of South Carolina, who sponsor the
50% cut say we should authorize half the requested amount now to show our basic
support and then okay the rest later, only if the participating European nations
forget petty jealousies and rivalries in an effort to fully cooperate in a common
defense program.
There are, however, some on the committee who oppose all military aid. Their
arguments are numerous but can be summed up in the following: The program is mili-
tarily indefensible. It will destroy the integrity of the United Nations. The
probable cost to the United States will be prohibitive. That it is just another
military alliance and that such agreements, allegedly for the preservation of peace,
inevitably end in disaster.
It appears quite evident that the full-scale program as requested by the
Administration will have rough sledding in the House. Unless there is a substantial
reduction in cost the bill might well be and probably should be recommitted for
further study.
During the debate a statement was made by Rep. Vorys and I quote, "The
Administration wants too much too soon for Europe and too little too late for Asia."
That comment well expresses my point of view.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back again next week for still another
edition of your radio Congressional report.
LIBRARY
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For Release Sunday, August 28, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 35th weekly radio Congressional report
from the nation's capital.
Before discussing any of the legislative matters of the past week
I would like to remind all veterans of world Mar II who have had in the past or
now have a national service life insurance policy to be sure to make immediate
application for your premium refunds. The blanks will be available Monday, August
29th through all veteran organizations, the Red Cross, post offices and local
Veterans Administration offices. I hope no veterans have been defrauded by the
fake refund applications which have been distributed throughout the country in
the past few weeks. If so, contact the local V.A. office immediately.
The insurance refund results from an overcharge and ever since a de-
cision of the U. S. Supreme Court over a year ago the V.A. has been struggling
through a maze of red tape to make the repayments to the G.I.'s. A few of us in
Congress were disturbed because of some inexcusable delays and as a result have
been hounding the Veterans Administration urging that the process be expedited in
every way possible. Our valid complaints appear to have been helpful. At least
we have finally dislodged the defunct and legally expired War Assets Administra-
tion from badly-needed office space so the Veterans Administration can take over.
It was a little irritating to find that the war Assets Administration, which was
supposed to move out of their quarters three or four months before, was still
dilly-dallying around apparently without getting the boot even though V.A.
badly needed the space.
I repeat. G.I.'s, get your applications Monday, August 29th. This is
a legitimate repayment based on a decision of the United States Supreme Court.
Those who get their applications in promptly should receive the refunds early
in 1950.
One of the most heartening news announcements in many a day was the
order by the Secretary of Defense that 135,000 civilian employes, in addition to
some officers, would be released from the Federal payroll in the next few months.
If there is no backtracking on this promised economy move there will be a saving
of 200 million in fiscal 1950 and 500 million in 1951, without any decrease in
our military effectiveness,
Several Congressional investigations have occupied the Washington
political spotlight in the past week. A few of the most notorious five percenters
have been exposed and some of the findings paint a pretty dismal and discouraging
picture. The "deep freeze" revelations make one wonder a bit but I consider more
reprehensible the behind-the-scenes aid given certain individuals who wanted to
build a California race track at the very time veterans badly needed housing.
Do you remember how difficult it was in 1946 to get lumber, nails and other
essential home building materials? It now appears that authority to build the
Tanforan race track was given during this crucial period by Certain high-placed
governmental officials. In my estimation this situation has a particularly bad
aroma:
The latest revelations on the B-36 investigation were most surprising
but I believe they reveal the fundamental issue involved, namely, the question of
what branch of the armed services should be assigned the strategic air bombing
missions and whether or not the Navy and the Marine Corps should gradually be
stripped of all wartime offensive assignments. All evidence presented so far
to the House Committee on Armed Services indicates that the Air Force officials
are free and clear of questionable practices in the procurement of the B-36 but
there may be some further developments on the basic issue in dispute.
This is all for now but next week I will discuss the proposed changes
in the Social Security legislation. Until then, thanks for listening.
LIBRARY
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For release Sunday, September 4,1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 36th weekly radio Congressional report
from the nation's capital.
As I said at the conclusion of my last weekly program, I intend to
discuss what the House Committee on Ways and Means has been doing for the last
six months on proposed changes in Social Security legislstion. On August15th
a mammoth 200-page bill was reported out by the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The proposal goes far in meeting the Administration's requests for a broadening
of the coverage and an increase of benefits under the Old Age and Survivors'
Insurance system and the Old Age Assistance program. Its estimated coverage
will include 11 million additional workers, among whom self-employed businessmen
bulk largest, approximating some four million, five hundred thousand, For ex-
ample, however, doctors, dentists, lawyers, editors and engineers are still to
be exempt.
The committee approved half of the disability recommendations which
had born the brunt of lobby pressures. The bill includes the permanently and
totally disabled under the public assistance program but rejects an Administra-
tion proposal to provide against temporary disability, including maternity bene-
fits under the insurance program. Therefore, while the bill extends benefits
"to the grave" by including death lump sum payments, it does not begin benefits
"at the cradle." Under the bill as it came from the committee, all types of
established benefits would be raised rather substantially.
The committee statisticians estimate that the additional cost of the
newly proposed program will be approximately 256 million annually. The present
system now in effect costs approximately 956 million yearly.
If the Committee recommendations are followed Social Security taxes
will be permitted to rise to 1½% on both employers and employes, as required
under present law. In previous years annual Congressional action has frozen the
contribution rate by all parties at 1%.
The Administration requested additional coverage for 20 million people,
including all except those already covered by retirement systems on railroads and
in the Federal government. The committee. recommends the addition of 11 million
under the proposed new coverage. This new coverage would include about
41 million non-farm self-employed businessmen, excepting, however, physicians,
dentists, lawyers, editors and engineers. The new coverage would include 750
thousand domestic servants and about 200 thousand farm processing workers. The
bill would repeal the Gearhart resolution which exempts commission salesmen,
contract loggers, taxi drivers, industrial home workers and others not technically
"employes" under the common law. The new proposal would include about 600 thou-
sand employes of non-profit institutions, who would receive only one-half credit
unless their employers elect to participate in the program. In addition, about
100 thousand Federal employes not now covered by retirement systems would be
included in the new program. The three million, eight hundred thousand employes
of state and local governments could also come under the new program if the local
governing agency approves and there is the further concurrence of the local
government employes themselves who are already covered by their own retirement
systems,
The Committee increased benefits, raising them about 70% for workers
already retired and doubling benefits for those who retire in the future. The
bill provides a minimum retirement payment from 10 to 25 dollars a month and a
maximum benefit payment from 85 to 150 dollars per month.
This is all for the present time but next week I will continue the dis-
cussion of the proposed changes in the Social Security legislation. You can
readily see it is a most important legislative matter. Thanks for listening and
I will be back next week with another edition of your weekly radio Congressional
report.
LIBRARY
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For Release Sunday, September 11,1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 37th weekly radio Congressional report
from the nation's capital.
The program this week will be a continuation of the discussion on pro-
posed changes in the existing Social Security legislation. It is a vast subject
to cover in two five-minute programs but I think we can spot the highlights in
the committee bill in the time allotted.
The committee recommends to Congress the continuation of the present
eligibility rules with some slight modifications, One important change is the
recommendation to raise the limit on earnings by a beneficiary while he or she
is receiving benefit payments. Under the present law the limitation is $15
monthly. Under the proposed law this would be increased to $50 with no limita-
tions at age 75.
The committee followed Administration requests in recommending full
retirement benefits in case of permanent disability but the members of the
committee balked on the issue of temporary disability and maternity benefits.
The committee did, however, go along with Administration requests for lump sum
payments for all insured persons.
A number of veterans felt that they should be given credit for time
spent in the service during World har II and as a result the committee agreed to
a proposal for computing veterans' wages on the basis of #160 a month for every
month in the military service for Social Security purposes.
The tax increases to carry the new load, if Congress follows the com-
mittee recommendations, would be as follows:
1950
3%
1951 thru 1959
4%
1960 thru 1964 5%
1965 thru 1969
6%
1970 and thereafter 6½
The maximum taxable wage is set at $3,600.
The committee agreed to increase Federal contributions to states,
especially those low-income states below the Mason-Dixon line.
The big question in the minds of many, and rightly so, is whether or
not this proposal will be on the agenda for consideration by the House and Senate
during this session of the 81st Congress. The bill might come before the House
sometime during the month of October but it unquestionably will not be considered
by the Senate during 1949. The House Rules Committee will have to act on the
proposal before it can came to the floor of the House and the "insiders" predict
no action even in the House until the second session beginning January 3, 1949.
I believe the Administration does not want to start a row at this stage of the
game.
This voluminous proposal is the result of over six months' hard work
by the House Committee on Ways and Means, Only three members of the committee
voted against the proposal, Because the hearings and deliberations were more or
less secret for most of the six months' period no one in Congress outside of the
committee members had any idea what the bill would be like in its final form.
Because of the intricacies and complications in a proposal of this sort, most of
the experts have withheld judgment until a complete analysis has been made.
There are some who condemn any and all changes without bothering to look at the
need and necessity, or theproposed method of accomplishing results. Others, and
I place myself in this category, think we should go over the proposal with a fine
tooth comb before condemning or praising the committee bill.
The various pressure groups, both for and against a proposal of this
kind, are now generating steam and as a result all members of Congress are beginning
to receive reams of literature condemning or praising the committee bill. No
measure of this sort could possibly satisfy everyone and if I analyze the propa-
ganda received so far, the extremists on both sides say it is a terrible proposal.
Most of the oldtimers in Congress think this indicates the committee did a pretty
FORD
good job in compromising the divergent points of view.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with another edition of
LIBRARY
your weekly radio Congressional report.
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For Release, Sunday, September 18, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 38th weekly radio Congressional report
from the nation's capital.
I know all of you are interested in what has happened to the governmental
reorganization program that was to follow the excellent work of the Hoover Com-
mission. President Truman sent to Congress seven reorganization plans and six
out of the seven survived the 60-day test in Congress and as a result went into
effect at midnight, August 19th. Two of the surviving plans traveled rocky
roads but emerged unscathed. Plan No. 2 struggled by rather serious opposition
in both the House and Senate. Plan No. 7 was never considered by the House and
only discussed for a short time in the Senate. Four of the President's proposals
had no opposition from Congress. The seven plans were all submitted to Congress
in June by President Truman, in accordance with the Reorganization Act passed
earlier during the first session of the 81st Congress, Under this enabling legis-
lation Congress was given 60 days to approve or reject the proposals by the
President.
The Senate blocked President Truman's Reorganization Plan No. 1 by a
60 to 32 roll call vote. This was 11 more than the 49 votes needed to veto the
plan for under the enabling legislation either House can veto a plan submitted by
a constitutional majority, that is, more than one-half the total membership of
the House or Senate.
The main bone of contention in the Senate was whether President Truman's
Reorganization Plan No. 1 did or did not conform with the Hoover Commission re-
commendations. The submitted plan called for the creation of E new department in
the government embracing welfare, education and public health. A new cabinet
post would have been created for the head of the department. Debate on the floor
of the Senate brought out the following points. Senator Donnell of Missouri
said the President had no authority under the Reorganization Act to create a
new cabinet post. Senator McClellan of Arkansas claimed that since Mr. Oscar
Ewing, now head of the Federal Security Agency, and a firm supporter of President
Truman's health insurance program, would no doubt be picked for the proposed
cabinet post, then approval of the President's plan would be a long step toward
socialized medicine. Our own Senator Ferguson said a vote against the plan is
merely an insistance that the Hoover Commission recommendations be followed faith-
fully. Senator Taft contended that the Administration was just picking out parts
of the Hoover plan that gave the President more power. Senator Hunt of Wyoming
said the proposed plan gave government bureaus and agencies more power, more
prestige and more influence than they ever had before. Senator Lodge of Massa-
chusetts said he didn't think the plan should stand or fall on whether the Senate
liked Mr. Oscar Ewing. Senator Humphries of Minnesota contended the Hoover
Commission recommendations were followed and Senator Aiken of Vermont claimed
the plan did not conflict with the Hoover recommendations nor did it invoke the
issue of socialized medicine, compulsory prepaid health insurance or whether
Mr.. Ewing is a good administrator.
Senator Ellender of Louisiana read into the Record during the debate a
telegram from former President Hoover, which telegram gave cautious endorsement
to President Truman's plan but called for full execution of the rest of the Hoover
Commission recommendations regarding health, labor and welfare agencies.
The defeat of Reorganization Plan No. 1 does not mean that Congress
will disapprove any future proposals submitted by President Truman. The set-back
should be a warning that Congress will not accept reorganization proposals unless
they are in full conformity with the proposals of Mr. Hoover and his associates.
I truly hope and expect that the President and the Congress can get together so
the reorganization plans in the future will become effective and the predicted sav-
ings be realized.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back again next week with still another
edition of your weekly radio Congressional report,
FORD LIBRARY
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For release Sunday, September 25, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 39th weekly radio Congressional report
from the nation's canital.
A number of folks at home have repeatedly asked this question: How does
a legislative proposal grow from a mere thought in a person's mind to a law on
the statute books?
The procedure is fundamentally the same in all instances but there are
some slight variations depending on the subject matter. In other words, a new
taxation proposal follows a little different legislative route from a river and
harbor law. Both must be approved by Congress and the president but in the
initial stages the proposals pursue different courses.
Let's be specific and find out how a particular harbor development may
materialize, and I will use as the example the proposed Holland herbor improve-
ments.
Early in 1948 the citizens in Holland indicated a desire for certain new
improvements in their harbor. First, a preliminary survey must be authorized by
either the Senate or House Committee on Public Works. In this instance a resolution
was approved by the House committee of which I am a member and the Army Engineers
immediately undertook the job. Public hearings were held in Holland and the
District Army Engineer, Colonel Colonna at Milwaukee, subsequently made his
report and recommendations. This report must be cleared with the state and local
authorities before being transmitted to the Army Division Engineer at Chicago.
The division engineer reviews the recommendations and sends them with his approval
or disapproval to the Army Board of Engineers in ashington. If this top Army
Board of Engineers in Washington concurs, the recommendations go to the Bureau of
the Budget to see if the plan coincides with the program of the President. If
the Bureau of the Budget says okay, theproposal is presented. to the House or Senate
Committee on Public Works. Extensive committee hearings are then held, with both
proponents and opponents stating their points of view. Oftentimes there is
plenty of local opposition, particularly where the Army Engineers have been asked
to build a flood control dam. Inevitably the citizens who are repeatedly flooded
out want the dam while those whose land must be condemned to build the dem are
opposed.
In the Holland harbor case the matter is now before the Army Board
of Engineers in Washington. During the next session of the 81st Congress I hope
to get a hearing before our committee, providing an omnibus river and harbor and
flood control bill is on the agenda.
Approval by the House and Senate next year would mean that the proposed
improvements would simply be authorized. In other words, the necessary legisla-
tive authority would be granted for the harbor changes. This is the first major
hurdle or obstacle for after this step Congress must still appropriate the money,
and that is often hard to get, believe it or not.
Assuming that Congress makes the necessary legislative authorization
sometime during 1950, we must then strive for an appropriation for construction in
1951. This entails appearances before the House or Senate Committee on Appropria-
tions where the "watchdogs" of the Treasury scan each project with an eagle eye.
If the respective committees on appropriations give a green light by including
the project in the public works bill then the biggest battle is won. Seldom is
a project deleted from a bill on the floor of the House or the Senate. Once
Congressional approval is obtained, the President must sign the bill just as he does
in any legislative matter.
It is a long hard row to hoe and at times interested citizens may be-
come discouraged and disillusioned but that's the way it works. We are on our
way in the case of the Holland harbor, I would say about one-third through the
battle, but unless unexpected obstacles occur we will achieve the desired results.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back again next week with another of
your weekly radio Congressional reports.
LIBRARY
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERAID R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For Release Sunday, October 2, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 40th weekly radio Congressional report.
In a rather amusing way the very controversial issue of farm legisla-
tion and which political party was doing the most for the farmer popped up on the
House floor last Wednesday. On several occasions since the Republican Sioux City
farm conference, Republican representatives have made several speeches in the
House giving the facts as to what transpired in Iowa. This "politicking" was
a little too much for the Democrats so they sent one of their members to the ros-
trum to read a prepared speech. Well, it all ended up with Rep. McCormack of Bos-
ton, Massachusetts and Rep. Sabath of Chicago, Illinois, both big-city Democrats,
saying how much the Democratic party had done for the farmer. Republican Rep.
Clarence Brown, of Ohio, then asked this question, "When is the Sabath-McCormack
farm bill coming to Congress for consideration?"
Leaving aside the humourous incidents, and the question of proper
farm legislation is no easy matter, there are at the moment four possibilities.
All proposals have ardent advocates. Perhaps by the time we adjourn a non-partisan,
non-political solution will result.
Briefly, here is a summary of what has been suggested from all sides.
First, the sc-called Aiken long-range plan which provides for limited production
payments to farmers, an adjusted parity formula, support prices on a sliding scale
of 60 to 90% of parity, depending on supply, and mandatory supports for eight
specified crops. This program, which was enacted by the 80th Congress, will go
into effect January 1, 1950 unless the law is changed. Second, the proposal by
Senator Anderson, formerly Secretary of Agriculture under President Truman, The
Anderson plan is quite similar to the Aiken Act, using the same parity formula
except for the addition of labor costs. The Anderson bill supports prices on a
sliding scale of 75 to 90% of parity, depending on supply, plus mandatory price
supports on 12 specific crops. The third is the Brannan Plan, sponsored by the
Administration, and it would allow market prices on verishable pro-
ducts to fall to the supply and demand level with the U. S. Treasury
making up the difference to farmers by production payments. Also, the Brannan
Plan would have an "income support standard" instead of a "parity" formula. In
addition there would also be price supports at 100% of support standard, a mande-
tory support for ten products with meats and dairy products favored and eligibility
restrictions favoring "family-sized" farms. I might add that the Administration
was willing to give up the "family-sized" farm provision in order to placate the
large southern land owners who definitely are not small farmers. This one point
in the Brannan Plan was a good feature and if we are to adopt anything from the
Brannan Plan certainly we should encourage the "family-sized farm" provision.
Fourth, there is the so-called Gore bill which has already passed the House. This
proposal is principally an extension of the present farm legislation, under which
12 commodities are supported at 90% of parity and in addition ten other products
are supported at 60 to 90% of the old parity formula.
At the moment no one can predict what the eventuel result will be but
several observations are pertinent and true-namely, that the differences are being
compromised and neither the House nor the Senate are apparently willing to swallow
in toto the Brannan Plan.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with another weekly
radio Congressional report.
GERALO FORD LIBRARY
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For release Sunday, October 8,1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 41st weekly radio Congressional report.
The House of Representatives this past week considered and approved
the mammoth 201-page bill aimed at amending the Social Security Act, Inasmuch
as I have discussed in some detail the bill as a whole on previous broadcasts
I will not restate again what the proposal seeks to accomolish. Instead, a
recapitulation of the parliamentary procedure seems apronos. The whole sub-
ject matter of old age security is particularly pertinent at this time, with
the steel and coal strikes being fought on that sole issue.
The Committee on Ways and Means for over two months heard testimony
from all interested parties and then for the next four months pieced together
this all-important bill before presenting it to the House.
It was doubted that the bill would be scheduled for House action during
this session but regardless of any such prognostications by so-called insiders
the bill finally did get the green light from the Committee on Rules.
Normally, important legislation of this sort comes out from the legis-
lative committee under an open rule, which means that the House membership
can amend the committee's proposal as it sees fit. In other words, each
individual member can offer or propose amendments and on each amendment a
separate vote is taken. Then, after all points have been fully considered,
the House must vote on the bill in its entirety.
The opposite end seldom-used procedure is known as a closed rule.
This type of rule in effect stifles or muzzles any individual expression by
the Members of the House for under a closed rule no emendments of any sort can
be offered from the floor. This strait-jacketing parliamentary maneuver forces
a Representative to accept all or none, the good with the bad or vice versa.
There is no other choice.
Regardless of what some may say, a closed rule is undemocratic and
the best evidence is what took place this past week. In the Committee on Ways
and Means a number of decisions on crucial provisions in the bill were decided
by one or two votes. The committee has 25 members, a fraction of the entire
House membership, yet under the closed or gag rule there was no opportunity
given for the House to work its own will. The House took the committee's
version or else.
The first and most crucial vote for all Members was the issue of
whether or not the closed rule itself should be rejected. I voted against
this gag procedure for I sincerely believe the House itself, as a whole, is
fully capable of approving or rejecting amendments to the Social Security Act
or any other legislative proposal. The Complete stifling methods of the
Committee on Rules did prevail by an extremely close vote and with that defeat
died any chance of changing any individual provision in the bill. In my
estimation the adoption of this procedural limitation wes indeed regrettable.
One further attempt was made to remedy some of the defects in the
Ways and Means proposal. Those of us who believe the existing Social Security
Act can be properly modified and strengthened favored a substitute prepared by
Rep. Kean of New Jersey, and it was offered in the motion to recommit. The
motion to recommit in effect said that the original bill, which had been forced
on the House by the gag rule, should go back to committee but that the
Committee on Ways and Means should immediately thereafter report out the
Kean bill as a substitute. The Kean proposal, which did in itself broaden
coverage and extend benefits, could then have come to the floor uninhibited
by a closed rule.
After the motion to recommit was also defeated the battle was lost.
The bill as finally passed does have good features, no one will deny it, but
at the same time there are some new provisions which may, and I repeat MAY,
upset the soundness of the whole program.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with still another
weekly radio Congressional report.
LIBRARY
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For release Sunday, October 16, 1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 42nd weekly radio Congressional report
from the nation's capital.
The 150th anniversary of the founding of the nation's capital will
be celebrated in Washington in 1950. The plan for a National Capital
Sesquicentennial Celebration has considerable merit. Hardly anyone disputes
the general justification for such a proposal but there has been bitter con-
troversy over the method by which such a "birthday party" should be financed.
The big promoters in Washington wanted the Congress to appropriate three million
dollars out of the Federal treasury while a number of us sincerely felt that the
businessmen in the District of Columbia should themselves finance the sesqui-
centennial celebration.
Three times this session the House of Representatives refused to ap-
propriate any money for the celebration but on each occasion the President and
the Senate came to the promoters' rescue. In the final showdown in the House
on Tuesday, the controversy became rather violent. After a bitter debate that
found Democrats and Republicans shouting at each other while Speaker Sam Rayburn
banged his gavel to restore order, a roll-call vote was taken. On the first
tabulation the Republicans, with the assistance of some Democrats, were victorious
163 to 160, but House Majority Leader, Rép. John McCormack, who was keeping a
watchful eye on developments during the roll call, cracked the whip and seven
Democrats switched their votes before the final tally. This last-minute change
of heart by a few members produced a three-million-doller victory for the
"carnival boys." It was amusing to hear the arguments that the Washington birth-
day party would bring additional funds into the Federal treasury because of
increased tourist traffic to the capital. My answer to that is simple: Wont
the celebration here take tourist trade from our home bailiwicks-Michigan and
elsewhere?
Some may wonder why this particular controversy has any significance
as far as the Fifth district is concerned. In the first place, I believe this
three-million-dollar appropriation was totally unnecessary and a gross example of
utter extravagance. Everyone admits that some big-time lobbyists really did
their utmost to pressure this item through the Congress. Rep. Taber told the
House the lobbying for "sesqui" money was the most persistent in his 27 years as
a member of the House of Representatives. He further stated, the lobbyists have
annoyed members to death, particularly the costume jewelers and hot-dog men.
Secondly, and this is likewise important, this same appropriation bill
left out any funds for the activation of the Coast Guard reserve training program.
The Coast Guard, which did a magnificent job as a part of the Navy during World
War II, requested at this time three million dollars to build up an adequate
reserve training program. If the funds were appropriated it was anticipated that
reserve training facilities might be set up in Grand Haven. Admiral Farley,
Commandent of the Coast Guard, had assured me some time ago that as the result
of a recent survey Grand Haven would be given top consideration because of that
community's long-standing interest in the Coast Guard,
I ask, does it make sense to appropriate three million dollars for a
sesquicentennial-some call it a "promoters' dream"--and at the same time refuse
to appropriate an identical sum for the Coast Guard, an organization which is an
integral part of our national defense set-up? I fail to see how there can be
any justification for this "sesqui" money when at the same time we cut out
greatly-needed funds for defense training. The Administration certainly put the
cart before the horse on this deal.
Rep. Jacobs of Indiana, usually an Administration stalwart, hit the nail
on the head when he stated that the promoters in Washington need "weaning." In
the estimation of those of us who voted against the "birthday party" appropriation,
the residents of Washington should develop 2. little more self reliance and stop
depending on Congress each time a little cash is needed for the "kitty."
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with your final radio
Congressional report for this session of the 81st Congress.
LIBRARI
RADIO REPORT TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For Release Sunday, October 23,1949
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford with your 43rd and final weekly radio Congressional
report from the nation's capital.
The first session of the 81st Congress was on its last wobbly legs this
past week. Many had hoped for an earlier expiration date--last Saturday, for
example--but the inevitable always happens, last-minute disnutes, new legislation
that must be rushed through, and as a result we stayed on to the very end.
Several friends have written in recent weeks asking for E quick run-down
or summary of what Congress has or has not accomplished since January 3rd. That
would be quite a job to tackle in the time allotted so I'll just touch on a few
of the high spots.
In the field of foreign affairs, Congress continued E.C.A. and supple-
mented that economic rehabilitation plan with the Military Assistance Program
which is an adjunct to the Atlantic Pact. On the domestic scene, the Taft-
Hartley Act was not repealed or modified although both the Senate and the House
made conscientious attempts to remove alleged discriminatory features in the law.
The Fair Iabor Standards Act, more commonly known as the Minimum Wage Law, was
approved by both the House and the Senate with an increase in the minimum to
75¢ and revisions in the coverage. Rent control was extended to June 30, 1950
with a local decontrol provision and we now have public housing on an expanded
basis. There have been pay adjustments for a number of federal employes, including
military personnel, top-ranking government executives, postal employes and
others. The Congress has also approved an extension of our reciprocal trade
policy, plus the necessary enabling legislation to effectuate the Hoover Commission
recommendations. Some of the Hoover Commission proposals have been put into
effect but in my estimation altogether too few of the recommendations are now in
operation. Federal funds have been appropriated for the operation of the govern-
ment, too much to be sure, but the President and the Administration leaders in
Congress apparently believe in deficit financing so those of us on the minority
side are temporarily hamstrung in this regard.
The "action-not-completed sign" can be hung on a number of proposals
and possibly this means no action even during the second session, which begins
January 3rd, 1950. In this category one finds Federal aid to education, social-
ized medicine, oleomargarine tax repeal, veterans pensions, social security
expansion, F.E.P.C. and other civil rights legislation.
Aside from legislative action or inaction, the highlights of the session
include speeches to the Congress by President Dutra of Brazil, President Quirino
of the Philippines, and Prime Minister Nehru of India. The Prime Minister of
the newly-founded Indian republic made a distinct, and I think favorable, impres-
sion as he addressed the House last week. The chambers of the House and Senate
literally become a Hollywood movie set with numerous flood lights and movie
cameras when such foreign dignitaries address the Congress. One can't bleme the
honored guest for being a bit uneasy.
There have been a number of Congressional investigations, some most re-
vealing, others purely routine. The "five percenter" probe brought out some
startling facts with the disturbing news about "deep freezers and race track
construction during the acute housing shortage. After making a good beginning
this committee has closed up shop. One wonders who issued the stop order and
why.
The B-36 investigation with its complete ramifications has occupied the
spotlight in recent weeks. Everyone knew the initial allegations were only a
starting point for the basic point at issue, which can be stated as follows:
Have recent decisions as to future military plans, particularly in relation
to the future of the Marine Corps and Naval aviation by the Secretary of Defense
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff been harmful to national defense? I believe the
full and complete hearing accorded everyone by the Committee on Armed Services
will be helpful in straightening out the mess.
Thanks for listening, folks, to this and the preceding programs during
this session of the 81st Congress and I'll be back next January when Congress
reconvenes.
LIBRARY
WEEKLY CONGRESSIONAL REPORT
by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Jr., 5th, Mich.
For release Sunday, January 8th, 1950
This is Jerry Ford with the first of a new series of weekly radio
Congressional reports aimed at giving you my impressions of the news here in
Washington.
The big event of the week was of course the President's State of
the Union message to a joint session of the House and Senate. Such an occasion
always packs the gallery. Visitors like to see the Senators in a body march
into the House chamber. The Senators are followed by the always colorful en-
tourage of foreign diolomats. Then the President's cabinet and finally Mr.
Truman himself escorted to the rostrum by three members of the House and three
from the Senate.
This year the ceremony was even more impressive than usual for the
House chamber was completely reconditioned and renovated during the past year.
The steel beams and girders, that were installed as an emergency measure a few
years ago when the ceiling threatened to collapse, have been removed. The wells
in the visitors' gallery have been brightened considerably by the application
of Williamsburg blue wallpaper or paint. The architects have done an excellent
job in good taste. The House and Senate chambers are safer, more attractive
and more comfortable for visitors and members of Congress.
The President's State of the Union message, although somewhat
conciliatory in tone and manner of presentation, was principally a reiteration
of the Fair Deal legislative program. Mr. Trumen cautioned Congress against
"the folly of attempting budget slashes" which might cripole "essential" expendi-
tures, and he asked in addition for a "moderate amount of additional revenue."
The text of the President's speech was a general review of the problems
confronting the United States domestically and in foreign affairs. In the field
of domestic legislation he recommended sixteen goals or objectives and on the
question of foreign affairs there were five rather specific proposals. In most
instances there was no discussion of what should be done concretely to meet the
various problems although close scrutiny of the speech indicates his firm belief
in such programs as the Brannan Farm Plan, socialized medicine, and other pro-
posals for the extension of bureaucrstic control and regimentation.
One amusing incident occurred while the President read his speech.
Mr. Truman condemned the 80th Republican Congress for reducing your personal
income taxes. This statement in the speech brought chuckles and laughter from
Republicans and a good-natured smile from the President who obviously intended
the comment for purely political purposes.
One significant omission should be moted. Mr. Truman rather com-
olstely ignored the Hoover Commission recommendations for the reorganization of
the federal government. I hope his failure to indicate support for this program,
which will save an estimated four billion dollars annually, does not mean he will
take no affirmative action in this regard.
The President spoke of the achievements of the European Recovery
Program, the Atlantic Pact and the Military Aid program in stopping the spread
of Communism, particularly in Europe. However, he made no direct mention of the
crisis we now face in China and the Far East, which has resulted from Secretary
Acheson's program of too little aid too late. I believe the Administration
and the President must immediately define our policy toward the communist-
dominated Chinese government. The United States has already dilly-dallied too
long and as a result the State Department finds itself faced with almost im-
possible alternatives. A strong statement of policy in the President's speech
might well have strengthened the anti-communist forces in China.
Thanks for listening, folks, and Jerry Ford, your Congressman,
will be back again next week with another edition of your weekly radio Congress-
ional reports.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
RADIO REPORT TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERAID R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For release Sunday, January 15, 1950
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, with the second edition of your weekly
radio Congressional report.
No discussion is entertaining or enjoyable by the recitation of voluminous
figures, yet on occasion it is wise to examine a few cold facts, laborious as
that chore might be. Because President Truman a few days ago presented his all-
important budget message to the Congress and to the citizens of the United States,
and because our federal fiscal policies are of prime importance to us all, I will
review the facts and proposals in the President's speech.
The Administration wants Congress to appropriate over 42 billion dollars for
the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1950. The President anticipates approximately
37 billion dollars in federal revenue for the same 12-month period. Simple
arithmetic leaves the President in the unhappy position of strongly advocating
another year of bankrupt financing. If the Congress goes along with Mr. Trumen's
proposed budget, the federal government will again operate in the red, this time
to the extent of five billion, one hundred million.
Many raise the question, does President Truman himself dictate all fiscal
policies in Washington? The answer is precisely this; The President is not all-
powerful but he wields a big stick and when Mr. Truman wants to crack the whip on
fiscal or other legislative matters his majority party members in the House and
Senate usually fall into line. In other words, as long as President Truman openly
advocates, and the Democratic party is committed to a continuation of deficit
spending, it will be a rough and tumble fight for the Republicans or any others
to make any sizeable dent in the budget requests.
Now that Congress has heard the President's proposals the House Committee on
Appropriations initiates the job of outting the money requests into legislation.
Witnesses testify before the committee, conferences are held, end finally a bill
or bills come to the floor of the House. When the legislation is finally approved
by the House it follows a similar process in the Senate, Eventually the completed
legislation goes back to the President for his approval or veto.
Many ask who is to blame for our deficit financing policy. As Al Simth used
to say, "Let's look at the record." Last year there were eleven major approprie-
tion bills. The House of Representatives appropriated less money than Mr. Truman
demanded in ten out of the eleven cases. The record of the Senate was also better
than the President's from the economy point of view. As a result, the only hope
for any real economy rests with the Congress.
It should be of interest to know where your tax dollar will be spent if Mr.
Truman's deficit spending policy is approved. Thirty-two per cent out of every
tax dollar would be for national defense. Fifteen per cent for veterans' benefits.
Thirteen per cent for interest on the national debt. Eleven per cent for our
international or foreign sid programs. Six per cent for domestic social welfare
programs and 23 per cent for all other government expenses.
What is the source of our federal tax dollar? The breakdown, if Congress
carries out Kr. Truman's policies would be as follows: Individual income taxes:
41%; corporation taxes: 23%; excise taxes: 18%; new taxes and proposed borrowing:
12%; customs and other miscellaneous taxes: 6%.
We should note with considerable interest the President's thoughts about new
taxes and his apparent policy on the issue of the wartime-imposed excise or luxury
taxes. More details on this when the President unveils his specific requests for
more federal taxes.
Frankly, the situation is critical. If Congress follows Mr. Truman's recom-
mendations the federal debt will go still higher. It is discouraging to see no
apparent desire for economy. An increase in taxes will only impose 2 further
drain upon the economy of the country. The only alternative is for Congress to
be hard-boiled and tight-fisted in this financial crisis.
RADIO ADDRESS TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., 5TH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For release Sunday, January 22,1950
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford, your Congressman, with the third weekly radio Congres-
sional report during the second session of the 81st Congress.
In the first two weeks of the session there was very little legislative
action in the House of Representatives, The fireworks, however, are now popping
all over the cepital. Apparently, the tranquility since January 3rd was nothing
but the celm before the storm for extreme bitterness and violent partisenship
now prevails.
On Thursday a nronosal came to the floor of the House calling for 150 million
dollars in finanical aid for Korea. You undoubtedly recall that after World War
II by agreement it was decided that approximately one half of Korea was to be
temporarily under the jurisdiction of the U. S. and the other half under the
protective wing of Soviet Russia, The millions of Koreans who were freed from
the yoke of the Jananese dictatorship live on a peninsula between Manchuria and
the islands of Japan.
The State Department under Secretary i cheson has strongly urged a 150
million dollar grant of American funds for the development of Korean coal mines,
electric power plants, and transportation facilities. The Administration leaders
contend the U. S. must maintein a "toe-hold" in the Far East and, according to
them, the American portion of Korea which is below the 38th narallel, is our last
chance of keeping a base on the mainland of Asia.
The opnonents of Korean aid opened up on the floor of the House the entire
issue of U. S. foreign policy in the Pacific area with particular reference to
China. The Administration spokesmen during the debate were hard put to defend
logically and adequately the lack of en !merican policy for the combating of
communist forces in China. It was difficult for the disciples of the State
Department viewpoint to explain why the U. S. should go all out to whip commun-
ism in Europe and at the same time pursue a whimpering retreat when the communists
overrun Asia.
The Korean aid bill was condemned as "conscience money" to make up for our
failure to help our friends and allies in China. The Administration originally
requested 150 million for this foreign rehabilitation project. The opposition
pointed out that the 150 million was just 8 sterter-that in the end a total of
385 million would be needed to build up Korea industrially.
The question was raised: "Can southern Korea be defended by the native
military forces if the Russians decide to cross the border?" Everyone admitted
that Korea is defenseless egainst the Soviet military machine. The next question
"If Korea can't be defended, why should the U.S. give at least 150 million to
the Koreans at this time?" The answers seemed unconvincing, particularly in
view of the Administration's China policy.
The members of the House who have favored a strong anti-communist foreign
policy, and I put myself in that category, have lost faith in the State Depart-
ment. The U.S. during World har II was committed to a policy of a free China.
The state Department now ignores that pledge. Instead of helping our anti-
communist friends in China, Secretary Acheson wants to spend millions in Korea
which is an isolated country, 500 miles from Vledivostok and 7000 miles from
San Francisco. The logic of such 8 program is confusing to say the least.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back again next week with another edition
of your radio Congressional report.
LIBRARY
RADIO REPORT TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
For release Sunday, January 29,1950
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford, your Congressman, with your fourth weekly radio
Congressional report.
In the past week two items of interest dominated the scene in the House
wing of the Capitol. On Monday the Congress received the President's tax message
and last Friday the House decided an important issue on parliamentary procedure.
Parliamentary activities as a general rule are not of widespread in-
terest. I feel, however, that what transpired in the House in the last few days
is of fundamental importance to you as citizens so I will discuss the situation
in some detail, giving my views on what seems significant.
On January 3, 1949, when the 81st Congress convened, the rules of the
House were changed so that legislative proposals in the future would not be
bottled up in the Committee on Rules. Previously, this committee of twelve
members of the House had refused in certain cases to allow various bills to come
to the floor for consideration by all members. A year ago I voted to remove this
arbitrary power of the Committee on Rules.
This year the issue bobbed up again. Some argued that the House should
give the old power back to the Rules Committee because that was the only way the
Truman Fair Deal program could be defeated. Those who oppose dictatorial power
in the Committee on Rules believe that each legislative proposal should stand or
fall on its merits. AS you know, the proposal to change the rule was defeated
and as a result all members of the House will be called upon to stand up and be
counted on a number of controversial issues in the months ahead.
Frenkly, it would have been very easy to vote to put all the old power
back in the hands of the twelve members on the Rules Committee. Sixty-four
Republicans, including myself, voted to continue the liberalized rule. It was our
feeling that the Committee on Rules should not be used as a shield. I firmly
believe that all proposals, good or bad, should be decided strictly on their merits.
I intend to fight any and all unsound legislation. The best method of defeating
bad legislation is to expose weaknesses by full debate and discussion and not by
hiding behind the arbitrary power and protective wing of the Rules Committee.
The President's tax message can be summed up as follows: Mr. Trumen
wants no decrease in federal revenues. He does favor repeal of most wartime-
imposed excise taxes but at the same time the President seeks additional taxes
to make up for the lost revenue from the excise repeal. Mr. Truman implies that
he will veto any tax bill which repeals excise taxes and does not add more tax
revenue from other sources.
In all fairness, there are several tax loopholes that can and should be
plugged, but the President seeks to go beyond that objective. In other words, Mr.
Truman seeks to add more tax burdens in areas where there is already a heavy
load. At the moment no one can predict the eventual outcome but in the meantime,
while the Committee on Ways and Means is working on the problem, determined
efforts will be made in the House and Senate by Republicans and some Democrats to
obtain immediate excise tax repeal.
Thanks for listening, friends, and I'll be back next week with another
edition of your weekly radio Congressional report.
FORD LIBRARY
RADIO REPORT TO HIS CONSTITUENTS BY
REP. GERALD R. FORD, JR., FIFTH DISTRICT, MICHIGAN
for release Sunday, February 5,1950
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This is Jerry Ford, your congressman, with your fifth weekly radio
Congressional report.
For the past several weeks the House of Representatives has gone
through the pretense of legislative deliberations but in actuality very little
constructive legislation has resulted. It is unfortunate but true that some
pretty effective filibustering has been going on in the House since we re-
convened January 3rd.
You might well ask, What's behind this legislative slowdown? The
answer is simple but the issue is complex. The Southern Democrats are un-
alterably opposed to F.E.P.C. legislation. Northern Democrats allegedly favor
Rep. Powell's F.E.P.C. bill. Most Republicans seem to approve some sort of
F.E.P.C. although I doubt if there is much support for the so-called Powell
bill as it now stands.
The net result of the bitter dispute within the ranks of the Democratic
party is a very hermful legislative slowdown. It is difficult to filibuster a
bill to death in the House but deliberate delaying tactics can prevent the
consideration of a bill. The Southerners are doing just that and Speaker Sam
Rayburn of Texas seems to be cooperating with his colleagues below the Mason-
Dixon line.
For example, under the Rules of the House Speaker Rayburn has the
right to recognize any chairman of a standing committee under the so-called
21-day rule, when certain requirements have been fulfilled. Last week Mr.
Rayburn saw fit to recognize Rep. Peterson instead of Rep. Lesinski. Rep.
Peterson wanted to bring up bills for Alaska and Hawaii while Mr. Lesinski
allegedly wanted to consider F.E.P.C. Both Peterson and Lesinski from the floor
of the House were saying, "Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker." Sem Rayburn obviously
overlooked Rep. Lesinski and carefully picked out Mr. Peterson of Florida.
Another sideline on the F.E.P.C. battle was a recent dispute between
Rep. Clarence Brown of Ohio and Rep. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. Seems that
F.D.R., Jr. lambasted his Republican colleague for voting as a member of the
Rules Committee against F.E.P.C. On Monday Clarence Brown answered the Roose-
velt accusations one by one and then brought out some interesting facts about
young Roosevelt's record in the House. Rep. Brown checked the voting record
of Franklin D., Jr. and for your information I'll read part of Brown's speech
and I'm now quoting:
"I checked this morning, and I find that on 129 roll calls in the
House between the time he entered it and January 27, Mr. Roosevelt was absent
on 69 roll calls, or failed to respond, and answered on only 60 roll calls;
that on 65 roll calls on important measures in that period of time, he voted
on only 30, and was absent 35 times when the roll was called, or at least feiled
to answer.
"In
conclusion,
let me speak just a few words of general
political philosophy. I would like to say to all of the Members of the House
that I am convinced that no one can learn the rules of procedure
for this House in any New York night club. I am also convinced
.....
that
no one can solve any of these great social and legislative problems which
confront us through nocturnal meditations on Fifty-second Street. We can
solve them only by staying on the job right here."
May I add this from my own experiences, a Representative should be
on the job in Washington or else quit and take up some other occupation.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with another edition
of your radio Congressional report.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
FEBRUARY 12, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with your
sixth weekly radio congressional report.
The legislative mill really moved forward this last few days.
The House tackled several problems which are of widespread interest, one
a domestic issue, namely a proposal to increase postal rates, and the
other a foreign policy issue, namely the Far Eastern Economic Assistance
bill.
In the fiscal year 1949, the Post Office Department operated with
a deficit of $550,000,000. For a number of reasons the Postal Service
has had annual operating deficits practically every year. The Hoover
Commission came to the conclusion that the department could reduce its
costs by further mechanization of its methods of handling the mail and
by eliminating all politics and political influence in personnel policies.
Others contend the deficits could be avoided by cutting out certain
alleged subsidies to airlines and shipping interests. The Postmaster
General wanted the deficit reduced by an increase in various rates.
In addition the Department suggested certain restrictions on the several
special services rendered by the Postal Service.
The opponents to an increase in rates and a reduction in service
contended the Post Office Department should not be operated on a self-
sustaining basis but rather as a public service agency just like the
Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Interior. Those who opposed
an increase also argued that any boost would adversely affect business
operations. In addition it was pointed out that much of the current
deficit resulted from various free mail privileges accorded government
agencies.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page Two
The debate on this very technical bill brought out a serious
difference of opinion among members of the House Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service. A minority report was filed pointing out that the
Committee had failed to give adequate consideration to all the complex
problems presented by the legislative proposal. After listening to all
the debate and analyzing the bill and its various amendments, I concluded
it was best to recommit the bill for further committee action. My deci-
sion was supported by the recommendations of the Hoover Commission which
contended the real solution was not an increase in rates.
Also this past week the House reconsidered the question of
economic aid to several of our Pacific Allies including Korea and the
anti communist Chinese forces on Formosa. Several weeks ago I voted
against a bill which would have authorized a substantial sum of U. S.
dollars for economic assistance to the Republic of Korea. At that time
there had been some very wishy washy Far Eastern policy statements by
the Secretary of State. Mr. Acheson was seemingly ready to abandon the
Chinese once and for all. Much to the Administration's surprise the
Korean aid bill was defeated. This licking has had two beneficial re-
sults: first, the State Department has now come to realize that Congress
has something to say about our foreign policy. For the past few years
the State Department has been prone to make policy decisions and then
tell Congress to rubber stamp the action. The defeat of the original
Korean aid bill has awakened Mr. Acheson to the appreciation that Congress
and the Executive branch of the government must work in partnership in
the determination of our foreign policy.
Secondly, the initial defeat brought a change in the State De-
partment's attitude toward anti communist forces in China. The new Far
Page Three
Eastern aid bill which was approved by the House authorized, on behalf of
China and Formosa, the expenditure of limited funds already appropriated.
I voted on this occasion for the proposal because our State Department
has now reversed its former position and taken a strong stand against the
Soviet dominated forces on the Chinese mainland.
Thanks for listening friends, and I'll be back next week with
another edition of your regular radio report from the nation's capital.
GERALD FORD UBRAPT
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
FOR USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
FEBRUARY 19, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - This is Jerry Ford with your 7th weekly radio
Congressional report.
Congressional business this past week has been at a standstill
in the House. Out of deference to the birthday of Abraham Lincoln the
House and Senate did very little business on Monday or Tuesday. Wednesday
was a bit different. Only one bill was approved but the parliamentary
atmosphere was fortunately cleared on an issue which has been bumped
from pillar to post ever since the Congress convened in January of this
year. It now appears that after considerable stalling, hemming and haw-
ing the issue of F.E.P.C. will be brought to the floor of the House for
full consideration and debate.
For the past six weeks the two widely divergent elements in
the Democratic Party have been bitterly feuding with each other over
this very serious legislative issue. The southerners want no part of
F.E.P.C. and have done their utmost to prevent the proposal from getting
to the floor for a hearing on its merits. Some of the northern Democrats
have been pushing just as hard the other way.
The end result of this inter-party fighting and feuding has been
the totally unnecessary delay of other important legislative proposals
and further the full consideration of some minor bills and problems that
could have well been approved on the consent calendar. Wednesday was a
typical example of the poor programming. It was calendar Wednesday and
on that day the Committee on the District of Columbia was supposed to
have the floor for any bill that committee had previously approved.
Finally, after 8 roll calls, with each roll call taking about
25 minutes, the District Committee eventually brought up a bill to permit
the federal incorporation of the Girl Scouts of America. This bill was
entirely meritorious. No one denied the desirability of putting the
Girl Scouts on the same basis as the Boy Scouts who now have a federal
charter. Needless to say, the bill was approved.
However, during the hour of debate it was finally agreed that
F.E.P.C. legislation by one method or another would be on the agenda next
week. It can come to the floor in one of several methods. If the Com-
mittee on Rules takes the necessary action, there will be three or four
days debate followed by an item by item vote on each provision and any
smendments thereto. The bill could be brought up by a discharge petition
or on calendar Wednesday. If either of these methods are used, debate
will be seriously restricted and the pros and cons not adequately considered.
The question of whether or not the Congress should approve a fair
employment practice law is a major issue. There is much of importance to
be said on both sides. In my judgment the bill should come to the floor
and be given a full and complete hearing by the members of the House. There
will be acrimonious debate, charges and counter charges, but eventually the
issue will be decided on its merits and I hope without the befogging of
political implications.
It is my intention on the next program on which the bill is sched-
uled to discuss the pros and cons of F.E.P.C. The issue is complicated by
the intense emotional factor. In the end the decision or decisions must be
made on the basis of clear thinking and all the facts.
Thanks for listening friends, and I'll be back next week with
another edition of your regular Congressional radio report.
FORD LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
FOR USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
FEBRUARY 26, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - This is Jerry Ford with your 8th weekly radio Con-
gressional report.
Last Wednesday at 12 noon a marathon session began in the
House of Representatives. Adjournment finally came in the wee small hours
of the next day after the House had been in continuous session for 15 hours
and 20 minutes. The longest session in 6 years.
In this 15 hour period the tide of battle ebbed and flowed.
One roll call followed another until a final total of 11. As dawn approached
faces became tightly drawn; eyes and voices weary; tempers short; arguments
faltering and illogical. It was truly a survival of the fittest.
At the start of the 15 hour session the House galleries were
packed with partisans, pro and con. Initially the spectator enthusiasm
was intense but as the proceedings progressed hour after hour the galleries
thinned until they were virtually empty. At least the members of the House
outlasted the spectators.
It took the first 5 hours for the F.E.P.C. issue to get to the
floor for consideration on its merits. The next 7 hours were devoted to
debate, on whether or not the House should approve an F.E.P.C. bill with
strict and rigid enforcement provisions or one, which to start with, relies
on education and conciliation.
At midnight many of the members became a little weary. The
House almost adjourned out of sheer fatigue. Some of the older members
thought it time to quit but after a momentary lull in the debate while several
record roll calls were held the battle began anew. Finally it was agreed
that debate on the McConnell bill and all amendments thereto should be con-
cluded at 2:30 AcMo The McConnell bill had been submitted as a substitute
for the proposal advocated by Representative Powell of New York.
The Powell bill goes sled length in providing cease and desist
orders by another and new government agency supported by Court injunctions
and criminal sanctions. It is very similar to the state laws now in exist-
ence in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut. The McConnell
bill adopts a different approach, namely education and mediation.
There is no denial that we in the United States should sincerely
and seriously work toward the elimination of any discrimination based on race,
creed or color. The issue, however, is how to solve the problem most effective-
ly. Should we start slowly and yet work surely toward the desired result by
an educational program? Or, should the Congress approve legislation which
immediately sets up a new Federal bureau that has rather unlimited enforcement
provisions, both criminal and injunctive.
In the end the Powell bill was defeated. The McConnell bill
got House approval. I voted for the moderate proposal rather than support
the extreme view of Representative Powell. The matter now goes to the Senate
and it will be interesting to see the developments on the other side of the
capital.
In closing let me comment about an official chart dated February
22, 1950, which shows the exact status of major bills in the second session.
This chart indicates zero action even though Congress has been in session 8
weeks. Certainly the Administration leadership cannot be proud of this record.
Thanks for listening. I'll be back next week with another
edition of weekly radio reports.
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
FOR USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
MARCH 5, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - This is Jerry Ford, your Congressman, with the
ninth weekly radio Congressional report.
Let me at the outset comment on the crisis precipitated by
the prolonged 9 month old coal strike. In my estimation we are in this
disastrous mess principally because the Taft-Hartley national emergency
provisions were not invoked by the President soon enough or with suffi-
cient vigor. It's another case of too little executive action too late.
The Legislative mill has been grinding steadily for the past
week. The matters have been of a routine nature but several proposals
which have been considered by the House do deserve some attention on
this broadcast.
For over a year the Congress has worked on legislation affect-
ing the basing point problem. It is a vague but important issue. The
bill would permit freight absorption by steel producers, cement manu-
facturers and other similar industries where there has been no wrongful
collusion or combinations in restraint of trade. This remedial legis-
lation is necessary because of a recent decision by the United States
Supreme Court which has been improperly interpreted by some of the
lower federal courts to mean that no freight absorption of any kind
is permissible.
The House took affirmative action and I voted for the motion.
If you had been on the floor of the House I'm sure you would have done
likewise. If this legislation is not approved there will be consider-
able concentration of major industries in and around cities like Pitts-
burgh and a corresponding loss of industry in other areas. Nonpassage
of this bill would definitely harm Westem Michigan industrial areas.
For example many of our steel fabricating plants would close down
and move from their present location. The proposed legislation for
obvious reasons is vitally important for small business. Furthermore
it should be approved for national defense purposes for the U.S.
would be extremely vulnerable if all our industrial plants were highly
centralized. The need for immediate action was clearly evident to a
majority in the House.
The House also approved a bill to set up a National Science Founda-
tion. The proponents argued that the United States needs a new federal
agency to sponsor and correlate scientific research. Some opponents
contended that the federal government could not afford an additional
appropriation of 15 million dollars each year. In addition some felt
the bill was poorly drafted. The opponents in this latter category
claimed the personnel security requirements were inadequate. The re-
cent atomic spy disclosures in England and the Alger Hiss incident
emphasized the need for extreme caution in the protection of our vital
military secrets.
The debate on the House floor brought out clearly and forcibly the
difference between basic and applied science. In recent years the U.S.
has been behind European nations in basic scientific research. Basic science
involves the fundamentals while applied science is the practical application
of the original research. If the National Science Foundation legislation
had been limited to basic science the bill would have been more enthusiast-
ically received.
Although it was approved I voted in the negative. Why? Well, it
means a new 15 million dollar additional burden on the Treasury, a new fed-
eral bureau or commission, and furthermore, and this is important, the pur-
pose of the bill was not limited to basic science.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with still another
report from the nation's capital.
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
FOR USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
MARCH 12, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - This is Jerry Ford, your Congressman, with the 10th
weekly radio congressional report from the nation's capital.
Should Alaska and Hawaii be admitted to the Union? In other words,
hould the United States comprise 50 instead of 48 states? The House of
Representatives acted favorably in both cases. The bill for Alaska received
a vote of 186 to 146 and the Hawaiian authorization proposal was approved
260 to 110. Both bills now ga to the Senate where it is rumored there will
be considerable opposition from members of both major political parties.
Reports indicate some Senaters will not move or er to make room for additional
colleagues.
Under the House bills for Alaska and Hawaii each of the new states
would have two Senators and one Representative. If the Senate acts favor-
ably this would increase the number of Senators from 96 to 100 and the
membership in the House from 435 to 437.
The opponents of Statehood for the two territories used a number of
arguments which I am sure were repeats or retreads from the days when other
states were admitted to the Union.
A number of Representatives from New York, both Democrats and Republicans,
vigerously fought the proposals. Here is a typical statement from one New
York member of the House, and I quote, "Surely the peoples of New York and
other large states should not blindly acquiesce in the further dilution of
their already under-representation in the Senate by the admission of addi-
tional Senators of very small communities. New York State, with a population
of 14 million people, is represented by two Senators only. Yet we are asked
to give two Senators to the 500,000 population of Hawaii and two Senators to
the population of 100,000 in Alaska." End quote.
This type of argument is a good illustration of the "haves" fighting
the "have nots". The same argument has been used repeatedly when other states
sought admissien. These statements today simply echo the debates of yesterday.
Certainly PO such harm has resulted from the admittance of some of our newer
states,
Here are some interesting facts. Hawaii now has a larger population
than any ether state at the time of admission to the union with the exception
of Oklahoma. Also, Alaska's present population is larger than that of at
least 10 states at the time of their admission into the Union.
After listening to the arguments pro and con it seemed logical and de-
sirable to favor statehood in both instances. There was substantial evidence
that both territories are ready to join the Union and furthermore their ad-
mission new will materially strengthen our vitally important national defense
set-up.
For a moment let's turn to a domestic matter, one that has been bitterly
debated in the Congress and elsewhere for over half a century. The Congress
during this past week completed legislative action for the repeal of all
federal taxes on colored oleomargarine. When the bill was before the House
during the last session in 1949 I voted for the repeal of such taxes. Early
this year the Senate took similar action but in approving the repeal legislation
a dangerous "sneaker" provision was included in the Senate bill. The so-called
"Sneaker" provision grants vast new authority to the Federal Trade Commission.
The provision was hooked on to the oleo repeal bill without any testimony or
hearings before the appropriate Senate and House Committees. The inclusion of
this provisien is a prime example of bad legislative procedure. Many who
favored the repeal of the taxes on oleomargarine did not approve the legislation
in its final form because of this new far-reaching and possibly dangerous
Federal Trade Commission authority. It is regrettable thet the two issues
became intermingled.
LIBRARY
Thanks for listening friends, and I'll be back next week with another
congressional report from Washington.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
FOR USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
MARCH 19, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - This is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, with the
11th weekly radio report from the nation's capital.
Rather appropriately on Wednesday, March 15th, the chamber of the
House was filled with acrimonious political comment from both sides of
the aisle on the issue of taxation. Some accusations made sense; other
statements were political pure and simple. Democrats were chided by their
Republican colleagues for the excessive federal tax burdens including
excises. The Democrats countered by attacking their traditional scapegoat
and whipping post, the 80th Congress, and further denounced the income
tax reduction law approved by that Republican controlled Congress.
Former Speaker of the House Rep. Martin, Republican of Massachusetts;
advised and suggested that if the Democratic leadership was so dis-
turbed and upset by the Republican tax reduction law of several years
ago, President Truman and his leaders in the House and Senate could
now, if they so desired, introduce legislation r epealing the law. The
81st Congress being heavily Democratic supposedly could and would
follow the recommendations of the President and his Congressional
leaders if they were sincere in their desire to reimpose the old tax
rates which the 80th Congress had reduced. As you will recall, this
tax reduction law removed over 7 million low income citizens from the
payment of income taxes with 71% of the tax relief adcruing to people
making $5,000 a year or less.
Some of the comments on taxation resulted from the problems
presently confronting the House Committee on Ways and Means which
has the initial responsibility on tax matters. As you well know,
there is considerable demand for the repeal of the wartime imposed
excise taxes. These taxes were initially imposed prior to and during
World War II in order to curtail the use of certain commodities and
services necessary in the war effort. Admittedly the continued exist-
ence of such taxes after the end of the war has resulted in serious
unfair discrimination against workers and employers in certain industries.
Consumers also have become rightfully indignant.
For the past six weeks, the members of the Committee on Ways and
Means have heard considerable testimony as to the need and necessity
for immediate action. On Monday, March 13th, the following resolution
was presented to the committee by Rep. Woodruff, Republican of Michigan,
and I quote, "Whereas the public hearings have revealed many areas
in which certain excise taxes are causing numerous hardships by reason
of consumer resistance, production cut-backs and unemplcyment; and
whereas the public hearings have further revealed that it is essential
to relieve this condition at once, I move that the committee immed-
iately prepare excise relief legislation providing for reduction and/or
elimination of excise taxes to relieve this condition and report such
legislation to the House forthwith prior to consideration of other
revisions of the Internal Revenue Code." end quote. The resolution was
defeated 15 to 10 with all Democrats on the Committee voting against
the resolution and all Republicans voting in the affirmative.
The resolution was defeated by the Democratic members of the com-
mittee because of President Truman's insistance that there be no tax
reduction including excise tax cuts unless various additional or new
taxes are imposed. In fact, Mr. Truman in his tax message to the Congress
implied that he would veto any excise tax repeal bill if it did not
provide for an increase in federal revenues from other sources.
It is regrettable that the President and his Congressional leaders will
not permit the House and Senate to consider the excise tax repeal leg-
islation immediately and thereafter work on legislation aimed at
closing tax loopholes. The President by forcing the consideration
of both problems simultaneously will cause unnecessary delay. This
delay will bring additional untold hardships on consumers, small
businessmen, and workers and employers in various businesses.
Thanks for listening friends, and I'll be back next week with
still another Congressional report from the nation's capital.
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE
IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - MARCH 26, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN This is Jerry Ford, your Congressman, with the 12th
weekly radio report from the nation's capital.
This past week the big issue concerned the cooperative housing bill.
The Senate had previously stricken the "coop" provision but the bill was
brought to the floor of the House with that proposal still included. After
some initial sparring with the proponents trying to sweeten up the proposal
the cooperative feature was defeated 218 to 155.
Here are some facts of interest, Under the controversial section of
the bill as it was originally introduced 250,000 housing units would have
been built. An entirely new federal agency would have been set up calling for
approximately 5000 additional federal employees. Down payments totaling
5% of the cost were required. In other words, $400 on an $8,000 home and
$300 on a $4,000 residence. The interest rates were set at 3% with the term
of the mortgages 50 to 60 years.
During the debate I attempted to evaluate the arguments pro and con.
Was the legislation needed in our district? Was it essential in the nation
as a whole? Although each individual representative must consider the
country's over-all needs, we also have a definite responsibility to reflect
the views, understand the problems and seek answers for the citizens who
live in our own congressional districts. With this in mind, I voted to
strike out the cooperative provision. I did, however, vote for the hous-
ing bill after that undesirable section was removed. The regular F.H.A.
parts of the bill were definitely needed now and in the future.
There are many sound arguments against the cooperative proposal.
In the first place, it was definitely discriminatory against the 4023
veterans of World War II in Kent and Ottawa Counties who have already pur-
chased homes under the G.I.bill. These G.I.S who bought their homes at
4% with a 25 year mortgage would have gotten very unfair treatment if
the Administration bill had been okayed, for under the cooperative proposal
new home purchasers could have acquired homes at 3% with mortgages running
50 to 60 years. I certainly have no desire to penalize the 4000 G.I.s in
our district who have already committed themselves for the purchase of a
home.
What does a 50 to 60 year mortgage mean? Let's take this example.
John Jones is 25 years old. He buys a house with a 50 year mortgage. This
means John Jones will pay for his home when he reaches the age of 75 years.
If it was a 60 year mortgage, Mr. Jones would be 85 years old before all
payments were made. This unsound provision was in the cooperative housing
section and it didn't make sense to me.
One of the big problems facing all G.I.S when they want to buy a
home is how and where to get that down payment, however small. Would the
"to-op" provision in the housing bill have remedied that problem? No, it
would not have. In fact, the G.I. or any other purchaser would have had to
pay 5% down in order to qualify as a cooperator. It is interesting to
note that right today under existing laws a veteran of World War II has a
better opportunity to buy or build a home in Grand Rapids without a down
payment by combination G.I.-F.H.A. loans than he would have if the co-op
proposal had become law.
The proponents of the cooperative provision repeatedly stated it
would not cost the federal treasury any money. Theoretically that may be
correct; actually that statement is untrue. The provision would have set up a
new federal agency with approximately 5000 additional federal employees. The
annual cost, just for the administration of the law, would be at least 20
million dollars each year. At a time when the federal treasury is deep in
red ink and at a time when Uncle Sam owes 255 billion, any further financial
burdens seemed unwise to me, particularly when there were so many discrim-
inatory features in the proposal.
LIBRARY
Thanks for listening friends, and I'll be back next week with still
another Washington radio report,
[4/2/50]
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman, Jerry Ford,
with the 13th weekly radio report from the nation's capital.
For the past week the House of Representatives has been tussling
rather violently with a bill which principally seeks to extend our
European Recovery Program for another twelve month period. In addi-
tion to the request for E.C.A. funds the proposed legislation called
for further economic aid to non-Communist areas in China and Korea.
The bill also S ought U.S. funds for Palestine Refugees plus the Pres-
ident's controversial Point IV program.
As you can see, it was a one package proposition with many
angles, and as a result the debate was long and bitter. The E.C.A.
fight, however, dominated the battle. The opponents in both parties
did their utmost to defeat or cripple the continuation of economic
assistance to our allies in Europe and elsewhere. The isolationists
contended, as they have in the past, that our funds were being thrown
down a rat-hole.
The defenders of the Marshall Plan pointed to the excellent
record of E.R.P. in the past several years. It was admitted by all
that Paul Hoffman, Administrator of the program, a sound thinking and
successful businessman, had done an excellent job in seeing that our
American dollars had been spent wisely and economically. Furthermore,
no one could deny this important fact that if there had been no Marshall
Plan, if the European Recovery Program had not been in effect, the Com-
munist influence of Joe Stalin and his politburo pals would have already
taken over France, Italy and many other European countries.
It must be admitted that the E.C.A. costs us money, that we are
spending large sums from the federal treasury but I ask what is the
alternative. How would you answer this question: Is it worthwhile
to spend some of our dollars in an effort to prevent World War III?
The cost of World War II in money and lives was terrific. We all
dislike the mere thought of another world war. The best insurance I
know against such a possibility seems to be a continuation of the
European Recovery Program. It's a gamble but so far the effort has been
successful.
This year's request for E.C.A. funds totalled approximately 3
billion dollars. An attempt to cut the amount by 500 million failed
but a compromise reduction of 250 million did prevail. This cut in
funds should not hamper the effectiveness of our cold war against Soviet
Russia. At the same time by lopping off the 250 million Congress is
pressuring Mr. Hoffman and his aides into saving each and every U.S.
dollar.
The problem of what to do with our farm surpluses became involved
in the European Aid bill. Representative Vorys of Ohio wanted E.C.A.
to use up one billion of government held surplus farm commodities.
Representative Burleson of Texas advocated the earmarking of 1 billion
αE.C.A. funds for the purchase of American farm commodities on the
open market. At the same time another group contended both amendments
would hamstring our efforts in winning the cold war. There will be some
close votes on those amendments.
On occasion the House does some very strange and quite irresponsible
voting. This last Wednesday an amendment to the E.C.A. bill was tenta-
tively approved which cut off all aid to England unless all of Ireland
was liberated from British domination. Last year the same amendment was
overwhelmingly defeated on the basis that the United States should not
interfere with the internal affairs of any other nation. For some un-
known reason the good judgment of a year ago was forgotten. Speaker of
the House Sam Rayburn described this amendment as "terribly unfortunate"
and said, "It has probably done us great harm in the world situation."
Regardless of our individual feelings about the Irish-British dispute,
our Congress should not try to dictate the solution.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with still another
LIBRARY
edition of your Washington Congressional report.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE
IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - APRIL 9, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford, with the 14th
weekly radio report from the nation's capital.
Without a doubt the most important legislation to be considered this
session is now before the House of Representatives. I refer to the consolidated
or omnibus appropriation bill and when that subject is mentioned we're involved
in big "dough" and no penny ante issue. This bill if approved without change
will cost the taxpayers over 29 billion dollars. I repeat with emphasis, over
29 billion dollars in the 12 months beginning July 1, 1950.
The printed copy of the proposed legislation in itself is quite a
hefty volume. The 431 printed pages weigh one pound six ounces - I did the
weighing myself on my son Mike's new baby scales at home. The report of the
Committee on Appropriations, which explains in detail the whys and wherefores
of the legislation, covers another 337 pages in rather fine print. The testi-
mony of hundreds of witnesses who appeared before the 40 subcommittees fill
numerous volumes. Laid side by side these volumes occupy at least 18 inches
in any book case.
The big question after all this still remains - Did the Committee on
Appropriations do a good job in recommending how your federal tax money should
be spent? The answers indicate a wide divergence of opinion. Many of the
Washington bureaucrats are complaining bitterly because their special programs
and projects felt the economy bite of the committee. Others who are just
taxpayers and not highpowered propagandists contend the Congress must cut ex-
penditures still further.
Frankly I am convinced that the single appropriation bill, big and
complicated as it may be, is an improvement over past procedures. Last year,
for example, there were approximately 10 separate and distinct appropriation
bills and each was considered individually without any over-all plan or limita-
tion. This old procedure was similar to the policy of a spendthrift individual
or a poor businessman who buys a number of separate items without any knowledge
as to his combined total expenditures. Under the new procedure the House and
later the Senate considers all or most of the appropriation problems as a
single unit. This one package bill makes sense in that it gives a Congressman
and our citizens an opportunity to see at a glance what the over-all federal
spending policies in the coming year appear to be.
Here are some dry but important details. The appropriations bill
recommends direct cash appropriations totalling over 27 billion. It also
recommends contract authorizations totalling about 1.8 billion, and this addi-
tional amount is in effect a cash drain on the federal reasury. These outlays
do not include "permanent" appropriations for debt interest, new spending pro-
posals of the President, nor proposed funds for foreign aid.
In summary, the 27.3 billion cash appropriation total is one billion
300 million less than the amount requested in President Truman's Budget Message
for the same items. It is 800 million less than the amount appropriated for the
current fiscal year. The Committee's 1.8 billion grant of contract authorty is
180 million under the President's estimate and a billion 800 million less than
the amount granted last year.
Judging the situation solely by these over-all figures it must be
admitted the Committee has taken a definite step in the right direction. How-
ever, to be honest with ourselves as citizens and taxpayers another question
must be asked and answered. Will the contemplat ed reductions balance the
budget? The answer is NO, despite the Committee's saving of a billion dollars
under Mr. Truman's money requests. In other words, the federal government, even
if this bill is approved, will spend more than it takes in.
In the last week some folks from home have complained because of cer-
tain cuts in individual items. I have said to them and I now say to you, unless
all of us will sacrifice just a bit this great nation will go bankrupt and
thereafter inevitably collapse. This is a real danger. Economic chaos would
make the United States mighty easy pickings for the Soviet Union.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with still another
Washington radio report.
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - APRIL 16, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - This is your Congressman Jerry Ford with the
15th weekly radio report from the nation's capital.
Oftentimes while the House is in session transacting its day to day
business there are many dull and uninteresting hours of debate. On occasion,
however, sparks fly, particularly when a basic difference of opinion arises
on a major issue. Then, a lively and colorful debate takes place between
members who frequently come from the same political party. This was the case
when Representative Vinson of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services, objected strenuously to the proposed appropriations for the various
branches of the military services. Representative Mahon of Texas, Chairman
of the military appropriations subcommittee, followed Mr. Vinson and ably
defended the criticism leveled at his committee's recommendations.
This particular debate, involving as it does the adequacy of our
national defense, was of prime importance. Just how much should the United
States spend for military preparedness? Representative Vinson vigorously con-
tended that the Committee on Appropriations by cutting some military requests
for funds had scuttled the defense program of the Army, Navy and Air Corps.
He particularly denounced the possible lack of adequate funds for military air-
craft pointing out that the Congress had previously authorized a 70 group air
force and that this appropriation bill would cut the airgroups to 48. Repre-
sentative Vinson in his discussion leveled some rather sharp criticism at
the President and Secretary of Defense Johnson for withholding previously
appropriated funds which the Congress had set up for a larger air group program.
After listening to the speech by Mr. Vinson I began to wonder if the
Committee on Appropriation had acted wisely in cutting the defense budget ap-
proximately 200 million dollars for the next fiscal year. Most of my fears
were dispelled, however, after hearing the arguments in rebuttal by Representa-
tive Mahon. Mr. Mahon answered the attack by showing just how much the
federal government will spend next year on national defense, and this figure
is astounding, something over 20 billion dollars. This total, of course, in-
cludes everything, atomic energy and aeronautical research, the stock piling
of critical and strategic materials, guided missile developments, military
public works and a number of other projects and programs. The member from
Texas in addition then pointed out that on July 1, 1950 the Army, Navy and
Air Corps would have five billion 300 million to spend for the purchase of
new and improved military aircraft. Representative Mahon didn't contend that
this huge sum of money would build a 70 group air force today or even this
year, but he argued most effectively that the funds would build up our various
military air groups to an adequate strength for the defense of our people.
This further point was made. The airplanes we buy next year. the B-36
for example, will probably be outmoded and ineffective two years hence.
Representative Mahon argued that it was shortsighted to purchase an overabundance
of military equipment of any kind which in a short period of time might become
useless museum pieces. He advocated, and I say most convincingly, that we
should concentrate on research and development so that if war should come and
God forbid that it should, we would have the best and newest equipment ready
for immediate production. Representative Mahon illustrated by facts and figures
that in the meantime with the proposed funds now in the bill we would have ade-
quate aircraft, ships and men to protect our shores from attack.
During this historic debate on the military problems of the United
States the House galleries were filled with high school students from all over
the country who were visiting Washington during their spring vacations. It was
obvious to me. if not to them, that the decisions we in Congress make from day
to day vitally concern our younger generations. I hope we may have the intelli-
gence, the foresight and the conviction to decide right for their future well-
being.
Thanks for listening and I'll be back next week with still another
Washington radio report.
FORD
LIBRARI
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - APR.23,1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with the 16th
weekly radie report from the nation's Capitol.
When the House of Representatives recessed the day before Easter
we had started the big job on the "one package" appropriation bill. As
you know, this involves the serious problem of how to spend approximately
29 billion of your federal tax dollars, money collected from personal
income taxes and from those altogether too numerous hidden excise taxes.
Before the recess the pros and cons of the bill were discussed
generally. Last Wednesday the House finally faced up to the real problem -
how many cuts if any can be made and how deep can the reductions go. Some
members advocate "across the board" cuts, better known as the "meat axe"
method while other economy minded Representatives believe in selective
reductions. The selective policy tries to eliminate the excess fat in ob-
vious spots without reducing essential government services in those de-
partments that do a good job.
The first concrete economy move was an amendment by Republican
Representative Taber to cut the annual federal appropriation for the
District of Columbia by one million 200 thousand dollars. The records show
that for the past several years Congress has appropriated 12 million
annually for the operation of the City of Washington as a supplement to
the regular property taxes, license fees, etc. The same amount was recom-
mended by the Committee for the coming year. The Taber amendment cut
this 10%.
As soon as the economy amendment was offered, you should have heard
the violent screams and howls from the District supporters which in effect
implied that Congress should cut everybody else but leave us alone, we need
the money. It was argued that the District of Columbia needed every penny
of the 12 million; that a saving of a million 200 thousand was just a drop
in the bucket so why take it out on the City of Washington.
Several Representatives who favored this specific reduction con-
tended that every cut, however small, would be helpful in the over-all
picture. This is sound logic. If we expect other individuals and depart-
ments to spend less federal funds in the coming year, certainly the District
of Columbia can absorb a 10% reduction. Any economy program must be a
joint effort. This is true in a family as well as in government. It
would be foolish for a wife to pinch pennies if her husband continued on
a spending spree and vice versa. The numerous government departments must
be treated in a similar fashion. If Congress says no to one, the others
must expect about the same treatment.
After the usual debate the Taber amendment came to a vote. It was
a somewhat significant test. The Taber amendment, aimed at saving a million
200 thousand, carried by 4 votes. It was practically a straight party vote,
the Republicans favoring the economy and the Administration forces opposing
the economy amendment.
Later in the day another 500 thousand was knocked off the Con-
gressional printing bill. There wasn't much objection to this cut. As a
result, the total saving for the day's session a million 700 thousand,
providing, of course, these decisions are not later reversed when pressure
groups start their insidious work.
From all indications the House of Representatives will be workingon
this 431 page, 29 billion dollar bill for the next three weeks. A good start
has been made in an attempt to save some of your tax dollars. I hope the
results to date are an indication of a trend. With your wholehearted support,
substantial money savings can be made by Congress in the days ahead. It
would be a real achievement if 8 billion dollar reduction were approved
before the job is finished.
LIBRARY
Thanks for listening and I'll be back again next week with still
another radio Congressional report.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE
IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - APRIL 30, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - This is your Congressman Jerry Ford
with the 17th weekly radio congressional report from the nation's Capitol.
After three weeks of hard and rough going the House of Repre-
sentatives has finished about a third of the 29 billion dollar appropriation
bill. You should know the results SQ I'll a ttempt to give a play by play de-
scription of what has happened. Frankly, no substantial governmental econo-
mies have been effected thus far. There have been some cuts but in one
single amendment the total of all minor reductions were wiped out.
Last week I discussed how a one million two hundred thousand
dollar cut was made in the appropriations for the District of Columbia. Later
there was an additional 500 thousand saving in the Congressional printing funds.
These first economy successes soon came to an abrupt end when an
amendment offered by Representative Vursell, a veteran Republican Congressman
of Illinois, was defeated by a 10 vote margin. The Vursell amendment amounting
to 7 million 300 thousand would have sliced approximately 10% off the State
Department funds. This economy move was defeated on practically a straight
party vote, the Administration forces defending the State Department and the
Republicans contending our diplomatic forces could economize along with the rest.
The first increase over the Committee's recommendations came
about when an amendment on behalf of the Coast Guard reserve training program
was proposed by Representative Canfield of New Jersey. Originally the Coast
Guard had requested 4 million 100 thousand to set up a reserve training pro-
gram similar to that operated by the other branches of the Armed Services.
This request was rejected by the Committee. The Canfield amendment proposed a
1 million appropriation instead of 4.1 million and this smaller amount had the
support of Secretary of Defense Johnson on the ground that the training of
personnel for the protection of our ports was essential. This slight increase
was approved by a 5 vote margin with party lines split rather evenly.
Subsequently the R.F.C. came in for some heavy criticism when
Republican Representative Taber offered an amendment to cut this agency's admin-
istrative funds 2 million. The Republicans attacked R.F.C.'s loans to the defunct
Lustron Corporation, and several other big companies which are now nearing
bankruptcy. This 2 million economy amendment was also defeated. Only 5 votes
but a miss is as good as a mile. Again practically a straight party vote with
the Democrats opposing the cut and the Republicans favoring the reduction.
Later several amendments were offered by Republicans to cut ap-
propriations totalling approximately a million 700 thousand for the Department
of Labor. These amendments, which would have cut the enforcement and investi-
gating staffs of the Wage-Hour Administration were likewise defeated by close
near straight party votes.
Up to this point in the consideration of the appropriation bill
the economy forces were slightly in the lead. Any over-all reductions were
immediately wiped out, however, when a 75 million increase in hospital con-
struction funds was approved by a substantial margin. The Committee after
thorough study of the problem had recommended a 75 million dollar federal
appropriation for local hospital construction. The House as a whole bumped
this an additional 75 million so that in the next fiscal year 150 million in
federal funds will now be spent in local communities.
Ani analysis of the voting on the arious amendments, both for
cuts and for increases, indicates that there is in the House in the 81st Con-
gress a rather close division between those who favor economy and those who
oppose such efforts. If we had a few more members who would consistently
vote for reductions some tax dollars would unquestionably be saved. With the
federal deficit certain to be 6 billion next year we are in dire need of those
few additional members who do not want us to borrow any more money in order to
operate the United States government.
Thanks for listening friends, and I'll be back next week with
still another edition of your radio Congressional report.
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - MAY 7, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with
the 18th weekly radio congressional report from the nation's capitol.
Since the discussion of last week there is little news of note
on the single package appropriation bill. The Republicans generally continue
to offer and support amendments which would reduce federal expenditures. The
Democratic Representatives in contrast offer amendments to increase the spend-
ing or vote in near unison to defeat any Republican economy proposals. This
process has been going on for the past few weeks and will continue for another
two weeks until this 29 billion bill is finally voted up or down. As you
know, so far the proponents of ecnnomy have been conspicuously unsuccessful
despite sincere and determined efforts to reduce appropriations. However,
this result is inevitable when you realize that the Administration has a 90
vote majority in the House of Representatives. In other words, any time the
Democrats want to approve or defeat a particular amendment or a specific bill,
the Administration leaders crack the whip and their members usually toe the
mark.
Last Wednesday another significant legislative matter, the River
and Harbor and Flood Control Authorization bill came up for final considera-
tion. The House had previcusly approved this proposal nine months ago during
the first session of the 81st Congress. As originally okayed in the House,
the bill authorized slightly over 119 million for 65 river and harbor projects
and 998 million for flood control programs throughout the country. All things
considered in its original form it was sound and reasonable legislation. Our
Committee listened to over 2 months of testimony before sending the proposal
to the floor for consideration by the House as a whole. For example, the
bill was considerably less costly than similar legislature in 1944 and 1946.
On this basis I actively supported the bill during the floor debate last year.
The Senate as usual was mighty slow in taking up the matter. In
fact, the Senate only approved the bill a few weeks ago and in so doing added
over 472 million to the cost.
This difference between the House version and what the Senate
approved had to be compromised in conference. Unfortunately the less extrava-
gant House bill was boosted rather substantially by the conferees. In other
words, the Senators would not recede and our 5 House conferees relented too
generously. Under the circumstances, I felt it unwise to go along with the
higher figure. Nevertheless, the compromise authorizing approximately 18
billion in river and harbor and flood control authorizations was approved by
the House, 210 to 137.
Perhaps some may wonder what effect this public works legislation
will have on our Grand River flood control project and the Grand Haven and
Holland Harbor expansion proposals. Inasmuch as all three are still being
considered by the Army Engineers, the particular legislation did not affect
our district directly. However, the authorization of additional funds for
survey work by the Army Engineers is important, if we in Western Michigan
want our flood problems investigated and solved and our harbors expanded to
handle increased water borne traffic. I am glad to report to you that we
are getting excellent cooperation from the Army Engineers who in my estimation
do a superb job for the United States in peace and war. The Army Engineers
are nonpolitical technicians and will continue to have my support both in
committee and on the floor of the House.
Thanks for listening, friends, and I'll be back next week with
still another Washington report.
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE
IS FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - MAY 14, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford
with the 19th weekly radio congressional report from the nation's capitol.
The House finally completed consideration of the 29 billion
dollar single package appropriation bill after more than a month's work on
this one legislative proposal. If you have heard my recent broadcasts
you will undoubtedly recall I have not been too optimistic about any
success on the side of governmental economy. It seemed as though we were
butting our head against 8. stone wall. However, on the final day two
sizeable economy amendments proposed by Republicans were approved. The
combined saving will total approximately a billion dollars. In other
words, the House of Representatives reduced the Committee bill from
approximately 29 billion to 28 billion dollars. After the sizeable re-
ductions were approved, the legislation was adopted 362 to 21.
There will undoubtedly be some criticism of the cuts but an
analysis of the bill in its final form indicates that nearly all federal
agencies and departments were treated alike. This approach was imminently
fair. It should be pointed out, however, that the Department of Defense,
for obvious reasons, was not cut proportionately. In fact, the Air Force
and Navy upon the recommendation of Secretary Johnson and the Joint Chiefs
of Staff were given a 350 million increase so that we will have adequate
aircraft for our protection against attack. In addition the funds were
not reduced for the care and treatment of disabled veterans. Outside
of these two exceptions the cuts were pretty much down the line and
across the board.
The so-called Taber-Thomas amendment which will save 600
million dollars will force most federal agencies to get along with 10 per
cent less than the President's budget for salaries. The Jensen amendment
which will save an estimated 400 million dollars in the next fiscal year
prohibits federal agencies from filling more than 10 per cent of their job
vacancies. As your Representative I voted for both amendments.
Frankly, the billion dollar reduction resulted because the
House considered the appropriation problem in a single bill rather than
by eleven separate appropriation proposals. To prove this point, let me
say that after the battle was over one of the top Democratic members said
to me that the Republicans certainly put over a big victory and the
Administration can only blame the single appropriation bill for the defeat.
The final day of the debate and just before the record votes
were taken, Representative Arends, a Republican of Illinois, made a speech
that had considerable effect on the outcome. He stated to the members of
the House that in the month long debate 45 amendments had been offered to
reduce or cut various appropriation items and only 5 of the economy amend-
ments were offered by Democrats. To put it another way, 31 of the 36
economy amendments were sponsored by Republicans.
The bill as approved by the House now goes to the Senate. No
one at this stage of the game can predict what the Senate will do. It is my
hope that the Senate will hold the line and possibly make other reductions
for even with the billion dollar saving in the House bill the federal treas-
ury will show a deficit in the next fiscal year. The House did a reason-
ably good job but if the federal government is to operate economically our
Senators must do some additional pruning.
Thanks for listening, friends, and I'll be back next week with
LIBRARY
still another Washington report.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - MAY 21, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford
with the 20th weekly report from the Nation's Capitol.
The next few weeks will vitally affect the eventual success or
failure of the governmental reorganization program. During the 1st
session of the 81st Congress approximately 20% of the Hoover Commission
recommendations were put into effect either by Executive Order, by
legislation, or as the result of a Presidential reorganization plan.
As a whole, last year the Executive and Legislative branches of the
federal government worked together on this program. In fact, only
one reorganization plan submitted by Mr. Truman during the first session
was rejected and the Senate said "No" on that occasion, because Mr.
Truman was trying to promote indirectly his socialized medicine scheme.
In addition, it was fairly obvious that the specific reorganization
plan, which was aimed at giving Mr. Oscar Ewing cabinet status, was not
a bona fide Hoover Commission recommendation.
This year the President in March submitted 21 reorganization plans
to Congress. All 21 were alleged to be recommendations of the Hoover
Commission. Immediately there was a mighty roar of objection raised
against Plan 12 and several other Presidential proposals. The objectors
to the various plans contend that Mr. Truman has not followed the recom-
mendations of the non-partisan Hoover Commission, but instead is attempt-
ing to achieve certain political objectives by the use of the Commission's
good name.
The first 21 plans submitted this year, in part have had a rough
time. To date the Senate has killed 4 of the President's proposals.
Others may suffer a similar Congressional fate.
Reorganization Plan 12 was the most controversial. The President
proposed that the office of General Counsel of the National Labor Re-
lations Board be abolished. The Taft-Hartley Act set up the independent
office of the General Counsel and Mr. Truman himself appointed Mr.
Robert Denham to the job. Under the old Wagner Act the NLRB had the
full authority to investigate complaints, prosecute alleged violations
of the law and finally determine whether or not there were any violations
of the law. In other words, the NLRB under the Wagner Act was prosecutor,
judge and jury. The Taft-Hartley Act separated the various responsibili-
ties, leaving the NLRB as judge of alleged violations of the law and
making the General Counsel the prosecutor. President Truman in Plan 12
wanted to merge the two functions, thereby reinstating the old Wagner
Act set-up.
The Senate rejected Mr. Truman's Plan 12 by a vote of 53 to 30 for
several reasons. In the first place, the Hoover Commission did not
recommend the abolition of the General Counsel's office. The Citizens
Committee for the Hoover Report, a nationwide non-partisan group of
citizens seeking economy and efficiency in government, denied that
Plan 12 was a recommendation of the Hoover Commission. Furthermore,
it was pointed out that it was against fundamental American traditions
to have one man, or a single group of individuals, investigate, prose-
cute and judge violations of any law.
Three other reorganization plans were subsequently rejected by the
Senate. Plan 1, which would place the functions of the Comptroller of
Currency under the Secretary of the Treasury was scuttled 65 to 13. In
addition the Senate defeated two other reorganization plans that would
have revamped the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Com-
munications Commission. The Senate debate indicated a fear that the
proposed changes would put too much authority and power in the hands of
the Executive branch of the Federal government. It is interesting to
note that Senator McClellan, a member of the Hoover Commission, voted
against the President's plans claiming that Mr. Truman's proposals were
not aimed at saving money or making the government more efficient.
Thanks for listening folks, and I will be back next week with
another Washington radio report.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - MAY 28, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with
the 21st weekly report from the Nation's Capitol.
Last Wednesday the House of Representatives overwhelmingly
approved a modified two year extension of the draft law. The vote was
216 to 11. The bill now goes to the Senate where action must be taken
before June 24th when the present law expires.
The President and our military leaders had requested that Congress
extend the existing law for two years without change. The House Committee
on Armed Services after e xhaustive hearings presented to the House a bill
which is considerably different from that advocated by the Department of
Defense. However, a careful analysis of the facts reveals that the
Committee acted wisely in proposing various changes in the law. For
example, there have been no inductions since January 1949. In other
words, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force have had sufficient enlist-
ments for the past 18 months so there has been no need for the drafting
of our young men under the Selective Service Act. During this same year
and a half period, however, all 18 year old youths have been registered
and classified in case an emergency, similar to Pearl Harbor, did occur.
The House Committee favored an extension of the law but cur-
tailed all future inductions until a concurrent resolution declaring
the existence of a national emergency has been approved by a majority
of the House and Senate. If this bill is approved without revision by
the Senate it means that no federal official can order inductions unless
and until the Congress passes a national emergency resolution.
Frankly, such a restriction makes good sense. Certainly the
Congress will act promptly, probably within 48 hours, if a crisis arises.
The armed services admittedly would not be in a position to receive
inductees for several weeks or even a month once a crisis arose so no
harm will result in having final induction authority in the hands of
Congress.
The title of the proposed law was changed from the Selective
Service Act to the Manpower Registration Act. This new title more
appropriately describes what the bill seeks to accomplish. It will require
the continued registration of all young men who reach the age of 18 years.
Upon registration the various local boards will classify each individual
so that the records will be immediately available in case of an emergency.
In my estimation this precautionary legislation was desirable.
During the debate on this important matter several members criti-
cized the apparent discrepancies between recent statements made by General
Bradley and President Truman on the status of the cold war. In urging the
enactment of the new draft law General Bradley said, and I quote, "may I
point out again, that the international situation has not improved in the
last eight months." End quote. Several weeks later Mr. Truman stated upon
his return from his Florida vacation that the international picture was
better than at any time since 1946. These two s tatements are obviously
in conflict. Representative Miller of Nebraska asked the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services which statement was correct. Representative
Vinson replied that on military matters he was inclined to follow the
recommendations of General Bradley. This sounds like good advice for Mr.
Truman was obviously making his statement for political reasons whereas
General Bradley was shooting straight from the shoulder and not concerned
with any political implications.
Thanks for listening folks, and I'll be back next week with still
another Washington report.
FORD LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH conghessional DISTRICT - JUNE 4, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with the
22nd weekly radio report from the nation's capitol.
Ever since the end of World War II there has been a persistent demand
for the reduction or repeal of the so-called wartime imposed excise taxes.
Purchasers of the various articles and services so taxed have shied away
whenever possible for the continued wartime levies have added materially to
the cost. When J Q Public does not buy a musical instrument or does not
make a trip by railroad because the cost plus the tax is too much for his
pocketbook, inevitably there is a loss of business in the particular indus-
try. Where business falls off workers lose their jobs. We have a specific
case in point in our own Congressional district. In 1941 a 10% excise tax
was imposed on all musical instruments, including pianos. In Grand Haven
there are several piano factories. For the past year or more piano sales
have decreased considerably and the employees in that industry are conse-
quently faced with a serious loss of employment.
The reduction or repeal of the 10% excise tax on pianos will un-
doubtedly increase business and employment in that industry. What's the
prospect for a change in the excise tax rate on pianos? President Truman
in his tax message to the Congress did not recommend any reduction in the
tax on musical instruments. However, the House Committee on Ways and Means
has tenatively agreed to a 50% cut in the excise tax on such items thereby
reducing the tax from 10% to 5%. It is estimated that this particular tax cut
will reduce federal revenues by approximately 3 and a half million dollars.
This prospective loss of federal revenue not only on this item but
on all items brings up one of the big problems facing the President and the
Congress. Mr. Truman despite the need for cuts in excise taxes has strongly
intimated that he will veto any tax reduction bill which does not at the same
time increase tax revenues in other respects. In other words, the President
contends the federal government because of the spending policies of the
Administration cannot afford to have any net reduction in federal revenues.
The Committee on Ways and Means so far has tentatively agreed to
repeal and reduce taxes, principally excises, by over a billion dollars.
Some additional revenue producing provisions have been accepted by the
Committee but the proposed increases have fallen far short of the Presi-
dent's demands in this regard.
The Committee actually has a thankless job. During World War II
most of the new excise taxes were imposed in order to restrict civilian
consumption and use of luxury products and services necessary in the war
effort. At the present time the President says such taxes are needed
principally for revenue purposes. The Committee is trying to be selective
in reducing or eliminating these obnoxious and harmful taxes. The problem
iswhere to draw the line. Every business and employee group vigorously
contends its product or its service needs relief. The House Committee has
been working on the problem for over 5 months and within a few weeks other
members of the House will see the final draft of the tax bill. It's a safe
bet the proposed legislation will not please everybody.
Because the bill will undoubtedly contain some good and some bad
features an individual member of the House has the problem of weighing
the good against the bad. The bill will be on a "take-it-or-leaveit" basis.
In other words, the gag rule will be in effect. This means no amendments can
be offered on the House Floor to the Committee's recommendations although
the bill can be revised in the Senate at a later date. Such strait jacketing
parliamentary rules put a great deal of responsibility on the Committee on
Ways and Means. I only hope the Committee's judgment will be basically sound
for I firmly believe the Congress must eliminate a number of the basic tax
inequalities and injustices.
Thanks for listening friends, and I'll be back next week with another
LIBRARY
Washington Report.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - JUNE 11, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with the
23rd weekly report from the nation's Capitol.
At this time there is considerable speculation as to when Congress
may adjourn. The Congress according to law is supposed to close up shop each
year on July 31st unless a national emergency exists or unless the session is
extended by a resolution approved by both the House and Senate. You may recall
that during the first session of the 81st Congress Speaker Sam Rayburn ruled
that such an emergency did exist and that therefore the House could continue
beyond the July 31st deadline in 1949 without the necessity of a joint resolu-
tion. As a consequence last year the Congress remained in session until October
19th.
As a rule the date of adjournment rests with the leadership in the
majority party. This hierarchy includes the Vice President, Senator Lucas, the
Senate Majority leader, Speaker Rayburn and House Majority Leader Representative
McCormack. Naturally the wishes of the President are influential in any deci-
sion by his legislative lieutenants. We in the minority, on this issue anyhow,
must simply sit and wait out the majority's verdict.
Recently Senator Lucas, who incidentally is up for re-election this
year, stated that he hoped Congress would adjourn by July 31st. He made the
statement following a conference of Democratic Senators where a "must" list of
legislative proposals was discussed. According to Senator Lucas a tentative
list of required legislation included an extension of rent control, changes in
the social security law, continuation of the foreign military aid program and the
passage of the various appropriation bills. The Senator also stated that another
attempt would be made to bring up in the Senate the controversial F.E.P.C. bill.
It is interesting to note that in the list of scheduled bills proposed
by the Senator from Illinois who apparently speaks for the Administration, there
is no mention of the excise tax reduction legislation. In fact, the Senate
Majority Leader is quoted as saying it is "rather doubtful" that a tax reduction
bill would be approved even though such legislation will undoubtedly be consid-
ered, and I hope approved, by the House before the end of June.
Frankly, this news concerning the prospects for the needed excise tax
relief is extremely discouraging to say the least. If cuts in federal excise
taxes are not made the blame rests squarely with the majority Party leadership.
The House Committee on Ways and Means has been working on such a bill for over
5 months and it would be regrettable if this effort should now be wasted because
of poor scheduling of legislative matters or because of the desire on the part
of some members of the House and Senate to leave Washington prematurely for
electioneering purposes. A good tax reduction and readjustment bill is a must
for many reasons and the Congress should stay on the job until such legislation
has its day in court.
As usual the Senate is behind schedule. To put it another way, the
House has its legislative docket rather clear while the Senate has a heavy back-
log of bills. For example, the House has already approved changes in the Social
Security Act. This House bill with some changes has been okayed in the Senate
Committee on Finance but hasn't been touched by the Senate as a whole. In addi-
tion, the Senate has taken no action on the 29 billion dollar omnibus bill which
alone consumed approximately six weeks in the House. Because of the reductions
made by the House, which have been stremously condemned by the Administration
leaders, there may well be a long and bitter fight in the Serate on this matter.
All in all it looks like July 31st is an optimistic adjournment deadline.
Thanks for listening friends. This is Jerry Ford signing off and I'll
be back again next week with still another Congressional Report from Washington.
FORD LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - JUNE 18, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford
with the 24th weekly radio report from the Nation's Capitol.
Periodically it is desirable to report on the progress of the
proposals of the Hoover Commission for the Reorganization of the Executive
Bfanch of the Federal Government. The fate of the original 21 plans sub-
mitted this year by the President was decided on May 24th, so the time
has come to know where we stand.
You recall the recommendations of the Hoover Commission which were
submitted early in 1949 offered a possible saving of 4 billion dollars a
year. Many people now, as then, have the impression that the Hoover
Report is one general plan. Actually the Report of this non-partisan
commission carries 288 different recommendations. About 60% of these
can be adopted by the President without action whatsoever by Congress.
The remainder requires Congressional action or concurrence. Now, as Al
Smith used to say, "Let's look at the record.'
In the first session of the 81st Congress, the House and Senate
took the first big step by providing that any reorganization plans sub-
mitted by the President should automatically become law in sixty days
unless specifically rejected by either the House or Senate.
Last year the President submitted 7 plans. One was rejected by
the Senate, 6 became law. This year Mr. Truman submitted 21 plans in
the first batch. 5 were rejected by the Senate, 16 became law May 24th.
Thus the batting average to date, including the one rejection last year,
is 22 to 6.
It is estimated that to date 35% of the Hoover program has been
adopted, but we have hardly begun on the 4 billion dollar saving. With
the exception of the reorganization of the Armed Services, better known
as "unification" and the setting up of the General Services Administration,
few of the Hoover recommendations providing for actual and down to earth
economy have been presented by Mr. Truman to the Congress.
It might be well to examine and see why the 6 Reorganization
Plans submitted by the President were rejected by the Senate. The first,
rejected last year, was an attempt to set up a new Department of Welfare.
The proposal was not in accord with the Hoover Plan but rather was an
attempt by the President to drag Compulsory Health Insurance in through
the back door. This year the President resubmitted his plan for a Welfare
Department but it appears the Senate will say NO again. The same basic
objections are present. The retreaded Plan still looks like the first step
toward Socialized Medicine and furthermore in the sphere of health and edu-
cation the President has not included the entire recommendations of Mr.
Hoover and his associates.
Two other plans were rejected this year for nonconformity with
the Hoover proposals. Plan 12 would have nullified the Taft-Hartley Law,
which Congress has refused to repeal, and another Plan would have made Mr.
Brannan the Supreme Potentate of Government Farming, a step toward the
Brannan Plan, likewise rejected by the Congress. In addition, a fourth
would have put politics into our banking business. The Senate said NO here
because there was a feeling that the Comptroller should retain an independent
status. These four plans were, I believe, properly rejected. They were not
recommended by the Hoover Commission. Frankly, I favored all the rest,
including the other two rejected by the Senate. I also regret that Congress
and the President have not acted on a number of other proposals for there
is still much to be done.
Congress doesn't get an "A" on its report card, but its record is
certainly at least "Fair". Furthermore, Congress can do only a part of the
job. Sixty per cent of the basic responsibility is in the hands of the White
House. In addition, you can't reorganize the Government by simply passing
laws. Success or failure to a large measure depends on the various Government
heads.
LIBRARY
Thanks for listening friends. This is Jerry Ford signing off and
I'll be back again next week with still another Congressional Report from
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - JUNE 25, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with
the 25th weekly radio report from the Nation's Capitol.
Last week President Truman put his signature of approval on the
first bill I have sponsored which has eventually become law. The legis-
lation was a private bill authorizing the admission from Ireland of. the
wife of a G.I. from our District. The approval by the President was the
culmination of at least four years effort by the young lady's husband.
During the first two years of this struggle little or no progress was
made. Repeatedly the Administrative and legislative officials discouraged
this war injured veteran but he was persistent and devoted, so the many
roadblocks were simply challenges to be met and conquered.
Last year the husband and I made a fresh start. In January, 1949
I introduced the necessary bill. It was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary and from there to the appropriate subcommittee. The husband and
I appeared before the subcommittee where our testimony was heard and our
documentary evidence submitted. Frankly, the committee members were pleasant
but not too receptive. We were told to get more evidence.
The G.I. and I wrote more letters. We pt pounding away at the
State Department asking for the full cooperation of their officials in Ire-
land. We hounded the Department of Justice and the Immigration officials.
It took a lot of work but the cause was just. Finally we convinced the
administrative officials and they put their approval in writing.
A new hearing before the subcommittee was held. The Chairman
and the other members with the benefit of the additional evidence approved
the bill and referred it to the full committee. We figuratively held our
breath for the next ten days. The Committee on the Judiciary finally re-
ported the bill favorably.
The next step was the private calendar where all private bills
are approved or rejected by the House members as a whole. It went through
without objection
The proposal still needed the okay of the Senate. Senator
Ferguson was our friend at the other end of the capitol. With his aid
and assistance the Senate Committee reported favorably on the legislation.
Then the long wait until the Senate as a whole took up a number of private
bills. Finally the Senate gave it the green light and then the President's
signature. It was a long, hard pull with some dark and discouraging moments
but as long as the cause was fundamentally just the proper result accrued in
the end.
It might be interesting to have a few facts on the number of bills
which have been introduced in the 81st Congress. A total of 14,251 pieces
of legislation were introduced by Senators and Representative between January
3. 1949 and the first week of June, 1950. This total includes 13,035 bills
and joint resolutions and 1216 concurrent resolutions. Concurrent resolutions
merely express opinion or deal with strictly Congressional matters and cannot
become federal laws. In the 18th month period Senators introduced 4,248 bills
or resolutions and members of the House in the same period dropped in the
hopper 10,003 legislative proposals.
Despite these imposing totals only 8 percent of the bills or
joint resolutions have become laws. The House and Senate approved a total of
1047 measures but the President vetoed 38 of the proposals.
One veto by the President has been overridden by the Congress.
As the session nears the end relatively few bills or joint resolu-
tions will get the nod from here on in. If a legislative proposal isn't well on
its way by now, there isn't much chance for approval by the adjournment dead-
line of August 1st. Necessary legislation will be called up but other matters
will probably languish in the various committees for action during the next
Congress.
Thanks for listening friends. This is Jerry Ford signing off and
I'll be back again next week with still another Congressional Report from
LIBRARY
Washington.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR.
FOR USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT - JULY 2, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with the
26th weekly radio report from the Nation's Capitol.
The House of Representatives last Thursday finally approved a bill
which if eventually enacted into law by Senate concurrence will make sub-
stantial changes in federal tax laws. As is the case in almost all legis-
lative proposals, there are good features and some bad provisions in the
new tax bill. The bill frankly doesn't give enough tax relief in certain
instances while in other cases obvious tax loopholes are virtually untouched.
However, all things considered, a critical analysis of the bill in its
entirety, would lead most people to believe that the legislation should
get the green light. I can assure you of one fact, that if this particular
tax bill were not okayed, there would be no tax legislation of any sort
during this session. No tax bill for example would mean no excise tax
relief for consumers, retail businesses and certain manufacturing concerns
and their employeez. Certainly excise tax reductions are long overdue and
Congress would violate its previous promises if no action were taken at
this time.
When tax legislation is considered in the House an unusual and seldom
used parliamentary procedure is followed, namely, a "closed rule". This
mcans that no amendments or changes can be made in the bill once it gets to
the floor of the House. In other words, a member must approve the entire
bill or vote against the bill as a whole, This parliamentary rule unquestion-
ably confuses the issues. It also prevents an individual representative from
expressing his attitude concerning a particular provision which he thinks
should have been left out or one that should have been included. Again I
emphasize such a bill requires the weighing of the good against the bad.
On the basis of this type of analysis the members of the House overwhelmingly
voted for the bill.
In general here is what the proposal will do. Excise taxes will be re-
duced 910 million. The 20% tax on baby oils, etc. has been eliminated.
The 20% tax on furs, jewelry and cosmetics has been reduced to 10%. Photo-
graphic supplies were helped by a reduction from 15% to 10%. The 10% manu-
facturers tax on athletic equipment for use in schools was dropped entirely.
Admission taxes were reduced. Your telephone bill won't be quite as high
for the tax on household phone service was reduced from 15% to 10%. Long
distance calls were helped a bit by a cut from 25% to 20%. The tax on
passenger fares for trains and planes was reduced from 15% to 10%. These
are just a few examples. Bear this in mind, however - this bill is but the
first step in the legislative process. The Senate must still act and that
might well mean several months delay.
Other reductions have likewise been approved in the House bill principally
in an attempt to strengthen the competitive position of small business. At
the same time tax rates have been increased on the more profitable corporations.
In effect the bill will cut the taxes of approximately 206,000 corporations
earning between $5,000 and $166,667. 161,000 corporations with profits less
than 5000 annually would not be affected. Taxes of 23,000 corporations earning
more than $166,667 will have an increase in taxes from 38 to 41 percent if the
bill becomes law. The net result of the various corporate tax rate changes
means approximately $433,000 in additional federal revenue.
Because, in the past some corporate dividends to individuals have dis-
appeared or rather failed to show up on individual income tax returns, the
House bill will require a 10% withholding on all dividend payments. The cor-
poration will simply deduct 10% from the dividend to a shareholder and pay that
amount to the Treasury. Cooperatives will do the same on patrons' dividends.
Individual taxpayers when filing income tax returns will handle their dividend
withholdings just as wage earners do at the present time. It is estimated that
the Treasury will, as the result of the plugging of this loophole, receive
approximately 170 million dollars which heretofore was unpaid although legally
owed to the government.
A start was made in this bill for the taxing of business operations of
educational, religious and charitable organizations. The new provisions are
not perfect in this regard, but progress has been made and more equitable
changes are bound to come in the future for it is most unfair for tax-exempt
organizations to compate with fully taxed businesses.
Thanks for listening, friends. This 1.8 Jerry Ford signing off and I'll
be back again next week with still another Congressional Report from Washington.
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - JULY 1, 1950
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with
the 27th and final weeltly radio report from the Nation's Capitol.
Periodically we should analyze the progress of the Hoover Commission
recommendations. As you know, this non-partisan commission of 12 outstand-
ing citizens recommended over 200 departmental changes in the federal govern-
ment. The Commission promised annually savings of 4 billion dollars if its
proposals were effectuated and further stated that if the changes were made
there would be no loss in the various services rendered to the public by the
numerous federal departments.
The major portion of the Hoover Commission recommendations must be
initiated by the President. For example, the President submits to the
Congress a reorganization plan, presumably based on the recommendations of
the Hoover Commission, and unless either the House or Senate reject the
plan within 60 legislative days by a constitutional majority, the proposal
becomes the law of the land. This method of legislating is really legis-
lation in reverse for normally either the House or Senate must start a bill
or proposal on its way.
Repeatedly in the past it has been pointed out that the President
has not always acted in good faith in submitting reorganization plans. In
other words, Mr. Truman has on occasion during this Congress proposed
changes which were not in accord with the Hoover Commission recommendations,
yet the White House would want you to believe that he was following the sug-
gestions of Mr. Hoover and his bi-partisan associates. Fortunately in
most cases the Congress has rejected practically all of these phoney reor-
ganization plans. Those which were bona fide Hoover Commission proposals
have been okayed without dispute.
One of the worst examples of a presidential reorganization plan
which was definitely not a Hoover Commission recommendation was the one
calling for the transfer of the R.F.C. to the Department of Commerce. The
Hoover Commission straightforwardly in black and white proposed that the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation be transferred to the Treasury Department,
yet the President in Reorganization Plan 24 proposed that R.F.C. be put in
the Department of Commerce. This is a clear cut case of wide divergence
from the recommendations of the Hoover Commission. Unfortunately the House
of Representatives did not reject the President's proposal in this instance.
On July 10th the House will vote on whether or not to approve Reor-
ganization Plan 27 which is another attempt by the President to 8 tart the ball
rolling for his compulsory health insurance program, better known as socialized
medicine. This Presidential Reorganisation Plan again is not in accord with
the Hoover Commission recommendations. During the Committee hearings on this
Plan a witness for the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report, a non-partisan
group of experts, testified that the President's Plan 27 was definitely not
in accord with the recommendations of the Hoover Commission. Any objective
analysis of Plan 27 would convince a fair-minded individual that the President
was not submitting a bona fide commission proposal in this instance. Under
these circumstances the House or the Senate should definitely reject the pro-
posal.
This broadcast concludes my weekly radio reports from the nation's
Capitol during the 81st Congress. In 1949 during the first session there
were 42 weekly broadcasts and 27 similar reports in the second session. It has
been a real privilege and pleasure for me as your Congressman to participate in
this program. I hope you have enjoyed and benefitted from them. At this time
I would like to thank this radio station for its cooperation in providing the
time for such a public service program.
This is Jerry Ford signing off. Thanks for listening, and remember,
a well-informed nation is a strong nation.
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - JANUARY 4, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with
the first weekly radio report from the Nation's Capitol for the newly con-
vened 82nd Congress.
Its predecessor, the 81st Congress, praised by some and condemned by
others, closed up shop on January 2nd. The "lame duck" session, lasting
about 4 weeks, had turned out a surprising amount of "war emergency"
legislation. It will remain for the 82nd Congress to carry on. From
all appearances the next two years will be devoted principally to matters
dealing with the over-all national defense effort. The opening message of
the re-elected Speaker of the House, Representative Sam Rayburn of Texas,
emphasized that domestic legislation would take a back seat until Congress
had done all in its power to build this great nation strong and capable
of protecting our citizens and our principles from the ruthless aggression
of the Communist dictators in Russia and China.
Just a word or two concerning this weekly report from Capitol Hill.
In 1949 each week for 42 weeks I discussed on this program Washington news,
particularly legislative matters of mutual interest. Again in 1950 there
were 27 such programs. This year it is planned to continue on the same
basis with some added features, such as special guests from both the
Congress and the executive branch of the federal government. These guests
will be experts in their fields and should be helpful in the analysis of
the great problems now confronting us.
There were two notable features of the opening session of the 82nd
Congress. For the first time in many, many years the House and Senate met
in renovated and redecorated chambers. Frankly, I like the appearance of
the new surroundings and no one, even the die hards who wanted everything
left the way it was in Lincoln's time, can deny that the working facilities
are far superior.
There was an important legislative matter on the agenda the first day.
Most of you recall the fight of several years ago when the wings of the
House Committee on Rules were clipped. For a number of years prior to
January 3, 1949 the Rules Committee, composed of 12 members, 8 from the
majority Party and 4 from the minority, had controlled the scheduling of
legislation on the floor of the House. In most instances this group of
12 were fair and square with the other members. By that I mean most legis-
lative proposals did get a chance to be considered by the membership as a
whole. At times, however, the 12 members of the Rules Committee refused
to give the "green light" to certain bills even though the proposed legis-
lation had been approved previously by one of the major standing committees.
This practice of pigeonholing bills in effect deprived the other 423
members of the House from a chance to vote YES or NO. On January 3, 1949, at
the opening of the 81st Congress a revision in the rules was proposed which
took some of the dictatorial powers from the Committee on Rules. I voted
for the change. A year later in 1950 the same problem arose and I again
voted with those who were against this pigeonholing of legislation by the
Rules Committee.
During the 81st Congress the new rule worked quite well although con-
siderable authority and discretion was, under the new set-up, put in the
hands of the Speaker. Despite the fact that the new rule hadn't worked
too badly in the last two years, its opponents upset the apple cart by a
substantial margin and returned the old power to the Rules Committee. I
voted as I had in the past. In other words, I strongly believe that all
435 members of the House should be given a chance to vote YES or NO on
legislative matters instead of having the Rules Committee act as a protective
screen. In these critical times individual members of Congress should be
willing to go on record for or against a bill. Unfortunately the new rule
may provide a shield for those who don't like to be recorded.
This is your Congressman Jerry Ford signing off till next week.
FORD
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE
IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - JANUARY 11, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with the
2nd weekly radio report from the Nation's Capital,
It is traditional that the President present to the Senate and House
a State of the Union message each year at the outset of the new session. As
a result Mr. Truman on January 8th appeared before a joint session of the
82nd Congress. The usual fanfare was in evidence. After the Senators joined
their Congressional colleagues by marching in in a body, the various ambassadors
and ministers from foreign lands took their seats in the House Chamber. The
Russian Ambassador was conspicuous by his absence. Supposed to be ill, but a
delegation from the Soviet Embassy heard the President's speech from the
galleries.
The Capitol, that is the building itself, was guarded on the outside in
all directions by a sizeable contingent of Army G.I.S with rifles and bayonets.
Inside the Capitol, police in goodly numbers roamed the corridors and blocked
the stairways. Everyone had to present credentials and the new members of
Congress who were not recognized by the Guards had to show their tickets of
admission. Old timers contend it was the most closely guarded speech before
the Congress by any President.
President Truman's message straightforwardly pointed up our difficul-
ties whether or not you agree with his approach to our crucial problems. After
hearing the President read it before an anxious audience I and many others felt
uninspired. The text read better the next day. It is the consensus that if
Franklin D. Roosevelt had delivered the same State of the Union message those
present and perhaps the nation would have been inspired in this hour of peril.
The President stated in plain words that the Soviet Union had only one
purpose - domination of the remaining free world. Mr. Truman painted an
austere picture by predicting that for a long time to come we in America must
put our shoulders to the wheel in a supreme effort to prevent worldwide domina-
tion by Stalin and his ruthless and Godless cohorts.
The Chief Executive set forth some cold, hard facts that oftentimes
are forgotten or their importance not appreciated. His exact words are as
follows, and I quote, "If Western Europe were to fall to Soviet Russia, it
would double the Soviet supply of coal and triple the Soviet supply of steel.
If the free countries of Asia and Africa should fall to Soviet Russia, we
would lose the sources of many of our most vital raw materials, including
uranium, which is the basis of our atomic power. Soviet command of the man-
power of the free nations of Europe and Asia would confront us with military
forces which we could never hope to equal.' End quote. There is considerable
disagreement in this nation as to what should be done to meet the crisis we
face but hardly anyone can dispute those facts which indicate that if we stand
alone shorn of past, present and potential allies, Russia would hold the
preponderance of military and economic power of the world.
During his talk Mr. Truman wisely offered an olive branch to Con-
gressional critics. Congress has felt for some time that the President was
literally jamming the Department of State's foreign policy down its collective
throat. Many Members of the House and Senate haven't liked being rubber
stamps for Secretary of State Acheson but there wasn't much we could do about
it in the 81st Congress. With the political complexion of the 82nd Congress
somewhat different from its predecessor, President Truman indicated he would
welcome a full scale debate in the Congress on foreign policy issues. Many
hope that this means Congress rather than the Department of State will have
more to say about the decisions ahead.
In summary, the President's State of the Union message possibly pro-
vided a springboard for some changes on foreign policy. Sketchily he touched
on domestic issues such as housing needs, labor-management problems, and
educational deficiencies. The details on these home front recommendations will
be filled in by later messages to the Congress.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next FORD
over this same station.
GERALD
LIBRARY
January 21,
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital.
The President a few days ago in presenting his budget for the next
fiscal year turned over to the new Congress its top mission in the all-out
struggle to save the Nation. The Congress will have secondary targets for
there is other legislation of importance but if the House and Senate fail to
cut the President's demands for excessive nonessential domestic spending,
Uncle Sam will inevitably go through the financial wringer.
President Truman said his proposed budget amounted to 71 billion. That
figure is startling but it does not point out the true picture. By digging
deeper in the maze of figures one finds the President in reality asked for
98 billion. The additional 28 billion, which was glossed over, in his message
to the Nation, would be for contract authorizations. This is a technical term,
but the end result is more federal spending of your hard-earned tax dollars.
Let's take an example. When the Air Force is given a 10 million dollar con-
tract authorization that means a binding contract can be signed by the Air
Force for the delivery of 10 million dollars worth of aircraft. The bills
for this contract probably won't come due during the next fiscal year but the
government is nevertheless obligated to pay the manufacturer on delivery.
This, of course, means that when the President seeks 71 billion in cash out-
lays plus 27 billion in contract authorizations for the next twelve months,
he wants to tap the U.S. Treasury for a total of 98 billion.
It is unfortunate that the President did not recommend any retrenchment
in nonmilitary expenditures.
According to the budget message Uncle Sam would spend your tax dollar
in the following proportions: 58 per cent for military rearmament; 10 per
cent for foreign aid; 8 per cent for interest on the federal debt; 7 per cent
for veterans benefits, and 17 per cent for all other government expenses.
Such a breakdown vividly illustrates the percentage of federal taxes flow-
ing into the rearmament program. Military security is the first consideration.
If the Department of Defense can justify its requests, Congress will readily
give its O.K. Other items, however, in the President's budget must of nec-
essity get the Congressional axe because of the Nation's precarious financial
condition and the tremendous tax burdens already carried by our citizens.
A disappointing feature in the Truman budget was his failure to curtail
some "pet" home front domestic programs. For example, the essence of the Bran-
nan plan is included in the name of rearmament. Funds, 300 million to be exact,
are requested for federal aid to education.
The President still wants the
Nation to embark on a program of socialized medicine. There are many other
similar programs wrapped up in this huge request for funds but these are the
best examples of where the new Congress and the President will part company.
Naturally the President has many influential friends in the Congress who will
fight to push his program to the limit, but the opposition, if I accurately
gauge their attitude, will battle just as hard to cut some billions from the
nondefense proposals.
So far only expenditures have been mentioned. What does the President's
budget mean in the way of new taxes if the U.S.is to operate on a "pay-as-we-go"
basis? Mr. Truman's proposal estimates a deficit of 16 billion. This startling
deficit figure must be added to the already staggering federal debt of 257
billion unless Congress cuts expenditures to the bone or in the alternative
adds new taxes. The President advocated new taxes or continued deficit financ-
ing. The Congress will perform a service to the Nation by flatly rejecting new
spending schemes during the present emergency.
Before closing I'd like to make this suggestion. I deeply appreciate let-
ters from home with your observations and recommendations. Such correspondence
is answered as completely and promptly as possible, but help us out by includ-
ing your full address. Unfortunately in some recent cases my replies have been
returned to Washington due to insufficient addresses.
Thanks for listening. This is your Congressman Jerry Ford signing off till
next week over this same station.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT January 28, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from
the Nation's Capital.
This past week several important but not very spectacular legis-
lative matters were approved by the House of Representatives. By a unanimous
vote of 377 to O the House okayed a bill for the renegotiation of defense
contracts. The avowed purpose of such legislation is the recapture of
"excessive profits". A similar law was on the books in World War II and
resulted in the recovery of billions of dollars on defense contracts. The
new law follows the pattern of previous legislation, but has been somewhat
revised based on the experiences in the last war. The experts predict it
will create less administrative hardship to the government as well as con-
tractors. An important new provision has been included which gives govern-
ment officials the authority to renegotiate broker contracts. This is
aimed directly at "five percenters" who heretofore have been immune from a
reduction in any excessive profits in the rearmament effort.
What's the basis for this legislation? It's aim is to save tax
dollars by cutting down the cost of buying tarks, guns and airplanes. In
the mad rush to rearm contractors can't always predict with accuracy the
cost of producing 1000 jet airplanes and as a practical matter when bids
must be submitted there isn't time to figure the contract too closely.
Time is of the essence. A contract must often be hurriedly signed by the
government and the manufacturer. After the planes have been delivered this
legislation authorizes the agents of Uncle Sam to check costs and profits.
If "excessive" the government recaptures the extras. This contract renegotia-
tion legislation along with the recently enacted boosts in corporation taxes
will help the U.S. Treasury considerably.
Later in the week there was another unanimous vote in the House.
By 390 to 0 a gratuitous indemnity of $10,000 was approved for the survivors
of those who have given their lives in the Korean War, but it will not can-
cel existing G.I. insurance contracts. Previously E. serviceman could buy
a $10,000 G.I. insurance policy, pay the premiums to the government while
on duty, and continue his policy after his discharge. In other words, the
federal government was in the insurance business in a big way. For example,
between 1940 and 1949 approximately 26 million individual insurance files
were set up to handle G.I. insurance applications.
The new law would eventually take the government out of the in-
surance business. At the same time all servicemen and their survivors will
be covered by the $10,000 protection, not just those who bought G.I. insur-
ance. The bill provides that a G.I. is covered at all times while on active
duty and for 90 days after his release. If he cannot obtain life insurance
from commercial insurance companies after his discharge because of a physical
defect, the government must issue him a policy similar to the present National
Service Life insurance.
This legislation is essential for several reasons. First, all G.I.5
are covered while on active duty, This is important right now because many who
have made the supreme sacrifice in Korea did not have time to apply for the
old G.I. insurance before going into combat. Second, the government will save
in the future many millions of dollars in administrative expenses. The Comp-
troller General estimates that if this new program had been in effect in
World War II, the cost to the Treasury would have been reduced by approximátely
600 million dollars.
Here's a different, but equally important matter. Attention all
prisoners of war of World War II, their widows, children and parents. The War
Claims Commission has asked me to announce that the deadline for filing claims
for the $1-a-day payments to prisoners of war or their survivors is March 1,
1951. If you or a member of your family were a prisoner of war during World
War II, you may be entitled to these special POW payments. For further in-
formation, call or see the Veterans Administration Office in Grand Rapids, the
Service Officer of your veteran organization, or write the War Claims Com-
mission, Washington 25, D.C. Don't delay - March First is not far away.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week
over this same station.
RADIO TALK BY GERAID R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT February 4, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford
from the Nation's Capital.
The President's budget message involving 98 billion dollars
for the next 12 months is the big concern and worry of most members of
Congress. This is particularly true of the 50 Congressmen, 30 Democrats
and 20 Republicans, that make up the House Committee on Appropriations.
This little band of men, and I'm one of them, have the initial job and
actually the most important responsibility for the slashing and pruning
of President Truman's budget.
Most members of the Appropriations Committee have been chafing
at the bit for there's a big job to do and the sooner done the better.
At the first organization meeting of the group a real bombshell exploded.
It was a closed gathering - just the members of the committee - but the
reverberations were heard well beyond the four walls. On two matters
the Committee gave the Chairman a very bad time and I might say that
seldom in the Congress does a committee rebel against a chairman.
However, in this instance the committee uprising should result in addi-
tional cuts in nonmilitary, nonessential items in the President's budget.
The big problem before the Committee was precisely this.
Should the Congress continue to handle all appropriations in a single
bill or consider the necessary legislation in ten separate bills. Last
year the Congress experimented and tried the so-called "one package"
plan. For many years previous the other method had been used.
Both methods had their firm advocates. It wasn't a partisan
political issue for the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House,
Speaker Rayburn and Minority Leader Martin, were together in favoring
the separate bill proposal. In contrast Representative Cannon of Missouri,
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, had strong support from a few
well known Senators, Republicans as well as Democrats. Before the
committee meeting, lobbying organizations of all kinds bombarded those
of us on the committee urging that we do this or that; depending on their
point of view. In the showdown vote the Chairman's single package prò--
posal was defeated 31 to 18.
I was one of the 31 who favored the system of individual bills.
You should know my reasons for such action. After listening to all the
arguments, pro and con, I firmly believe there is a better opportunity
for substantial cuts in the President's budget by the separate bill
method. In theory perhaps the single package proposal sounds good, but
in acţual practice that method of handling expenditures doesn't work
for economy.
By handling the appropriations in separate or individual bills
the Committee members and the House as a whole can pin point items that
might well be lost in one huge bill involving the 98 billion proposed
by the White House. By bringing up one bill at a time before the House,
for example the appropriations concerning the Department of the Interior,
every possible effort for economy can be directed at this one proposal.
There are no side issues involving the military, the Post Office De-
partment, etc. In other words, the President's request for funds for
each department or agency of the government must stand alone and get by
the close scrutiny of the Committee and the Congress without being
tacked on to a military item.
On the surface perhaps this sounds like a rather technical
problem of no interest to our citizens. I assure you, however, that
the Committee's decision to abandon the single package s.cheme for
appropriations may well save several billion in your tax dollars.
The much condemned 80th Congress cut President Truman's
budget by over 7 billion in two years and balanced the budget both
years by using the separate appropriation bill method. In contrast,
the 81st Congress using the single package proposal actually made
few cuts in the President's gigantic money requests, I voted for the
method which on the record offers the best hope for a 6 to 7 billion
cut in President Truman's request for funds.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till
next week at the same time over this same station.
RADIO TALK BY GEPALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN OII FEBRUARY 11TH
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from
the Nation's Capital.
The House of Representatives last week considered Reciprocal
Trade Legislation for the seventh time in the past 17 years. As usual,
the debate brought forth considerable oratory from the Free Traders who
rubberstamp the views of the Department of State under Mr. Acheson and
counter-argument from the old line High Protectionists.
The Free Traders advocate no trade barriers of any sort, regard-
less of the effect on American labor and industry. For the past years
Secretary Acheson and his predecessors reduced tariffs to lower and lower
levels. At this moment State Department officials are in Torquay, England,
negotiating for further reductions in our import duties.
In contrast the High Protectionists would erect an insurmountable
tariff wall against practically every foreign made product. As a result of
the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930 the foreign trade of the United States
practically evaporated, for other nations throughout the world, finding
that their exports to us were stopped by this tariff wall, in turn erected
tariff and other trade barriers against goods from the United States.
In between the Free Traders and the High Protectionists is a sound
middle ground. One can vote for the Reciprocal Trade legislation as long
as the net result of such a policy is not detrimental to our national se-
curity. Unwise trade policies have ruined certain industries in the United
States which are essential to our national defense. For example, the De-
partment of State in recent years, by drastically lowering tariffs on
foreign-made watches and wool, has left us practically without facilities
for the building of precission bombing instruments and an adequate supply
of wool for the Army and civilian consumption. At the same time, a high
protection policy could hamper our preparedness effort by making it im-
possible for Uncle Sam to buy strategic and critical materials in the
markets of the world.
The middle ground approach says we should have a Reciprocal Trade
policy, but incorporates safeguards for American labor and industry. During
the debate on the Reciprocal Trade bill, three vital amendments were spon-
sored by Republican members of the House which do provide this essential
protection.
Two amendments were significant. Under the Republican-sponsored
Peril Point procedure. the President is simply obliged to report to Congress
when the State Department makes tariff cuts below the danger point set by
the Tariff Commission. The Tariff Commission has the initial responsibility
to determine at what point a further lowering of the tariff will injure
American labor and industry. The Peril Point amendment does not hamper
the Reciprocal Trade program. It simply warns our officials when a danger
point is reached.
The other Republican amendment provides that "escape clauses"
must be included in all trade agreements. The "escape clause" is needed to
assure those industries, where the State Department has made tariff cuts,
that sound standards and procedures for relief will exist where industries
may be threatened by foreign competition.
The most important amendment was offered by Republican Representa-
tive John Byrnes of Wisconsin. Congressman Byrnes is a guest on our program.
I am asking him for a quick resume of his amendment. Congressman Byrnes -
LIBRARY
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next
week at the same time over this same stati on.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - 2/18/51
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from
the Nation's Capital.
Since June of 1950 when the Communist forces of the world started
on the march against the United States and our allies, the inflationary
spiral at home has been steadily rising. The "cost of living" has zoomed
upward in this 8-month interval. The President in January finally imposed
price and wage controls but the situation at the present time is snafued
by the unwarranted delay in cracking down and the lack of organi zation
in the Executive branch of the government for the handling of this gigantic
job.
Unfortunately the public generally will suffer in the months
ahead but there is one segment of our population that will be hit the
hardest. I refer specifically to the "white collar workers," a for
gotten group.
Who is a "white collar worker"? That's hard to define but it
includes any person who is paid a set or fixed salary or wage. Office
workers in private industry fall in this category. Government workers
including school teachers and post office employees are in this group.
Employees of the government, local, state and federal, in times where
the cost of living is rising, are in a very bad spot for their wages
cannot be easily or quickly adjusted. Furthermore, their occupation
is affected by the "public interest" and they cannot as a group force-
fully place their demands before their employers for wage increases.
These citizens are at a serious disadvantage in adequately maintaining
their homes and families because there is always a lag between a price
level increase and their wages,
Many vivid examples could be given but let me quote some statis-
tics from a friend who happens to be a post office employee. His monthly
gross salary, fixed by law, totals $255.84, After deducting his income
tax and retirement payments this white collar worker receives $225.00
per month. This amounts to approximately $7.50 per day to maintain his
family. There are certain fixed monthly expenses which he must pay
including coal, rent, food, insurance, etc. In the month of January his
total family expenses, and there are no frills; amount to $237. In other
words, this government employes, a typical white collar worker, is $12
in the red when all bills are paid. He doesn't like deficit financing
in his home anymore than the public generally likes deficit financing by
the federal government.
This condition must be remedied if this nation is to remain strong
at home in the crucial days ahead. All our citizens out of pure patriotism
will cut corners 11 that will mean victory in the battle for survival against
Red Russia. However, there should be an equality of sacrifice. All seg-
ments of our population should be treated alike. An homest appraisal of
the present predicament of our fixed income groups indicates that to date
their burdens are greater than those in other categories. Their families
deserve a square deal along with the rest.
What can be done to alleviate this inequitable situation. Govern-
badies, including the Congress, must raise wages to a fair and just
20701. Price controls on the necessities of life must be regulated during
this critical inflationary period. Our tax burdens, particularly the new
taxes suggested by President Truman, must be carefully reviewed to make cer-
tain that each and every segment of our mation pays its Just share. Long
overdue tax loopholes must be slammed shut. In the long FULL the United
States can best overcome inflation by increasing our production, individually
and collectively, in private business and in government. This мезда more
plants producing steel and other basic materials and products, more worlding
hours and more efficient production. in the meantime, have ABI, let's maice
certain that equity is done and a solution reached for those who are caught
in the vice of rising prices and fixed wages.
Thanks for listening. This is your Congressman Jerry Ford signing
off till next week at this same time over this same station.
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT February 25, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN - this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital
Details of President Truman's multi-billion dollar tax increase
program were recently spelled out in detail before the House Committee on Ways
and Means. As outlined, his tax boosts would impose the highest tax rates in
history on individual and corporation incomes. Mr. Truman indicated he wants
the higher individual income taxes made retroactive to January 1, 1951.
The President's tax measage to the Congress proposed immediate action
on legislation to produce an additional ten billion dollars right away. This
hurried boost would be followed by another six and one-half billion dollar
increase before the end of 1951.
If the 82nd Congress carries out the White House recommendations, the
American public, rich and poor alike, will have far less to spend for themselves
and their families in the days ahead. For example, Mr. Truman advocates a new
tax bite in individual incomes by proposing a four percentage point increase
in all rate brackets. This across the board jump means tax increases ranging
from 20 per cent in lower income brackets to around five percent in top brackets.
Corporations, under the proposed legislation, would likewise share
substantially in the new tax burdens. Corporate taxes would rise by 8 percentage
points under Mr. Truman's proposal. This boost would apply to all corporations,
big and little.
Excise tax increases on a number of items are included in the plan to
add additional federal revenue. Liquor and cigarette taxes would have sizeable
bumps. Mr. Truman proposes that the federal gasoline tax be doubled from 12
to 3 cents per gallon. In addition, the levies on automobiles purchased would
be jumped 7 to 20 percent. Housewives should be interested in this. The
President asked Congress to increase taxes on electrical appliances, such as
vacuum cleaners, washing machines, etc.
The new tax plan includes proposals for the closing of various tax
loopholes which presently exist in Federal revenue laws. One would be a
withholding system for the collection of taxes on corporation dividend payments
similar to the method now in force on wages and salaries. According to the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, such a tax collecting program probably would
net the Treasury an additional 250 million annually. Another so-called loop-
hole closing involves the repeal of tax exemptions for State and municipal bonds.
Still another is the establishment of a different system for taxing life insur-
ance companies. There are many other suggestions for the tightening of Uncle
Sam's tax laws, many involving minute problems and most of them very technical.
Truthfully, the President has scoured the field to find every possible tax
dollar for the federal coffers.
What will Congress do with Mr. Truman's tax bill? One thing is
certain, the proposals won't be rubberstamped. The Committee on Ways and Means
intends to conduct extensive hearings so many citizens can be heard pro and con,
with the thought that perhaps someone besides a Washington bureaucrat might have
some constructive ideas.
Further, it appears that Congress would like to see first of all what
reductions can be made in the gigantic budget which the President has proposed.
If cuts are made in federal expenditures, then the President's tax bill wouldn't
have to be quite as rough on everyone's pocketbook.
Mr. Truman and the Congress agree that the United States government
during this emergency mobilization period should be on a "pay as you go" basis.
The Truman budget for the next 12 months if adopted will require 16 billion in
new taxes to forestall more deficit spending. From the other point of view,
namely that of economy, every dollar Congress saves on the proposed budget
means less taxes. At the moment no one can predict the outcome of this two
front battle, but it should be obvious to everyone that it is for the best
interest of the American people to put Uncle Sam on a "pay as you go" basis
with the lowest possible federal taxes.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week
at the same time over this same station.
FORD LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD, JR,
FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - MARCH 4, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from
the Nation's Capital.
So far the 82nd Congress is proceeding cautiously on the various
legislative problems on the agenda. Members of the House and Senate
strongly feel that plenty of study, investigation and analysis should
be devoted to the proposed changes in the Selective Service Act, the
President's 16 billion dollar tax hike, and his 98 billion dollar budget.
During the past two years in the 81st Congress there was always great
haste to rubberstamp Mr. Truman's programs. Now, however, careful con-
sideration with a critical eye is the prevailing attitude of Congress
on any White House suggestion.
With many legislative matters getting careful scrutiny in the
confines of House and Senate committees, the Washington spotlights
have been largely focused on the numerous special investigating com-
mittees. Seems like every day some new group of Congressional investi-
gators turn up with a fresh batch of sordid and peculiar revelations.
The Senate subcommittee taking a look at the operations of the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation has exposed some unusual conditions
in and about that government agency. The investigating committee's
original report contended that "favoritism and influence" from high
sources entered into the granting of million dollar loans by the R.F.C.
When the report was first published the President called the committee's
accusations "assinine". Additional witnesses have now testified, includ-
ing many who were attacked by the committee report, and to say. the least
the plot thickens. Some of the testimony has been startling, particularly
the story about an eight thousand dollar mink coat for a White House
stenographer.
Charges and counter charges have been made before the Committee.
It looks like some previously hidden skeletons will finally be dragged
out in the open. They should be with the chips falling where they may
regardless of the consequences.
Naturally people ask what in a constructive way is being accom-
plished by the Senate investigation of the R.F.C.? As I see it, there
are at least two desirable results that may accrue. First and foremost,
the alleged peddlers of "influence and favoritism" are being exposed
to possible criminal prosecution. In addition, the R.F.C. will prob-
ably be reorganized. Some critics say the R.F.C. should be abolished.
In this regard it is worthwhile noting that the Hoover Commission
pointed out in its recommendations of several years ago that there were
serious dangers and pitfalls where the federal government made direct
loans of public funds. The Hoover Commission made no accusations in
reference to the R.F.C. but simply stated that adequate safeguards
be maintained so that public funds would not be misused. From all
indications the Hoover Commission was right again and the Senate's
Investigating Committee is doing and will contimue to do a real public
service by relentlessly pursuing the behind-the-scenes operations of
this government agency.
Other investigations by Congressional committees are turning up
equally bad situations. The Senate Crime Investigating unit has delved
into the nefarious operations of hig time gamblers throughout the United
States. A very recent report by the Crime Investigating Committee charges
the Bureau of Internal Revenue has not made a real effort to crack down on
frandulent income tax returns of known gangaters and racksteers. This
interim report by the Counittee should be videly distributed aroug our
citizens, If you will write me in Washington I will try to get a copy
of the report for you. The facts from the report illustrate the influence
big crime syndicates have throughout the country and points out how the
federal government is being defrauded of many millions of dollars in tax
revenues by these sinister racketeers.
Other Congressional committees are probing into problems both in an d
out of government. The House Committee on Un-American Activities is start-
ing new investigations on Communist activities in the United States. You
will recall, this committee exposed Alger Hiss and Villiam Remington as
subversives despite President Truman's "red herring smear" and his conten-
tion that they were loyal government workers. Beyond any doubt this Com-
mittee has been vindicated and it should relentlessly continue its investi-
gations of communists and "fellow travelers".
Thanks for listening. Don't forget, help your Red Cross for it helps
everyone in need. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week at the same
time over this same station.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR., CONGRESSMAN
FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - MARCH 11, 1951
LADIES AID GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the Nation's
Capital,
Several weeks ago I discussed some aspects of the President's 98 billion
dollar budget. Following that broadcast a number of friends asked - Now what
happens to the Truman budget?
After the President submits his budget the initial job of analyzing and
evaluating the specific items falls on the 50 members of the House Committee
on Appropriations. This group to a large extent is the most important Gon-
gressional check rein on the federal purse strings.
Can the Committee this year cut the President's 98 billion dollar budget?
Yes, reductions will be made. The exact amount can't be predicted at this
moment. The full story will not be told on this score for several months, for
the President's budget has a long and I trust rough path ahead.
One bad situation, however, from the economy point of view, has developed.
Past history proves rather conclusively that the Democrat members of the House
usually go along and support President Truman's budget proposals whatever they
might be. In contrast the Republican Congressmen as a rule oppose many of the
President's requests for federal expenditures outside of those related to the
Defense effort. Consequently if there are more Democrats in the House or more
of the President's own political party on the Committee on Appropriations,
then there is a likelihood that Mr. Truman's 98 billion dollar budget will be
okayed without much change unless some in the President's political party de-
sert his ranks.
What are the facts on this particular point? The House Committee on
Appropriations has 30 Democrats and 20 Republicans. In other words, 60 per
cent of the members of the committee will be rather inclined because of politi-
cal party affiliations to side with their party leader. This means if every
Democrat voted down the line with President Truman on each and every budget
item, the 20 Republicans by voting as a block could not out one penny from the
White House fiscal requests.
The problem 1s further complicated. The House Committee on Appropriations
is divided into 11 subcommittees. Each of the subcommittees handles a portion
of the President's budget. For example, one group, 4 Democrats and 3 Republi-
cans, examine the proposed expenditures of the Treasury and Post Office Depart-
ments. Another subcommittee, the one handling Agriculture, has a ratio of 3 to 2.
There are two of the 11 subcommittees where in the past cuts have been
made, and I might add to the violent displeasure of the bureaucrats affected.
In order to make certain that this doesn't happen again and the funds of the
Department of Interior are not reduced this year, the Administration forces put
4 Democrats against 2 Republicans on this particular subcommittee. With an
identical purpose in mind, the same ratio, 4 to 2, prevails on the group handling
the budget requests for the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce and the
Judiciary.
It should be pointed out that in the House of Representatives in the 82nd
Congress there are 199 Republicans and 233 Democrats. The Republicans have 46
per cent and the majority party 53 per cent of the membership. With this over-
all ratio or party division among the entire House membership, it is difficult
to understand the inequitable stacking of certain appropriation committees.
As events unfold in the months ahead, the Nation will have an opportunity to
see whether or not this "stacking" is a plot to prevent substantial cuts in the
President's budget. I hope the "stacking" will not result in the adoption of
the White House free spending policies, but only time will tell.
BRARY
My own subcommittee, with the title of Deficiencies and Army Civil Func-
tions and a ratio of 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans, has jurisdiction over
miblic works, including river and harber, flood control, power and navi-
gatien projects. The President wants this group to okay the expenditure
of $540 million for the initiation, continuation and completion of public
works projects in the next fiscal year. Our subcommittee has an excellent
chance to knock out of the President's budget the 7 new projects he has
recommended at an initial cost of over 30 million. At the time we
will make a determined effort to impose a percentage out on the projects
that are already under way.
The toughest job this subcommittee has is the rejection of new
projects which other members of Congress and local pressure groups from
all over the country try to include. Most of such proposals are small
in dollar value but if many were included the budget would be even higher,
The pressure is already on the subcommittee for a harbor improvement here
or a flood control project someplace else. I doubt if any such prajects
will sneak in, for the Nation just can't stand any "pork barrel" or
"log rolling" during this emergency.
Thanks for listening, Don't forget, help your Red Cross for it
helps everyone in need. This is Jerry Ford signing off t1.11 next week
at the same time over this same station,
RADIO TALK BY CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD, JR.
FOR USE IN FIFTH DISTRICT - MARCH 17 and 18,1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman, Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital.
The Senate investigating committee which has the spotlight on the Recon-
struction Finance Corporation every day seems to turn up new evidence of "favor-
itism and influence. Best known is the "rags-to-riches" rise in the R.F.C. of
E. Merl Young whose wife is a White House Stenographer and the recipient of the
nine thousand dollar mink coat. Someone after reading of this and other dis-
closures remarked, "if Horatio Alger could return and read of the fast and big
money making deals that seem to prevail in Washington among certain politicians
and their special friends, Horatio Alger would be sure that America is still a
"land of opportunity."
A Congressman friend of mine as the result of the R.F.C. disclosures has
introduced a House resolution which should be of considerable interest to all
Americans. Representative Keating of New York, an able lawyer and a member of
the Committee on the Judiciary submitted the following resolution, and I quote,
"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary
.....
be authorized and
directed to conduct an inquiry, make findings, and make such legislative recom-
mendations as it may deem proper with regard to the following matters:
"(1) What standards of morality or ethics, if any, have been established
for the personnel employed in the Executive Office of the President?
"(2) If none have been established, what steps can properly be taken by
the Congress to insure that action be taken
to lay down moral and
ethical standards to govern the conduct of White House employees at all levels?
"(3) If standards of moral and ethical conduct have been established,
what action has been taken to enforce the maintenance of those standards?
"(4) If no action or insufficient action has been taken in that regard,
what can Congress properly do to assist the Chief Executive in restoring morality
and ethics to the White House staff?
"(5) What revision of the statutes of the United States, if any, is
necessary to give effect to the findings and recommendations of the ammittee
with relation to the foregoing?" end quote.
This is one approach to a serious problem. The House make take some action
on this proposal. Obviously under present circumstances it should.
There is, however, the problem of what to do about R.F.C. itself. You will
recall the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was created in 1932 when the
United States was in a depression. The agency was initially authorized to extend
financial aid to business enterprises in order to prevent further unemployment.
Originally there were certain safeguards in the basic R.F.C. legislation which
prevented the existence of widespread "influence and favoritism". Unfortunately
over the years these safeguards were gradually whittled away.
The Hoover Commission Task Force recognized the dangers now brought to
light and recommended that R.F.C. be abolished. The members of the Hoover Com-
mission were divided on this specific recommendation, consequently, instead of
proposing R.F.C.' extinction, suggested that it be transferred to the Treasury
Department and the old safeguards be re-enacted.
Instead of following the Hoover Commission recommendations in reference to
R.F.C. President Truman recently submitted a hastily prepared reorganization of
this federal Agency. Here are the facts. On February 5th the Senate investi-
gating committee filed its report exposing favoritism and influence in the R.F.C.
Three days later the President called this report "assinine." On February 12th,
four days after this statement, President Truman reappointed the same five di-
rectors to manage the million dollar R.F.C. loans. In other words, on February
12th the President had no intention of recommending a change in R.F.C. Seven
days later, the President submitted his Reorganization proposal to Congress to
concentrate R.F.C. authority in one person rather than a board of directors of
five men.
Careful analysis of the President's plan indicates it is loosely prepared
without the necessary "checks and balances" that must exist where huge sums of
public funds are involved.
Mr. Truman's proposal does not conform to the Hoover Commission recommenda-
tions. The inference might well be drawn that his plan was not submitted on its
merits but rather as a means of diverting adverse publicity on the charges of
"influence and favoritism."
The fate of the superficial R.F.C. reforms has not as yet been decided by
the Congress. Even if the President's plan is approved, that only scratches the
surface. Congress should then undertake a full scale review of the present need,
if any, for the R.F.C. If proper and effective safeguards cannot be imposed on
R.F.C. by the Congress, then the agency should be abolished.
LIBRARY
Thanks for listening. This is your Congressman Jerry Ford signing off
till next week, same time over this same station.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE
IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - 3/25/51
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
nation's Capital.
This past week I was requested to substitute for a Congressman who had
to be out of town on his Appropriations subcommittee concerned with the
departments of State, Justice, Commerce and the Judiciary. The subcommittee
composed of 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans was conducting hearings on proposed
supplemental appropriations as recommended by the President. Supplemental
items are those that come before Congress after the regular appropriations
for the government have been approved. Sometimes the supplementals are
indicative of poor management in the various departments for under normal
circumstances the agency or bureau should be able to predict within reason-
able accuracy their expenditures and then live within the money allotted.
Other items in supplemental appropriation bills are the result of emergencies
not foreseeable in advance. The total requested by President Truman for
this additional spending amounted to over 240 million.
Our particular subcommittee did not have jurisdiction over the entire
amount proposed by the President, but this group of six did have the initial
responsibility of digging out the facts on over 113 million or close to 50
per cent of the over-all total. The subcommittee did a good job in checking
and analyzing the facts and figures which the various departments presented
in justification of their alleged needs. Our group recommended reductions
totalling 89 million.
The Committee for its work uses a small room under the Capitol rotunda.
The six committee members and the two clerks are lined up on one side of a
long table. On the other side sit the Department heads and the Bureau of
Budget experts with reams of figures and charts at their disposal. On the
surface the bureaus and agencies can justify their proposed expenditures,
but the committee members must be convinced, and under grilling cross
examination by the members of committee oftentimes the department justi-
fications can't stand up.
For example, the Department of Justice claimed it needed 160 thousand
dollars to hire new personnel to condemn land for the Department of Defense
and the Atomic Energy Commission. Finally after some probing by the com-
mittee the department official admitted it could use for the job 130 thousand
in other funds already appropriated but unexpended.
The committee had its ire aroused when the Civil Aeronautics Adminis-
tration requested almost a million and a half for airport claims. We couldn't
do much about this particular item for Uncle Sam already has made the con-
tracts, but language was inserted in the bill to slow down, and I hope stop,
such future obligations by the executive branch of the federal government.
Mr. J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI appeared before the subcommittee to re-
Quest an additional six million 500 thousand. Because Mr. Hoover and his
department have a superb record the FBI funds were cut very little. The
threat of communist infiltration in the United States is greater than ever
before. Much of the testimony by J. Edgar Hoover was confidential and off
the record. I can only say that Mr. Hoover confirmed my opinion that our
Nation is in grave danger from subversive elements who are just waiting for
the opportunity to commit wholesale sabotage. Needless to say, the committee
with minor exceptions approved the funds for the FBI.
The big reduction involved funds for the Voice of America. The Depart-
ment of State requested 97 million. The Committee, and it was not a partisan
decision, did not feel the officials from the Voice of America had justified
this particular request. The out does not indicate disapproval of the over-
all idea of the Voice of America, in fact, all but one on the committee
sincerely believe in the program, but rather the committee disapproved of
certain management and policies in the department. The United States must
sell democracy to the people beyond the iron curtain but the Congress has
the responsibility to make certain that our taxpayers get their money's worth
in such an undertaking.
To summarize, our subcommittee has recommended reductions totalling
approximately 89 million out of 113 million. Before the bill gets through
the House and Senate, there may be some changes up or down, but our little
group of six did the best possible job.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week, same
time, same station.
QERALD FORD LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
MARCH 31ST AND APRIL 1ST
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital.
This past week Washington has had an international flavor. The
Senate debated the "troops to Europe" resolution. The Foreign Secretaries
of the North and South American republics opened their fourth meeting with
speeches by Mr. Truman and the Brazilian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The
President of France arrived in town and he was duly welcomed by a sizeable
parade and all kinds of fancy official fanfare.
In aldition to all this there reoccurs the vital problem of the 38th
parallel in Korea. General MacArthur is practically straddling the 38th
parallel. Before crossing he called upon the enemy to quit fighting and
talk peace. General MacArthur's initiative has thrown the Department of
State into a sweat of worry about protocol and prerogative.
Should the commander of the U. N. forces in Korea be criticized for
issuing this call and extending this invitation to the enemy? It was ob-
vious that somebody in authority had to act, General MacArthur on half a
dozen occasions has declared publicly that at the 38th parallel the deci-
sions from then on would be primarily political. Instead of heeding this
advice the President has contended such decisions are military matters and
rest with General MacArthur. Now that the General has acted on this plain
statement from the White House, our Department of State officials are con-
siderably upset. Our diplomats contend the General has gone beyond his
authority.
To most observers the present situation in Korea is primarily politi-
cal, just as it was the last time the U. N. army reached the 38th parallel
in October, 1950. As happened last time, the Department of State has
dillied and dallied, having no policy that the public knows anything about.
The excuse is the State Department's contention that our war or peace aims
are on record with the U. N., and the United Nations not the United States
has the sole responsibility to act, This point of view looks like old
fashioned buck passing.
Unfortunately this buck passing is not limited to a game between the
President and the General, The State Department tossed the ball to the
Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense passed the buck to the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. The White House leaves the matter in the hands of
the U. N. Perhaps General MacArthur's initiative will now galvanize
some leadership among our top policy making diplomats.
The job of ending a war and making peace is not military, but civilian.
The President and the Secretary of State have this jurisdiction and should
work with the U. N. on such vital matters. If the civilians charged with
this responsibility cannot honorably negotiate for peace with the communists,
then they must guide General MacArthur in the political zone in which the
U.N. forces are now entering. If the diplomats duck this responsibility,
General MacArthur as a military man must maintain physical contact with the
enemy.
The lack of any affirmative U. N. policy for General MacArthur to fol-
low now that the Communists have been driven from South Korea will inevit-
ably lead to greater casualties among our troops. The lack of a policy in
one case and too much control in another makes General MacArthur's problems
most difficult. On the one hand our Department of State hamstrings General
MacArthur by refusing to let him use the Air Force to bomb strategic mili-
tary targets in Communist China. In addition the diplomats refuse to let
the General impose an all-out blockade on the Chinese Communist coastline
and furthermore immobilize 250 thousand Chinese Nationalists on Formosa
when these anti-Communist soldiers could be assisting our embattled G.I.s
in Korea. On the other hand, the White House and the State Department
dodge the issue of what to do now that the 38th parallel is again a major
problem.
General MacArthur had no alternative but to act as long as our civilian
policy makers continued to pass the buck. It is to be hoped that his action
will stimulate some forward looking decisions by the White House and our
diplomats, for altogether too many American lives are involved for the U.S.
to mark time for the niceties of international protocol.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week,
same time, same station.
DERALO FORD LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - APRIL 7,1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford, from the Nation's
Capital.
Several months ago one of the oldtimers in the House of Representatives
told me that a member of the Committee on Appropriations learns fax more
about the federal government and how it operates than any other member in the
Congress. At the time I was doubtini of the validity of such a statement. Now,
after serving on this important committee for several months, I am already
appreciating the basis for such a statement. When you have to investigate the
proposed expenditures of a federal agency or bureau a member of Congress inevit-
ably learns in considerable detail how that particular phase of the executive
branch operates and it isn't always good.
Here's an example. Last week the Governor of the Panama Canal and his
staff came before the Army Civil Functions subcommittee on the Committee on
Appropriations and requested authority to spend quite a chunk of federal funds.
The Panama Canal set-up is somewhat different from other federal agencies and
bureaus for under legislation approved in the 81st Congress the Canal tolls
and other business operations in the zone are supposed to defray all expenses.
In other words, Canal Zone revenues and expenditures are expected to balance
with some annual surplus to reimburse Uncle Sam for the initial Construction
costs.
However, our committee while delving into the maze of figures which the
Governor of Panama and his staff presented exposed a situation which is extremely
undesirable. In my estimation something must be done to put a stop to such
practices.
For example, the Panama Canal officials want our committee to approve a
6 million dollar fund for new housing units for Canal Zone employees. On the
surface you would imagine that the need for such an item was based on sound
business practices. You would expect that the federal government after con-
structing housing units would charge adequate rents over the life of the struc-
tures to pay back the initial cost plus maintenance and upkeep. Such is not
the case, Under the proposed set-up the tenants will really reap a harvest at
somebody's expense, certainly not their own.
According to the Governor of the Panama Canal Zone the 6 million dollars
will be spent to build housing units at an average cost of eleven thousand
dollars each. The tenants will pay a monthly rent of approximately $50. It,
was admitted that the monthly rental will only pay maintenance and repair on
the units with the federal treasury getting nothing back on its original expendi-
ture of 6 million.
I asked the Panama Canal officials how they could justify such a program.
In their answer it was claimed the government had to provide special benefits
for Canal Zone employees or no employees would go to work for Uncle Sam in that
area.
Frankly, that sounds good but it isn't true in these days. Back in the
early 19 hundreds when the canal was first built it probably was necessary to
give special inducements to get American citizens to leave home to work in the
Canal Zone. Plenty of inducements were provided by law. For example, until
very recently there were no federal income taxes on wages paid in the Canal Zone.
Even today all Canal Zone employees get a 25 per cent wage differential over
similar government employees in the United States. On top of that very low
rentals on housing accommodations with the Federal Treasury putting up 6 million
and getting nothing in return.
You naturally wonder what will be done about such a situation. I hope to
eliminate the 6 million itemfrom the bill. If that isn't possible, then force
the Canal Zone officials to charge a reasonable rental on the housing units so
Uncle Sam gets some return on his capital investment.
In closing, let's turn to another subject. While we are preparing our
defenses against a possible foreign enemy we are also building our defense
against a domestic enemy which it is estimated will take 215,000 American lives
this year. This enemy is cancer. Over 20 million Americans now living will die
of cancer if the present rate continues.
We must support the American Cancer Society in its great research and
educational program to stop this disease from taking such a tremendous toll of
lives. Great progress is being made, but much still remains to be done. This
great effort costs money - and lots of it. The Congress appropriates some funds
each year but our citizens must help by private donations. I urge you to join
the Cancer Crusade of 1951 by contributing generously to the American Cancer
Society.
Thanks for listening. This is your Congressman Jerry Ford signing off till
LIBRARY
next week, at this same time, over this same station.
RADIO TAX BY GERALD R. FORD, JR, FOR
USE IN Fifth CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - APRIL 14,1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, This is your Congressman Jerry Ford, from the
Nation's Capital.
As you can imagine, Washington has been a madhouse since President Truman
fired Geheral MacArthur. Bitter and vitrolic charges and counter charges have
filled the Halls of Congress. I can recall no incident which has provoked
such violent controversy. Deep scars will remain that inevitably will in-
jure the future solution of our domestic and foreign problems. The action
taken by the President may well be one of the darkest hours in the history
of this great Nation.
My office in Washington has been flooded with long distance telephone
calls, telegrams, and letters, and in practically every instance there was
a bitter denunciation of President Truman and Secretary of State Acheson. In
a majority of the communications impeachment is demanded of both President
Truman and Secretary Acheson.
So there will be no doubt where I stand on this issue, let me repeat a
statement I released to the press and radio the morning after this tragic
announcement by the White House. My statement reads as follows, and I quote.
"By firing General MacArthur the President has unfortunately created
great disunity among the American people. Mr. Truman, by such action,
in effect has aligned himself with the old Alger Hiss gang in the De-
partment of State. For all practical purposes the President like Mr.
Acheson refuses to turn his back on Alger Hiss.
How can the President fire General MacArthur and still refuse to dis-
miss his White House aídes who are involved in the .F.C.mess? Mr.Truman
fires General MacArthur but retains on his staff an employee who re-
ceived the infamous $9,500 mink coat.
In my opinion the President's housecleaning should have started in the
White House and not on the battlefields in Korea.
What is the fundamental issue involved? It is precisely this. Is the
United States to follow the Acheson-Marshall-Alger Hiss policy of appease-
ment in the Pacific or is our nation to carry out the strong anti-communist
policies of MacArthur in that area of the world?
Few individuals will contend that the President did not have legal, I
repeat legal, authority to dismiss General MacArthur. The President as Com-
mander-in-Chief does have the Constitutional authority to relieve a subordinate
but that is not the real issue.
The citizens of our nation see the dismissal of General MacArthur as a
capitulation to communism. Let's take a look at those who are pleased with
MacArthur's firing by Truman. The biggest Communist newspaper in the U.S.,
the Daily Worker, and it follows the party line laid down by the Kremlin,
applauded the firing of MacArthur. For some time the Communist newspapers
throughout the world have been yapping for MacArthur's scalp. The Commies
and Reds are now happy with their success.
The British Socialists and the Communist appeasors like Nehru of India
have obviously won a victory. To the delight of the old Alger Hiss gang in
the Department of State General MacArthur has been relieved of his command.
Fortunately the General is returning to the United States to report to
the American people. I firmly believe he should address a joint session of
the Congress. In addition, the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services
and Foreign Affairs should hear the General's side of the story. For the
past six years Secretary Acheson and General Marshall have propagandized
Congress with appeasement policies in reference to the Chinese Communists.
It's about time the anti-communist policies of General MacArthur were told
first hand to the Congress and the American people.
As I listened to Mr. Truman's speech defending his dismissal of General
MacArthur it sounded very much like the words and phrases we heard before
World War II when the English capitulated to Hitler at Munich. The appease-
ment of Hitler at Munich didn't prevent the last war. The President's appease-
ment of the Communists by his dismissal of MacArthur will not win the war in
Korea.
The shabby firing of MacArthur has boosted Communist morale and strength.
As a result, the battle for our freedoms and our nation has been made more
difficult and the American lives lost in Korea may now have been in vain.
Thanks for listening. This is your Congressman Jerry Ford signing off
next week, at this same time, over this same station.
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - APRIL 21 and 22
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, This is your Congressman Jerry Ford, from
the Nation's Capital.
The welcome which Washington extended General MacArthur was a tribute
which he richly deserved. Of course, there were one or two unfortunate
incidents such as President Truman designating the not well thought of
General Vaughan as the White House emissary to greet General MacArthur.
Everyone in the Nation's Capital felt the emotion of the day. This
was particularly true among Members of the House and Senate, Democrats
and Republicans alike. Staid oldtimers of long experience in the House
hurried to get a seat in the chamber. Those who arrived at the last
minute, regardless of eniority, stood up to hear the General's momentous
address. Those who were present, either on the floor or in the gallery,
were not disappointed. It was a speech that will go down in history, for
it touched your heart yet the logic captured your mind.
The General's words were a masterpiece of statesmanship. At no time
did he contend that President Truman had no legal authority to dismiss
him. General MacArthur believes in our Constitution
and under the Constitution of the United States the rresident,
as commander-in-chief, can fire anyone in the military organization.
It appears also that General MacArthur expected the President to re-
lieve him of his command. Mr. Truman has been and is now committed to
the policies promulgated by Secretary Acheson. If the President was to
continue his support for Mr. Acheson and his policies, he had to fire
General MacArthur.
During his speech the General with a convincing sincerity said this
about those who brought his dismissal, and I quote, "I address you with
neither rancor or bitterness in the fading twilight of life with but one
purpose in mind: To serve my country." End quote. The General did not
discuss personalities; he discussed fundamentals.
The real issue boils down to this: Have our policies in the past and
will the future policies as outlined by Mr. Truman and Secretary Acheson
be for the best interests of the Nation? General MacArthur as a fellow
citizen disagrees with the President's policies and the General feels so
deeply and with such conviction he obviously courted dismissal in order
to bring his views to his fellow Americans.
The night before General MacArthur addressed the Congress I listened
attentively to a radio speech by Secretary Acheson. My analysis of the
two views, and it's strictly a personal opinion, is as follows: The State
Department claims it opposes appeasement but in the final analysis Mr.
Acheson will virtually surrender if it can be done without losing face.
General MacArthur in contrast stands as the symbol of the opposition to
appeasement. The General honestly believes that a firm position will pre-
vent an all-out World War III. He contends that phony "peace" talk will
only invite and sponsor a spread of the present conflict and greater casu-
alties on the battlefields.
Last week I mentioned the appeasement at Munich and how it led to and
failed to prevent World War II. At that time Winston Churchill in condemn-
ing the Munich sellout said, and I quote, "Gentlemen, you have chosen be-
tween war and dishonor. You have chosen dishonor. You shall have war."
End quote. General MacArthur has given us the same warning that appease-
ment leads to war and does not prevent it.
In closing, I pay high tribute to our great and good Senator Vandenberg.
We mourn his passing, but all Americans should be forever grateful for his
untiring and unselfish efforts in alerting and reinforcing the citadels
of freedom against the towering menace of Communist totalitarianism. It
is a tragedy that this superb statesman and leader should leave us at
this critical hour in our Nation's history, but his record should forever
be a guiding light for our people.
Thanks for listening. This is your Congressman Jerry Ford, signing
FORD
off til next week, at this same time, over this same station.
GERALD
LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - APRIL 28 and 29, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, This is your Congressman, Jerry Ford from the
Nations Capital.
This past week has been quite a let down with General MacArthur
temporarily out of Washington. It can be assumed, however, that the tension
will return to fever pitch when the General appears within a few days before
several Congressional committees investigating the failures of the President's
Far Eastern foreign policy. In the interim the House of Representatives has
literally kept its nose to the legislative grindstone.
For three days the House considered the Department of Interior
Appropriations bill involving close to 600 million dollars. Last January the
President proposed that the Congress appropriate $559,286,000 for the activities
of this department of the federal government for the next fiscal year, During
the current fiscal year the Department of Interior has a budget of over 578
million. In other words, Mr. Truman did recommend a reduction of approximately
19 million dollars in the Department's funds for the next twelve months.
This proposed cut was certainly desirable, but was it sufficient?
Recent action by the House Committee on Appropriations and the House itself
indicates rather conclusively that the members of the House felt the President's
knife was not quite sharp enough when he examined the money requests of the
Department of Interior.
For example, the subcommittee on the Department of Interior of the
Appropriations Committee cut an additional $39,254,500 from the department's
budget or a reduction of slightly over '7 per cent below the proposal by
President Truman. The biggest slice, 16 million, came out of the Bureau of
Reclamation construction funds. Will there be irreparable harm to the Bureau's
work because of this cut? Definitely not, for the Bureau still has over 207
million for its work in the next year. Another cut of over 6 million dollars
came out of the 65 million the President proposed for the Bureau of Indian
affairs. This sizeable cut was principally based on the Bureau's rather bad
record of management over the past few years. Last year the members of this
committee, both Democrats and Republicans, didn't like the way the Bureau of
Indian Affairs was being handled so an investigation was made. I'm certain
good results will accrue as the result of this Congressional probe.
"hen the bill came to the floor of the House the economy axe was
sharpened still further. For example, I introduced an amendment to cut 5,5
million dollars from the construction and acquisition funds of the Bonneville
Power Administration. The so-called Ford amendment was approved by a vote of
110 to 91.
You are probably interested in the facts in reference to this amend-
ment. The Bonneville Power Administration is the federal agency that has
jurisdiction over the construction and acquisition of electric power trans-
mission lines in the Northwest Pacific better known as the Columbia River basin.
The President recommended 69.5 million dollars for this agency. The Committee
on Appropriations cut 2 million. My amendment reduced the amount an additional
5.5 million dollars. Investigation of the situation revealed that the Bonneville
Power Administration could well get along in the next 12 months with $62,000,000.
The members of the House also knocked out $3,400,000 for power trans-
mission lines in the Virginia-North Carolina area on the basis that a private
power company is ready, willing and able to supply the necessary service at a
nominal rate to the federal government. It just doesn't make sense for the
federal government to duplicate already existing pcwer lines. The federal
government has enough places to spend its funds building up the Armed Forces
without engaging in wasteful duplication of already existing transmission
lines.
I hope this play by play discussion of how we are trying to save
your tax dollars is interesting. It is sometimes technical but I assure you
mighty important.
Thanks for listening. This is your Congressman Jerry Ford signing
off til next week, at this same time, over this same station.
GERALD LIDRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - MAY 5 and 6, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, This is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the Nation's
Capitol.
Here is some good down to earth economy which the House of Representatives
achieved last week. The President in his budget for the Department of Interior
requested $559.2 million. The House Committee on Appropriations reduced this
by $39.2 million. By a series of amendments on the floor of the House further
reductions totalling $23,267,000 were approved.
Several months ago President Truman "dared" the Congress to cut his budget.
In this one bill involving funds for the Department of Interior, the House has
cut $62,467,000 from the President's budget. This is better than a 10 per cent
reduction. If the Senate will now concur in the House reductions, Mr. Truman's
"dare" will have been successfully challenged and some relief given to the
American taxpayers.
Let's turn to another subject. Presumably most of you saw the admission
by the British trade officials that since the outbreak of the Korean War the
English have sold 120,000 tons of rubber to Communist China and 40,400 tons
to Soviet Russia. During debate in the House of Commons it was admitted that
the British sold in 1949, the year before the Korean War, only 27,500 tons of
rubber to Red China. In other words, British sales of rubber to the Communists
have increased heavily since the United Nations undertook to stop Communist
aggression in Korea.
Frankly, this deplorable situation, in my estimation, calls for strong
action. It is unthinkable that the British Labor Government should permit
such transactions. How can the British officials in good conscience allow the
sale of critical and strategic materials to the enemy when substantial portions
of the materials sold to the Communists will eventually be used against our
forces on the battlefields?
Several months ago when there were rumors of heavy rubber sales by the
British to the Reds, I contacted our own State Department concerning the matter
and strongly urged that the United States use its influence to stop such sales.
The Department of State gave no adequate answer and didn't appear too eager to
intervene.
The situation can and must be corrected by the United Nations and our
Department of State should take the lead in forcing the necessary action. The
United Nations has a grave responsibility to the men fighting in Korea. The
United Nations through collective action can impose effective embargoes on the
shipment of goods, including rubber, to Red China and Russia. Failure of the
U.N. to curtail such shipments is additional evidence of a lack of policy by
the diplomats in the Korean War. If the diplomats in the United Nations
condone and permit the sale of rubber and other strategic materials to the Reds,
it proves much of what General MacArthur has said since his return. General
MacArthur has repeatedly stated that the U.N. had no real policy in Korea, that
he and his troops had to operate in a vacuum while the diplomats talked on and
on. General MacArthur has repeatedly urged an all out embargo on the shipment
of rubber and other materials to the Reds. Unfortunately, the British have
fought him on this and other issues. As the facts come to light it is becoming
increasingly evident that the British Labor Government has not supported the
Korean War to the fullest extent. It is regrettable that the British have sold
rubber to the enemy at a sizeable profit and in addition blocked any effort in
the United Nations for an embargo or economic restrictions. In the light of
the disclosures by the British that the enemy has been aided and abetted by
English trade practices in the Far East, the Department of State under
Secretary Acheson and the American delegation in the U.N. must demand long
overdue action by the U.N.
Thanks for listening. This is your Congressman Jerry Ford signing off
til next week, at this same time, over this same station.
GERALD LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - MAY 5 and 6, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, This is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the Nation's
Capitol.
Here. is some good down to earth economy which the House of Representatives
achieved last week. The President in his budget for the Department of Interior
requested $559.2 million. The House Committee on Appropriations reduced this
by $39.2 million. By a series of amendments on the floor of the House further
reductions totalling $23,267,000 were approved.
Several months ago President Truman "dared" the Congress to cut his budget.
In this one bill involving funds for the Department of Interior, the House has
cut $62,467,000 from the President's budget. This is better than a 10 per cent
reduction. If the Senate will now concur in the House reductions, Mr. Truman's
"dare" will have been successfully challenged and some relief given to the
American taxpayers.
Let's turn to another subject. Presumably most of you saw the admission
by the British trade officials that since the outbreak of the Korean War the
English have sold 120,000 tons of rubber to Communist China and 40,400 tons
to Soviet Russia. During debate in the House of Commons it was admitted that
the British sold in 1949, the year before the Korean War, only 27,500 tons of
rubber to Red China. In other words, British sales of rubber to the Communists
have increased heavily since the United Nations undertook to stop Communist
aggression in Korea.
Frankly, this deplorable situation, in my estimation, calls for strong
action. It is unthinkable that the British Labor Government should permit
such transactions. How can the British officials in good conscience allow the
sale of critical and strategic materials to the enemy when substantial portions
of the materials sold to the Communists will eventually be used against our
forces on the battlefields?
Several months ago when there were rumors of heavy rubber sales by the
British to the Reds, I contacted our own State Department concerning the matter
and strongly urged that the United States use its influence to stop such sales.
The Department of State gave no adequate answer and didn't appear too eager to
intervene.
The situation can and must be corrected by the United Nations and our
Department of State should take the lead in forcing the necessary action. The
United Nations has a grave responsibility to the men fighting in Korea. The
United Nations through collective action can impose effective embargoes on the
shipment of goods, including rubber, to Red China and Russia. Failure of the
U.N. to curtail such shipments is additional evidence of a lack of policy by
the diplomats in the Korean War. If the diplomats in the United Nations
condone and permit the sale of rubber and other strategic materials to the Reds,
it proves much of what General MacArthur has said since his return. General
MacArthur has repeatedly stated that the U.N. had no real policy in Korea, that
he and his troops had to operate in a vacuum while the diplomats talked on and
on. General MacArthur has repeatedly urged an all out embargo on the shipment
of rubber and other materials to the Reds. Unfortunately, the British have
fought him on this and other issues. As the facts come to light it is becoming
increasingly evident that the British Labor Government has not supported the
Korean War to the fullest extent. It is regrettable that the British have sold
rubber to the enemy at a sizeable profit and in addition blocked any effort in
the United Nations for an embargo or economic restrictions. In the light of
the disclosures by the British that the enemy has been aided and abetted by
English trade practices in the Far East, the Department of State under
Secretary Acheson and the American delegation in the U.N. must demand long
overdue action by the U.N.
Thanks for listening. This is your Congressman Jerry Ford signing off
til next week, at this same time, over this same station.
FORD LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R, FORD, JR. FOR
USE IN FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - MAY 12th and 13th
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital.
Much of the news on Capitol Hill still revolves around the abrupt dis-
missal of General MacArthur by the President. The Senate hearings continue
with General Marshall and others trying to justify the stalemated war in
Korea which each week tolls off 1500 American casualties. These hearings
which will last for some time should give the American people practically
all the facts concerning the basic differences in foreign policy in the Far
East. All of us hope and trust that as a result of the Senate hearings the
diplomatic errors and mistakes of the past can be remedied in the future.
The Department of State seems to have a knack for doing things the wrong
way. For example, the latest where a State Department stenographer, unknown
to General MacArthur, surreptitiously sat behind a screen and took notes of
the Truman-MacArthur conference at Wake Island. The State Department with
a straight face contends this young lady wasn't planted behind the screen.
In reply these questions should be asked and answered. Did. it just happen
that the stenographer was sitting behind the screen so she couldn't be seen
but at the same time could hear the words of the President and the General?
Did it just happen that the stenographer had her shorthand notebook in her
possession? It is ridiculous for the State Department to contend this was
not all pre-arranged. There is no objection to notes being recorded on such
an important conference, in fact it seems vital that discussions of this
importance should be in writing. However, the State Department's statement
should be denounced that none of this behind-the-scene plot was pre-arranged.
The State Department by this time should realize the American citizens are
not gullible and will not swallow fish stories of this magnitude.
It was recently reported that General Wedemeyer has requested his
retirement. As you know, in July, 1947, President Truman sent Gen. Wedemeyer
to the Far East with orders to appraise the political, economic, psychological
and military situations--"current and projected"--in China and Korea.
This was designed as a fact-finding mission to provide a base for future
American policy in that area,
General Wedemeyer was instructed to report his estimate of the character,
extent, and probable consequences of any American assistance in that area of
the world.
The requested reports and recommendations were made to the President in
September, 1947. Subsequent events have revealed their accuracy and foresight.
It is one of the tragedies of history that these reports were suppressed until
they were no longer of value in determining American policy.
Unfortunately, instead of being rewarded for distinguished public service
of the highest degree, Gen. Wedemeyer was demoted from his position on the
Army General Staff to a relatively less important field command.
The Wedemeyer reports, which presented plans to save China and Manchuria
from Communism, were suppressed until July, 1949. The report on Korea was
denied to the public until a few days ago. It contained, and I quote, this
warning:
"The Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean Communist Army of approxi-
mately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized Constabulary
of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. The withdrawal of
American military forces from Korea would.
result in the occupation of
South Korea either by Soviet troops, or, as seems more likely, by the Korean
military units trained under Soviet auspices. = Those units, Gen. Wedemeyer
said, maintained active liaison "with the Chinese Communists in Manchuria. =
end quote.
This was written nearly four years ago!
To meet this threat, Gen. Wedemeyer recommended a native force in South
Korea, "sufficient in strength to cope with the threat from the North, = to pre-
vent the "forcible establishment of a Communist government."
Since 70 per cent of the Korean population was in the American occupation
zone south of the 38th Parallel, the manpower advantage was in our favor, if we
had used it, But the sound Wedemeyer proposal was ignored, and, when the pre-
dicted invasion by the reds began in June last year, American troops had to be
rushed to the scene because sufficient South Korean troops were not available,
The State Department because it ignored the Wedemeyer report seems responsible
for this decision.
Because of its private war with Chiang Kai-shek, the Department of State
decided to abandon China to the Reds. To be consistent in that position, the
Department also chose to abandon Korea by withdrawal of American forces before
the Communist aggression. When that decision was reversed by Pres. Truman in
1950, Americans had to do the fighting nov in process. This was the pay-off on
the State Department's disastrous post World War II flirtation with the Com-
munist "agrarian reformers" in Chine.
Thanks for listening, folks, This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week,
same time, same station,
LIBRARY
WFUR - 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAYS
WERS -- 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAYS
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAYS
WHIC - 7:55- 8:00 P.M. MONDAYS
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M.
SUNDAYS
WJEF - 2:30- 2:35 P.M. SUNDAYS
WLAV ** 12:25-12:30 P.M. SUNDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R, FORD, JR. FOR USE
IN fifth DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - MAY 19TH AND 20TH
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital.
In January of this year President Truman in a message to the Congress
recommended a 16 billion dollar boost in federal taxes. The President stated
many new taxes were essential and those already on the books had to be in-
creased if the federal budget was to be balanced under his proposed 94.4 billion
dollar spending program for the next fiscal year.
President Truman's request for 16 billion in new taxes made everyone
shudder for even under our existing federal tax laws Uncle Sam takes quite a
bite out of weekly pay checks. Our citizens rightfully wondered just where
and how these new taxes would be paid,
Shortly after Mr. Truman's tax increase proposals became public his
Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Charles Snyder, appeared before the House
Committee on Ways and Means to urge the immediate enactment of the necessary
legislation and in effect suggested that full hearings where those affected
could testify were not essential. Some of the specific tax recommendations
proposed by Mr. Truman and the Treasury officials were so drastic the Com-
mittee turned down the request for a "quickie" tax bill. The Committee cer-
tainly acted wisely for it would have been unjust to boost federal taxes and
impose new ones without hearing the viewpoint of our citizens. The Committee
did have full and extensive hearings lasting several months and as a result
came to the conclusion that President Truman had miscalculated the need for
additional federal revenue. Instead of a new tax bill totalling 16 billion
dollars as proposed by the White House, the Committee will probably recommend
legislation uping federal taxes about 7 to 8 billion annually. In addition,
the Committee on Ways and Means is drafting a bill that seems to be more
equitable to all segments of our nation.
For the last several weeks this Committee has periodically released
information on what its tax bill will look like. Here is one provision that
is new and which undoubtedly is the result of the recent disclosures of the
Kefauver Crime Committee. Although President Truman had not recommended such
a provision in the tax bill the House Committee on Ways and Means has approved
a 10% federal tax on the gross receipts of bookies, number racket operators
and others who operate gambling set-ups.
The Committee also approved a 2 billion dollar increase in corporation
income taxes. The Treasury Department had proposed a 3 billion boost in such
taxes. Personal income taxes were tentatively increased by 3 percentage points.
The President and his tax advisors had proposed a much larger increase.
A number of excise taxes will be revised, some up and a few down.
For example, the manufacturers excise tax on automobiles would be increased
from 7 per cent to 10. The Treasury officials wanted this tax on cars boosted
to 20 per cent. The excise tax on domestic telegrams will probably be lowered
from 25% to 20% and some other items will receive similar favorable considera-
tion.
The Committee has in effect adopted the provisions of a bill I proposed
last year. Under present law, when you sell your home there is a tax on the
profit even though you have to buy another with the money derived from the sale.
This provision in existing law is particularly unjust to the individual who is
forced to sell because he is called back to the Armed Forces or his company
moves him to another community. By adopting a provision similar to my bill
the committee provides an exception under the capital gains tax for a home
owner who sells his house and puts the money into a new home.
There hasn't been time on this one program to discuss all of the aspects
of the tax increase legislation recommended by the President. More information
will come later. In the meantime, thanks for listening. I'll be back next week,
same time, same station.
WFRS - 12:05-12:10 P.M, TUESDAY
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAY
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 P.M. MONDAY
WGRD --- 11:55-12:00 M SUNDAY
WFUR -- 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAY
WLAV - 12:25-12:30 P.M. SUNDAY
WJEF - 2:30 - 2:35 P.M. SUNDAY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - - MAY 26, 27, 28, 29, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the Nation's
Capital.
My remarks in this report will be in the nature of a progress summary
relating to 1952 appropriations for the Army Corps of Engineers. This agency
is requesting of Congress $622,000,000 to carry on its civil functions work for
the fiscal year 1952. With this amount of money the Corps proposes to complete,
continue, and initiate a large number of projects concerned with rivers, harbors,
and flood control. The rivers and harbors program involves 41 projects. There
are 65 projects in the scheduled flood control program.
The purpose of these programs is to improve and control the waterways of
the nation. This means the dredging of harbors and rivers, the construction
of locks and canals, the building of levees, and the erection of dams. The
benefits derived from such activities are important and significant, Levees
reduce flood losses, dredging, locks and canals, speed commerce, and tremendous
power in the form of electricity is derived from harnessing our rivers. This
is the work of the Army Engineers; it is important work; at the same time it
is costly work.
For the past month a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee has held
extensive hearings with the Corps of Engineers to determine the validity of the
requested $622,000,000 for next year. I am a member of this committee. While
these long and extensive hearings have been in progress, Professor Brainard,
on loan to my staff from the Economics Department of Michigan State College,
has made a careful and detailed study of each project. The hearings are now
finished and within a short time the subcommittee will determine the amount
of money to be recommended to the Appropriations Committee and the House as a
whole.
During the past week Professor Brainard and I have reviewed thoroughly
the vast amount of information that has been submitted to the committee, This
has been done so that I can make specific and sound recommendations to the
Appropriations Committee and to the Congress with respect to funds for the Corps
of Engineers. It is perfectly clear to me that, under present conditions, the
full request of the Corps of Engineers will have to be reduced. I am also
convinced that much of the work of the Corps must be continued, but it can be
done on a reduced scale without jeopardy to the public welfare,
Based on these convictions we have worked out a plan by which substantial
savings can be made on a sound basis. In the first place, I am going to suggest
that several projects be postponed at this time. These are new undertakings for
which plans have been prepared but on which there has been no actual construction
I do not argue that these projects are not desirable; my position is that other
things are more important at this time. The savings in this particular category
will be about $29,700,000. Many projects are of the continuous type, or almost
so. For example, a flood control program will provide for a series of levees
which are to be built over a period of years. It is my recommendation that work
in progress continue in such instances but that no new phases of such projects
be started next year. If this suggestion is followed. another $17,542,000 can
be deleted from the requested appropriation, For all the rest I am suggesting
a uniform 10 per cent reduction in the request for each project, with certain
specified exceptions. For example, there are several projects which contribute
materially to national defense. Funds for such projects should be available
for completion as soon as possible. The savings achieved by this 10 per cent
cut omitting any reductions on national defense projects will total $50,818,000.
To summarize, the Army Engineers this year are requesting $622,000,000 to
carry on their civil functions activities. On the basis of hearings and the
work of Professor Brainard, I am suggesting that $523,940,000 be recommended to
the Congress, This represents a savings of $98,060,000. A savings which, in my
opinion, will in no way limit the effectiveness of the work of the Corps of
Engineers.
The recommendations for cuts I shall make to the 4 other members of our
subcommittee are economically sound and thoroughly justified. Essential work
will, of course, be done; nonessential activities must wait.
Thanks for listening, folks, I'll be back next week, same time, same station.
R.FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
WFUR - 12:00 - 12:05 P.M. SATURDAY
WLAV - 12:25 - 12:30 P.M. SUNDAYS
WOOD doe 12:10 - 12:15 P.M. SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:55 - 8:00 P.M. MONDAYS
WGRD - 11:55 12:00 M. SUNDAYS
WEF - 2:30 - 2:35 P.M, SUNDAYS
WFRS - 12:05 12:10 P.M. TUESDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R0 FORD, JR. FOR USE
IN FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - JUNE 9th, 10th and 11th
'LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from
the Nation's Capital.
The past several months I've discussed with you numerous problems
related to current legislation. The topic today is a little different
although certainly of considerable interest. I shall try to explain the
price war between Macy's and Gimbel's - the big department stores in New
York City. Why all of a sudden are these two stores selling nationally
advertised merchandise at prices way under those established by the manu-
facturer? The reason is simple, the Supreme Court recently ruled on the
nonsigner provision of the retail price maintenance laws, Let me explain
briefly what the decision was and why Macy's and Gimbel's, as well as
others in some areas, are cutting prices.
We have all come to accept the fact that many nationally adver-
tised products are sold at a standard price anywhere and everywhere in the
United States. Such has not always been the case. You ask, how has this
situation been possible under our antimonopoly legislation which allegedly
prohibits restraint of trade, Frankly it is a restraint of trade, but
the Sherman Act was amended in 1937 by the so-called Miller-Tydings Act
to permit retail price maintenance. Because of the recent adverse decision
by the United States Supreme Court on this law the price war is on.
Most of us remember the depression days of twenty years ago
when business was mighty tough on small retailers. It was a common prac-
tice then for retailers, principally the larger ones, to sell nationally
advertised products at cut rate to attract customers, Many small stores
couldn't survive this loss-leader practice. As a result the Congress
and the various state legislatures were called on for help.
Here is some interesting historical background on this type of
legislation and the related problems. California in 1931 passed a law
permitting a manufacturer and retailer to enter into a contract whereby the
retail price would be fixed by the producer. This law was deficient because
it made no provision for the retailer who did not sign such a contract,
The law was amended in 1933 to provide that all retailers were bound by
the manufacturers contract if one or more within the state signed the
agreement. This was known as the nonsigner clause. By 1937 many states
had followed the example of ornia.
Because interstate commerce was clearly involved and because, in
1933, the Supreme Court had declared retail price maintenance contracts
invalid, Congress in 1937 amended the Sherman Act to permit the operation
of these state laws. Forty-five states, including Michigan, now have retail
price maintenance laws with the nonsigner provision.
It was the legality of this nonsigner provision which the Supreme
Court decided on May 21st of this year. The question was raised by a
liquor dealer in Louisiana who refused to sell certain nationally advertised
brands of liquor at prices set by the distillers. This dealer had not
signed a contract with the producers although other retailers in the state
had done SO.
By a vote of 6 to 3 the Supreme Court ruled the Miller-Tydings
amendment to the Sherman Act applied only where an actual contract existed.
This meant the liquor dealer in question was not legally bound by the
Louisiana law. In other words, he could sell the whiskey at any price he
might choose.
The New York City price war is possible because Macy's and Gimbel's
apparently have not signed retail price agreements with the manufacturers of
certain nationally advertised products, They are nonsigners and can now
sell at whatever prices they please and they apparently are doing just that.
The pattern set in New York City is spreading to other parts of the country.
I can't predict what will happen elsewhere. Your guess is as good as mine.
However, the effects of this decision will be interesting to watch, especially
those of us who are consumers.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off. I'll be
back next week, same time, same station.
FORD LIBRARY
WFUR - 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAYS
WLAV - 12:25-12:30 P.M. SUNDAYS
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:5 5-8:00 P.M. MONDAYS
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M.
SUNDAYS
WJEF - 2:30- 2:35 P.M. SUNDAYS
WERS - 12:05-12:10 P.M. TUESDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN FIFTH
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN -
JUNE 16TH, 17TH, 18TH
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from
the Nation's Capital.
Two or three weeks ago I outlined for you the progress of the
House Appropriations Committee relative to funds for the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers. It is this branch of the Army that develops our rivers and
harbors and works out flood control programs where necessary. In the con-
duct of these activities many of the projects involve the construction of
power facilities, This is especially so with respect to flood control
projects since hydroelectric power dams are frequently an integral part
of the program.
On this program today there is a further progress report on this
particular appropriation bill. On Friday, June 8th, the Appropriations
Committee accepted the recommendations of our subcommittee, I am a member
of the Appropriations Committee and as you know, I have spent much of my time
for the past 3 months in long and technical hearings where over 400 wit-
nesses appeared. The bill which was submitted to the House of Representa-
tives on Tuesday of this past week represented a carefully prepared and
well-thought-out program for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry
out its river, harbor and flood control work for the coming fiscal year.
The money requested by the Corps for its work totalled about
650 million dollars. The bill as presented to the House amounted to approxi-
mately 500 million dollars; this represents a reduction of about 126 million
dollars. This is a somewhat larger reduction than I reported to you earlier
might be possible. At that time it had appeared that 100 million reduction
would probably be about as large a cut as possible. To achieve a greater
reduction is all to the good-the costs of government must be reduced in
every possible way.
How has this reduction of 126 million dollars been achieved?
The committee established these fundamental principles, essentially the
same as those I discussed on earlier programs. The first principle was
that no new projects should be started in the coming year. This means
that new projects were deleted totalling $30,000,000. The ultimate total
cost of these projects would be $471,385,000. The second principle was that
no funds should be used for planning new projects. The saving thus achieved
was $3,000,000. The corps now has over $5 billion dollars' worth of projects
under way. The Committee believed that it was time to call a halt on pro-
posed programs until some of these projects already in process are nearer
completion. The third principle was that parts of projects, where just
being started, should be delayed, especially if this could be done without
impairment of work already done. Many projects fell in this category and
the savings achieved were substantial. Finally, it was agreed that some
projects could be slowed down for a year or so without harm. In these in-
stances the committee recommended reduced funds in line with reduced opera-
tions.
This is the method by which it was possible to recommend a bill
representing a substantial reduction from the amount requested, The members
of the House of Representatives discussed the bill at length on Tuesday and
on Wednesday there was a vote. Before final passage, however, many amend-
ments were offered by various Congressmen who sincerely believed that in one
respect or another the reductions suggested were too drastic. For the first.
time this session efforts were made to increase the appropriation; previously
the tendency has been to make further cuts.
As finally passed the bill will provide about 500 million dollars
for the next fiscal year. Within a few weeks the Senate will take action on
the same bill and then differences will be ironed out in conference at a
later date. When the final act is passed and set to the President there will
be a final report.
Thanks for listening. This is your Congressman Jerry Ford, signing
off until next week, same time, same station.
LIBRARY
WFUR - 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAYS
WLAV - 12:25-12:30 P.M. SUNDAYS
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAYS
WJEF - 2:30-2:35 P.M. SUNDAYS
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:55-8:00 P.M. MONDAYS
WFRS - 12:05-12:10 P.M. TUESDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN FIFTH
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - JUNE 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th
LADIES AND Gentlemen, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital.
For the past few weeks I've discussed with you the various appropria-
tion bills which thus far have. been considered by the House of Representatives.
Let's turn today to the other side of the ledger - where is the Treasury to
get the money to pay the bills.
This past week a new tax bill was before the House. Frankly as a
whole it isn't a fair and properly proportioned tax measure. It does con-
tain some good features and the Committee should be commended in proposing
these changes, but there appear to be as many bad as good provisions in
the 153 pages comprising the recommendations,
If this tax bill is approved by the Congress it will be the second
increase in federal taxes in the last 12 months. Right after the start of
the Korean War President Truman recommended a sizeable raise in federal
taxes. Congress whittled down the President's first tax increase proposal.
When the 82nd Congress convened in January of this year Mr. Truman recom-
mended more and more federal taxes, in fact the President's tax message
called for 16 billion in new taxes immediately.
Fortunately the House Committee on Ways and Means decided that the
Congress ought to look rather closely at this gigantic 16 billion dollar tax
increase recommended by Mr. Truman. After long hearings with many witnesses
giving their views, the Committee on Ways and Means produced a tax bill.
It's a far better proposal than the 16 billion dollar recommendation made
by the President but it isn't sound legislation by a long ways. For example,
instead of taking 16 billion in new federal taxes the proposal will raise
approximately 7a billion annually in new taxes.
Here's a small item but it illustrates how illogical the new tax
bill appears to be. An excise tax has been recommended for electric razors
and no comparable excise tax has been proposed for razor blades. Although
I use the old hand method of shaving every morning with my double edge
blade, I fail to see why the man who uses an electric razor should be taxed
and my shaving blades not taxed. Obviously our tax laws should be fair for
all and this particular provision is certainly discriminatory.
If this tax bill is finally enacted, it will mean that personal
income taxes will be increased approximately 17 per cent in the last 12 months.
In other words, you will be paying 17 per cent more to the federal treasury
in direct income taxes under the tax program based on the recommendations
of the President and the majority members of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The basic justification for a. new tax bill is a "pay as we go" policy
during the present emergency. With a federal debt of over 250 billion dollars
a "pay as we go" program is essential. It should be brought out, however,
that excessive taxation is not the best or soundest method of balancing the
federal budget. The budget could and should be balanced by reductions in
nondefense - nonessential spending. If the President would only oooperate
in slashing the budget, there would be less need for his new tax bill which
by the way is the biggest tax increase proposal in the history of federal
tax legislation.
It would be inaccurate to say there will be no increases in federal
taxes in the months ahead but the bill as proposed by the President and the
Committee is far out of balance. I feel the bill should go back to the Com-
mittee for further revision, If that fails the Senate will have to correct
the inequalities which obviously exist in the bill considered by the House.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off. I'll be back
next week, same time, same station,
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 P.M. MONDAYS
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAYS
WJHF - 2:30 - 2:35 P.M. SUNDAYS
WFRS - 12:05-12:10 P.M. TUESDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - JUNE 30th, JULY
1st, 2nd, 3rd
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from
the Nation's Capital.
About a month ago while in New York I spent most of a day seeing
how the Voice of America operates its world wide broadcasting set-up.
Several weeks ago I with several others spent most of a Saturday in session
with one of America's top experts in psychological warfare. It was possible
for me to see and hear what the United States is doing in the war of ideas.
Mr. Morton Glatzer who is a top official of this important phase of our
struggle against communism is a guest on this program. He will give us
some insight into what Uncle Sam is doing to win the war of men's minds
and hearts.
Mr. Glatzer, I realize that there are many things you told me in
the briefing that for security reasons cannot be widely discussed. However,
there are some questions about our government's international information
program which you can explain to us. For instance: For quite a while the
United States has been the target of intense communist propaganda, directed
by the Kremlin. It's quite clear that the communists make every effort to
discredit our country so that the world will look on us as money-grabbing,
bloodthirsty people who seek only to dominate the world while the Soviet
Union sprouts wings and flourishes the dove of peace. That poses a problem
of how we counteract these Soviet lies and distortions,
Just how does our government's international information program
cope with this, Mr. Glatzer?
Congressman Ford, you've pinpointed the major task confronting us
in our work. Our international information program, of which the Voice of
America is a part, aims to keep the world informed of the true story of the
United States to keep the record straight, and above all, to show up the
Soviet Big Lies. To get our story into the Iron Curtain areas, into Poland,
Latvia and Russia itself, we use radio -- the Voice of America, which is now
broadcasting in 45 languages. We have certain supplementary press features,
booklets, even cartoon books, to get the written word into other areas. More
than 75,000 editors, political writers, speech-makers, government officials
and other public-opinion leaders in foreign countries are supplied regularly
with these pro-American materials by our information men stationed in American
posts abroad, Then, there's educational and documentary movies, which have a
universal appeal. Everybody likes them and in some of the more backward areas -
where the illiterates are the leading targets of the communists - the people
wait in the hot sun or the teeming rain for hours to see our movie shows,
produced through our program.
That's very interesting, Mr. Glatzer. It indicates that the U.S.
International Information program has set up a vast communications network
for the job. Would you tell us the story of how you countered communist
propaganda. As an example, the Eisenhower case.
Yes, Congressman, that is a good example. From the point of view of
our psychological efforts, particularly in Europe, one of the most important
events in recent history was the appointment of General Eisenhower as Supreme
Commander of the North Atlantic Forces. General Eisenhower's appointment
brought forth savage communist propaganda attacks, particularly in Western
Europe. The communists organized street demonstrations. They used their
controlled communist press and other mouthpieces to describe Eisenhower as a
monster, a murderer and a Frankenstein. They widely advertised another of
their lies - that Eisenhower was a dangerous foreigner whose main purpose was
to subjugate the people in the North Atlantic union and threatened Eisenhower
and warned him to go home.
Yes, I recall that the communist anti-Eisenhower campaign was gaining
momentum for several weeks before he visited there. How did you offeet this?
Well, Congressman Ford, the anti-Eisenhower drive by the communists
never did accomplish its purpose. These are some of the reasons: First, we
were able to make good psychological use of Eisenhower's tremendous moral stat-
ure, by broadcasting over the Voice of America steadily dramatic sketches of
Eisenhower as a man, as a human being, an educator and a great leader. Overseas
our information officers worked closely with contacts we developed among local
newspaper and radio commentators in all the Western European countries to see
that truthful, homest portrayals were presented to the peoples of the free na-
tions. And in two weeks time, our motion picture operation produced a ten-
minute documentary movie to illustrate the General's humanitarian qualities and
his recognized ability as a military man. All of this was timed and coordinated
so that we could cripple the communist propaganda even before Eisenhower visits
ed Europe. The movie was shown in the North Atlantic countries to coincide
LIBRARY
Radio Talk
June 30th, July 1st, 2nd and 3rd
Page Two
with his visit to each country. As a result of these efforts on our part
and the efforts of local organizations and groups which are anxious to help
in the fight against communism, the communi st-rigged demonstrations against
Eisenhower failed and he went on to receive a hearty reception in every
country he visited.
Thank you Mr. Glatzer, and thanks for listening. This is Jerry
Ford signing off till next week, same time, same station.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE
IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - JULY 7, 8, 9 and 10, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the nation's
capital.
For the past ten days officials in Washington have been wondering what suc-
cess would come from the Korean cease fire overtures. Ever since Mr. Malik on be-
half of Russia suggested a cease fire arrangement every citizen has asked privately
and publicly, Should the United States accept the Soviet proposal?
The Korean War marked the beginning of the overt phase of Moscow's drive to
subjugate all Asia, Stalin ordered the attack on the Republic of South Korea not
merely because he thought it could easily be taken, but because in taking it he
could remove a democratic thorn from his side and be in a position to threaten
Japan and our Pacific island bases. With South Korea in the bag, the Communists
could mop up their remaining foes in southern China and perhaps also those on For-
mosa, and concentrate their energies upon winning Indo-China. Had these ob-
jectives been won in accordance with the timetable laid out at the secret Stalin-
Mao meetings in Moscow a year ago February, Northeast and Southeast Asia would now
be in Communist hands, and the Moscow-Peking Axis would be ready to enter the next
major phase: that of the conquest of India and Pakistan. With all Asia under his
domination after a relatively short campaign, Stalin would have been able to have
things pretty much his own way in Europe, for the pressure upon Europe would have
become well-nigh irresistible.
The intervention of the United Nations in the Korean War delayed, and perhaps
altered radically, the timetable outlined above. First we destroyed the North
Korean Army and the best of Red China's armies. These facts have made it imposs-
ible for Stalin to take South Korea, risky to attempt the conquest of Indo-China
and Formosa, and extremely difficult even to quell the anti-Communists still
fighting in the south of China. These facts, having imposed a great if not dan-
gerous strain upon Peking's resources, have probably forced Mao to sue for peace
through Moscow. The Moscow-Peking Axis has been compelled to revise its original
strategy and to seek a compromise in Korea that will permit it to save face and to
retain at least its old position. In short, to Stalin and Mao, half a Korea seems
better than none.
The Soviet proposal brings the United Nations face-to-face with this big ques-
tion: Should we too, settle for half a loaf?
On the face of it, the answer would appear to be yes, for the arguments in
favor of halting bloodshed in Korea are impressive. First, the very fact that it
is the Politburo that sues for peace is in itself a great moral victory, since
it means that Russia is finally convinced that the UN cannot be thrown out of Korea
Second, cessation of Korean hos6ilities would enable the UN to deploy valuable and
experienced military forces to important points elsewhere. Third, it would remove
a sore point between the Allies that has already damaged their political unity.
Fourth, a serious drain on U. S. manpower and materiel would be ended. Fifth, it
would, in general, give the free world a breathing spell, relieve tension, and
answer the desire of people everywhere for a period of peace.
These factors cannot lightly be dismissed, miherein is illustrated the Com-
munists' ability to play their cards astutely, for they reckoned on making "peace"
so tempting that, under the emotional impact of a specific proposal, the free
world would not dare reject it. But emotionalism andc anfusion are precisely the
enemies we must first overcome; we need, more than anything else, to view Mr. Malik'
proposition coldly and analytically.
The United Nations should:
1, Accept the Malik proposal to discuss a cease-fire, although it was couched
in vicious and deceiving terms.
2. Seek a UN mandate over Korea. Peace can be secured in Korea only through
the establishment of a nonpartisan UN commission, whose function should be to con-
duct free elections for the purpose of creating an all-Korea government.
3, Refuse to remove our forces from Korea until agreement is reached on the
complete unification of that war torn nation.
4. The return of all UN prisoners of war. This is an absolute necessity.
Every American prays the terrible war in Korea can be ended on just and honor-
able terms without further bloodshed. General Ridgeway has my full support in his
great task. I sincerely hope the President will make full use of our most compe-
tent negotiators, both military and civilian, without regard to political affilia-
tion. Bipartisanship in Far Eastern foreign policy matters could be re-established
if the President would use in the negotiations the best informed authorities and
top leaders in both major political parties. The situation is so critical the
United States needs its best team at the conference table to avoid another Yalta.
Our negotiators must make certain our heroic and valiant defenders of freedom have
not sacrificed in yain.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week, same
time, same station.
LIBRARY
WFUR - 12:00 12:05 P.M. Saturdays
WOOD - 12:10 - 12:15 P.M. Sundays
WGRD - 11:55 - 12:00 M. Sundays
WLAV - 12:25 - 12:30 P.M. Sundays
WHTC 7:55 8:00 P.M. Mondays
WJEF - 2:30 - 2:35 P.M. Sundays
Wirs 12:05 - 12:10 P.M. Tuesdays
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - JULY 14, 15, 16, 17, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the Nation's
Capital.
Because of the Korean War and the other worldwide military threats by Soviet
Russia the United States has undertaken in the last 12 months a tremendous
national defense mobilization effort. A vast rearmament program is most essen-
tial if America is to remain free. We must not forget the threat of Red Russia
will remain even though there may be a cessation of hostilities in Korea.
The new military preparedness program has been and will continue to place
tremendous burdens on all our citizens and our domestic economy. When billions
of dollars are spent for guns, planes and tanks, inevitably there has to be
less steel, lumber, copper, aluminum and other basic raw materials available
for consumer products, the things all of us use everyday. Here are some in-
teresting facts. In fiscal year 1950 the Department of Defense spent 13 billion
for the Army, Navy and Air Force. Because of Korea, next year Uncle Sam will
spend about 60 billion for national defense. This immense rearmament impact
on the economy is the basic cause of the inflationary trends of the last year.
What has been done and what will be done in the future on this problem by
your federal government? In July of last year, after the Korean War started,
President Truman suggested to Congress that he be given very limited economic
controls. Mr. Truman in July of 1950 wanted no authority to control prices.
He wanted only indirect controls.
The House of Representatives last August rejected the weak controls re-
quested by the President and approved a bill that went much further. The
Senate and House on September 8, 1950, nearly eleven months ago, enacted the
Defense Production Act which gave Mr. Truman full power and authority to im-
pose immediately price and wage. controls. The President, however, took no
steps to exercise his vast powers under this law until January, 1951, four
months after Congress had acted. Naturally in this 4 month interval, while
the President failed to act, prices increased generally and serious dislocations
took place in our economy.
In March of this year the President reversed himself and urged Congress to
enact a far different anti-inflation law from the kind he advocated last year.
Long and extensive hearings on his proposals were held by the House and Senate
Committees on Banking and Currency. The issues were so complicated and contro-
versies so intense the job wasn't done in time to finish the new law before
the old one was about to expire on June 30th of this year. To prevent chaos and
more confusion, the House and Senate extended the present law for 31 days.
Several weeks ago the Senate passed its new anti-inflation bill. For the
past ten days the House has been acting on its version. A rather unusual parlism
mentary procedure is being followed by the House as it considers this vitally
important legislation. The present law, the one enacted in September of last
year, is the starting point for the House debate. The Committee on Banking and
Currency approved 57 amendments and each of these will have to be submitted
and voted on by the entire House membership. In addition, there are many other
amendments from Congressmen who are not members of the Committee. This means
that close to 100 amendments will be before us during the extended debate on
this legislation. Individual members will have the responsibility to vote on
each separate amendment and then there will be a final vote on the original
act as amended. This sounds like a very time-consuming procedure and doubtless
it is. However, we must not forget this is the democratic process and is the
only way the fundamental rights of all our citizens can be given fair and
impartial treatment.
What will the new law be when finally approved? At this stage of the pro-
ceedings that is impossible to answer. In my judgmont I believe it will be
reasonably fair to all concerned, There will be honest compromises, some of
which I don't like or that you may disapprove of, but in the final analysis
the law should be acceptable to the majority of Americans if properly adminis-
tered by the President and his advisors.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week, same
time, same station.
GERALD LIBRARY
VFUR - 12:00 - 12:05 P. M. Saturdays
WOOD - 12:10 - 12:15 P.M Suncays
WGRD - 11:55 - 12:00 P. M. Sundays
WLAV - 12:25 - 12:30 Sundays
WHTC - 7:55 - 8:00 P. M. Mondays
WJEF - 2:30 - 2:35 P.M. Sundays
WFRS - 12:05 - 12:10 P.M. Tuesdays
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN * July 20, 21, 22, 23, 1951
LADIES AND GETTLEMEN this is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, from the
Nation's Capitol.
In the last few days the legislative agenda of the House of Repre-
sentatives has been jammed with importent and vital legislative problems.
Of course, top billing has been the Defense Production Act, better known
as the Price and Wage Control Bill. In addition, however, the House has
approved 35 million dollars in emergency relief funds for the Kansas flood
disaster and acted on a conference report on the Labor - Federal Security
appropriations bill.
Many undoubtedly wonder what is meant by a conference report on an
appropriation bill? A conference report is simply the recommended final
version of any Congressional legislative or appropriation action. Are
conference reports always agreed to by the House and Senate? Definitely
no. In fact the House on this particular report rejected the recommendations
and sent the matter back to conference for further reductions.
Why did the House turn down the report? The answer is simple. The
appropriations were not cut deeply enough. The President in January of
this year recommended approximately 2 billion 744 million dollars for the
Department of Labor and the Federal Security Agency for the fiscal year
1952. The House of Representatives originally cut about 103 million dollars
from the President's budget for these departments of the Federal Govern-
ment and recommended poroximately $2,641,000,000. The Senate went a
little deeper on this bill. In order to work out a compromise 7 Senators
and 7 Representatives were appointed to a conference committee. After a
number of meetings the conferees came up with recommendations totalling
$2,511,000,000 or about 233 million below President Truman's budget
requests for these two agencies.
On the surface this appears to be a fairly good cut in the President's
budget for these departments. In reality, however, the reductions were
insufficient because the conferees failed to take into consideration two
extremely important amendments, one approved by the House called the
Jensen amendment and the other sponsored by Michigan's economy-minded
Senator Ferguson and okeyed by the Senate, known as 10 per cent cut across
the board.
On a roll-call vote 222 to 169 the House rejected the conference
report and definitely instructed its conferees to insist on the terms of
the Jensen amendment which prohibits federal agencies and bureaus from
filling more than 25 per cent of their personnel vacancies. I voted for
this economy proposal in hopes that the House and Senate conferees will
come up next time with some honest-to-goodness reductions in this 2 billion
dollar appropriation measure.
As you well know one way to control inflation and reduce your federal
tax burdens is to cut federal expenditures. This particular Congress
since January has made a real effort to slash President Truman's outrageous
budget of 94 billion tax dollars. For your information in the House of
Representatives there have been 19 economy roll-call votes since January 3.
The outcome of each of these votes reflected a head-on clash between
Democrats and Republicans with a majority of the Republicans voting for
economy and a majority of Democrats going along with Mr. Truman and his
unlimited spending program. On 18 of the 19 economy votes I voted to slash
the President's budget. In the future you can rest assured your Congress-
man will work and vote for additional reductions in the federal budget.
Here's a tip which will help you and the national defense effort. The
wise consumer of winter fuels (coal, oil, etc.) will stock up now. House-
hold and industrial users of coal and oil should lay aside maximum supplies
this summer for next winter's use.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week,
same time, same station.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
WFUR 12:00 12:05 P. M. Saturdays
WOOD 12:10 - 12:15 P. M. Sundays
WGRD 11:55 - L2:00 P. M. Sundays
WLAV - 12:25 - 12:30 P. M. Sundays
WHTC - 7:55 - 8:00 P. M. Mondays
WJEF - 2:30 - 2:35 P. M. Sundays
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE III
FIFTH DISTRICT OF NICHIGAN JULY 28, 29, 30, 31, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN this is your Congressman, Jerry Ford, from the
Nation's Capitel.
Last Monday a top priority report came across my desk that rates the
attention of all citizens. It was an up-to-the-minute summary of the status
of the Hoover Commission recommendations by the non-partisan Citizens Committee
that has done its best for the past several years to get action on these vital
reorganizations programs aimed at efficiency and economy in the federal govern-
ment.
Here's what the Citizens Committee for the Hoover Report said and I quote:
"Just over two years ago the bipartisan Commission on Organization of the
Executive Branch of the Government
completed its
Report to the
Congress
Some Fifty percent of the Commission's recommendations were
adopted by the 81st Congress in the form of 20 Public Laws and 26 Presidential
Reorganization Plans. As a result, many substantial improvements and economies
have been instituted in important areas of government. This shows what can be
done when legislators and officials work together toward goals that transcend
politics.
We now note with dismay, however, that the first six months of the 82nd
Congress have been characterized by a singular lack of legislative activity.
We recognize that exceptional circumstances prevail. Yet we feel justified in
pointing out that a serious legislative logjam is developing.
If the reasons for action on the Hoover Report were compelling in 1949-
1950 they are doubly so today. The unenacted fifty percent of the Hoover
Commission's recommendations have profound bearing on all the current problems
of government.
To date, however, little action has been taken. The legislative logjam
threatens a delay which, if prolonged, might prove fatal to full adoption of
the Hoover Commission Report.
This would be a serious loss to the nation. In fairness to the Congress,
it should be pointed out that the Administration shares responsibility for
adoption of the Hoover Report. Under the Reorganization Act of 1949, which
the Hoover Commission recommended, the President is authorized to submit re-
organization plans for the realignment of agencies in the Executive Branch.
Unless either House rejects such plans within sixty days, they automatically
become law. The Reorganization Act of 1949 is by far the strongest instrument
of its kind ever authorized by Congress.
With equal dismay, therefore, we note 'that President Truman has submitted
only one Reorganization Plan to the Congress during this Session. This is an
unhappy contrast with 1949 and 1950. By June 30, 1949, seven Presidential
Reorganization Plans were before the Congress. At the same time last year,
27 such plans had been presented, and 20 had already received final Congressional
action.
Fully recognizing the huge new burdens which have fallen upon the Adminis-
tration since the Korean invasion, we feel bound to point out that the Hoover
Commission's Report is clearly and fundamentally linked to the successful
prosecution of the national defense effort. We, therefore, urge the President
to act affirmatively in the near future by submitting plans based
squarely on the recommendations of the Hoover Commission.
We do insist that anything so valuable as the Hoover Report should be
made the subject of prompt, frank, open public and Congressional discussion,
debate-and action, pro or con. The Hoover Report is above and beyond politics.
It has done much to reawaken the long-dormant interest of the free citizen in
the management of his government. It is one of the most hopeful signs of our
times.
The Hoover Commission's Report must not be "pigeonholed." We strongly
urge Congress and the Administration to move swiftly and vigorously in behalf
of federal reorganization, efficiency and economy. End quote.
This rather scathing denunciation of the President and the 82nd Congress
will undoubtedly bring some action. Those of us in the Congress who have
supported the bonafide Hoover Commission plans in the past are anxious to have
the President and his Congressional leaders give a green light to the remaining
50 per cent of the non-partisan Hoover Commission proposals.
LIBRARY
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week,
same time, same station.
WFUR - 12:00-12:05 P.M, SATURDAY
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAY
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAY
WLAV - 12:25-12:30 P.M. SUNDAY
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 P.M. MONDAY
WJEF - 2:30- 2:35 P.M. SUNDAY
WERS - 12:05-12:10 P.M. TUESDAY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR, FOR USE IN
FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - AUGUST 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th
LADIES AND gentlemen, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with a weekly
report from the Nation's Capital.
The Congress has enacted and the President has approved the Defense
Production Act of 1951. For the next year there will be plenty of debate, pro
and con, on the effectiveness and desirability of this legislation. Although
it is a law that pleases practically no one in its entirety, I do believe infla-
tion can be held in check providing the law is effectively administered,
The mere passing of the anti-inflation law is definitely not the end
of the problem as far as Congress is concerned. This was forcibly brought
to my attention inasmuch as I have been recently appointed to an appropriations
subcommittee having jurisdiction over the various War Emergency Agencies. To
pay for the expenses of the Office of Defense Mobilization and the numerous
subordinate agencies President Truman has recommended for this year federal
expenditures totalling 238 million dollars. In addition Mr. Truman has
proposed expenditures for the Civil Defense Administration in the staggering
total of 773 million dollars. In other words, our subcommittee has the initial
responsibility to determine whether or not a billion dollars should be appropriated
for a vast number of civilian agencies connected with the current crisis.
This subcommittee is composed of 9 members, 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans.
The hearings have lasted about a week so far and undoubtedly will continue for
another two weeks. The lead off witness was Mr. Charles Wilson and he has been
followed by the top men in the National Production Administration, the Defense
Production Administration, the Departments of Commerce, Interior, Agriculture,
Labor, Justice, and others connected with prices, wages, and production and
allocation of strategic materials. All of the witnesses contend their jobs cannot
be accomplished unless all of the funds requested are appropriated.
Will the Congress appropriate the billion dollars requested by Mr. Truman
for these programs? Frankly in my opinion there will be substantial cuts. You
can be certain some of us on the subcommittee will do our best to wield the
economy axe in order to save some of our federal tax dollars. It may be a
bitter fight for I suspect some of the members on the subcommittee will be
inclined to go along with the President's budget requests. I'll give you a
further report in detail as the hearings progress.
Let's turn to another matter. An admitted lapse from certain ethical
standards has cost Brigadier General David J. Crawford his command of the
Detroit Tank Arsenal and an official reprimand. General Crawford accepted favors
from representatives of manufacturers who are doing business with the Government.
Secretary of the Army Pace, who announced the punishment, had only one
alternative.
He might have announced instead that while General Crawford was weighed
and found wanting, it would be inconsistent with current practice to take offi-
cial note of such deviations from the code of ethics or morality.
Secretary Pace might have said, one of Brigadier General Crawford's
superior officers, Major General Harry Vaughan, now on duty as the President's
military aide, was defended by the Commanded in Chief after being na med by
another investigating committee in Congress as the man who made possible the
"nefarious activities" of an "outright fixer" by the name of John Maragon and
that General Vaughan is still riding high, wide and handsome, with no official
reprimands or relief from office.
He might have gone on to say that a Mr. Donald Dawson, aide to the
President and adviser on personnel matters, also accepted free hotel accommoda-
tions (one of General Crawford's delinquencies) from a hotel which had secured
an RFC loan, and was charged by another investigating committee with having
"apparently exercised considerable influence over certain directors of the RFC."
However, Mr. Dawson still remains in high favor at the White House.
I commend Army Secretary Pace for his forthright action, It's too bad
the same standards do not apply all along the line.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week,
same time, same station.
LIBRARY
FUT - 12:00-12:05 2.71 SATURDAY
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAY
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAY
WLAV - 12:25-12:30 P.M. SUNDAY
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 P.M. MONDAY
WJEF - 2:30- 2:35 P.M. SUNDAY
WERS - 12:05-12:10 P.M. TUESDAY
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R, FORD, JR, FOR USE IN
FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - AUGUST 11, 12, 13, 14, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford with a
weekly report from the Nation's Capital.
Now that the Congress has about completed the regular appropriation
bills let's turn to the emergency or defense portion of the federal budget. The
Department of Defense recently requested that Congress appropriate this year
59 billion 1 hundred million dollars for the Army, Navy and Air Force. The
top budget officials of all 3 branches of the Armed Forces testified before
the House Committee on Appropriations for 11 weeks in an effort to justify
the many individual items in this multibillion dollar bill. These long and
detailed hearings convinced the fifty members of the House Appropriations
Committee the Department of Defense budget could stand some reductions and
as a result the Committee recommended a cut of 1 billion 500 million dollars.
These reductions amount to approximately a 3 per cent reduction in the funds
for the Army, Navy and Air Force.
Actually the Committee was very cautious in slashing the budget
requests for the Department of Defense. It is the conviction of the Congress
that in this crisis, as far as the military is concerned, it would be better
to gamble on the side of generosity where the military security of the nation
is at stake. I emphasize this attitude prevails only in reference to military
funds.
The Committee on Appropriations in its report on this bill did, how-
ever, strongly condemn the Defense Department for extravagance in civilian
employment and specifically ordered the Pentagon brass to make sharp reduc-
tions in their publicity and information staffs: In the opinion of the
Committee the 57.6 billion dollars will assure a defense sufficient to avert
a disaster at home and provide the Armed Forces with sufficient men and
equipment to retaliate successfully in the event of attack by the enemy.
The cost of the current mobilization effort does not fall entirely
on the Department of Defense. Setting up and maintaining price and wage
controls is terribly expensive. For example, President Truman recently sub-
mitted a budget of 238 million dollars for administrative expenses for the
numerous defense production activities. For the past two weeks nine members
of the Committee on Appropriations have listened 5 and 6 hours per day to
Mr. Charles Wilson, Eric Johnston, Mike DiSalle and others who have tried to
justify this tremendous request for funds.
Here are some highlights on what the President proposes for the opera-
tion of O.P.S. and other related agencies. Seventy per cent of the 238 million
would be used to pay the salaries of approximately 34,000 new federal employees
whose average pay would be about $5,000 annually. Nearly 15 million dollars
would be spent on travel alone. For just printing forms Mr. Truman has re-
quested 81/2 million dollars. Other supplies, materials and equipment would
come to about 7½ million dollars. In other words, the cost of administering a
price control law is a real burden on the United States Treasury. This year's
federal taxes, yours and mine, will be used in part to pay for the 34 thousand
proposed new federal employees who have the job of setting price ceilings and
allocating critical materials. At the moment I cannot predict what action the
Congress will take on this budget request but there are a number of Members of
Congress who definitely feel the 238 million dollars for the operation of O.P. S.
and related agencies is altogether too high a figure. A 10 per cent cut by
Congress can be easily justified.
This past week the federal Civil Defense officials presented their case
to the House Committee on Appropriations in favor of the President's million
dollar budget for this program. Much of the testimony is of a confidential
nature but here is a breakdown of the proposed Civil Defense budget: Adminis-
trative cost - 19 million dollars; federal contributions to states and local
governments - 45 million dollars; procurement fund - 20 million dollars;
emergency supplies and equipment - 200,000,000 dollars; and protective facili-
ties, such as bomb shelters - 250 million dollars.
Original decisions on this expensive program by the legislative branch
of the federal government will be made shortly. No one denies that an adequate
Civil Defense organization must be in operation, particularly in potential tar-
get areas like Michigan, but does the cost have to come so high. There is a
prevalent feeling in the Congress that the present Civil Defense Agency is too
expensive an operation.
In closing let me emphasize one point. Every citizen should make a real
effort to know exactly how his Senators and Representatives vote on economy is-
sues in the Congress. Remember this-the millions and billions appropriated from
the federal Treasury come from all the taxpayers, big and small. Members of Con-
gress by their votes in effect spend your money. Consequently it behooves every
taxpayer to know quite specifically whether a Senator or Representative votes
for extravagance or for economy in the handling of your tax dollars.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week, same
time, same station.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN FIFTH
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - AUGUST 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st.
WFUR or 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAY
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAY
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAY
WLAV - 12:25-12:30 P,M. SUNDAY
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 P.M. MONDAY
WJEF - 2:30- 2:35 P.M. SUNDAY
WFES - 12:05-12:10 P.M. TUESDAY
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congrossman Jerry Ford from the Nation's
Capital.
Several days ago what appears to be a very timely book came across my
desk in Washington. It's entitled "The Nineteen Fifties Come First" by Mr.
Edwin G. Nourse, formerly Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to
the President. Last week end I had the opportunity to read rather hurriedly
this stimulating and forceful discussion of how our children can be more free
and prosperous if we fight now for a sound dollar instead of collaborating
with inflation. Dr. Nourse, who several months ago resigned from the chairman-
ship of the Council of Economic Advisors to the President when he found that
under existing circumstances the Council could not operate as a professional
and nonpolitical agency, feels that inflation is the great threat to our econ-
omy of the 1950's. He concludes his hard punching book with this short para-
graph, and I quote - "So I have spoken out frankly in the belief that it is
better to face stern realities at the outset than to deny or try to hide them
till accumulating weaknesses lead to more serious troubles. For myself, I
would rather risk criticism now for being a partisan of hard-won solvency than
live pleasantly as a collaborationist of inflation." End quote. If you have
the time, this short but very much to the point book is well worth reading.
Dr. Nourse rightly condemns those who believe in letting the federal gov-
ernment slip into deficit spending as a way of life. He pulls no punches and
puts a share of the blame on Members of Congress who look at the immediate
benefits of high agricultural supports, liberalized pensions, a lavish pork
barrel, enlarged veterans' benefits and increased government personnel costs
all along the line. The point is made that such added costs of the federal
government cannot be justified when paid out of or by continuous deficits in
the federal treasury.
Dr. Nourse vigorously condemns river and harbor and flood control pork
barrel appropriations when paid by deficit financing. I wholeheartedly concur
with him on that point, and since I've had some very recent experience on
that very problem, let me give you some information on what we're up against
as a practical matter in the Congress.
Several months ago my subcommittee on Appropriations, after a careful
project by project analysis, and in conformance with a carefully considered
formula, succeeded in trimming the President's pork barrel river and harbor and
flood control budget by 126 million dollars. These cuts totalled approximately
20 per cent.
This past week the Senate, despite the vigorous and militant objection
of Senator Ferguson, increased this appropriation bill 123 million dollars.
Frankly the Senate used the recent Missouri Valley disaster as public justi-
fication for the initiation, restoration and enlargement of projects through-
out the nation, most of which have no connection whatsoever with actual flood
prevention in recently stricken areas. The Senate's action smacks too much
of business as usual, politics as usual and spending as usual.
Can the House of Representatives now do anything to cut down the increases
made by the Senate in this 650 million dollar appropriation bill? Honestly,
I think we can salvage in this instance some relief for the American taxpayers.
The House and Senate conferees must get together to work out the differences
in the two bills. Inasmuch as I will be one of the House conferees, I will
be able to give you at a later date a play by play report on what happens when
we sit down to resolve differences with the free-spending Senate conferees,
Offhand predictions are that it will be a knockdown, drag-out series of con-
ferences. The Senators will undoubtedly try to hold out for their 123 million
dollar increase but the House conferees can be just as adamant for economy
and our cuts of 126 million.
If your Congressman doesn't get home this Fall, you will find him in
Washington at a conference table wrangling with the Senators who want to up
rather than cut pork barrel appropriations,
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week, same
time, same station.
QERALD FORD LIBRARY
WFUR - 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAYS
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAYS
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAYS
WLAV - 12:25-12:30 PoMo SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 P.M. MONDAYS
WJEF - 2:30- 2:35 P.M. SUNDAYS
WFRS - 12:05-12:10 TUESDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN
FIFTH DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - AUGUST 25, 26, 27, 28, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital.
It is disheartening to hear from the lips of a British Cabinet Minister
in the House of Commons the argument that Great Britain cannot afford to give up
her trade with the Communist countries.
What strange doctrine this is to be transmitted across the sea to us
from a sister democracy which has always professed adherence to the ideal that
human life was more precious than profit!
American boys in large numbers - and a small but brave band of British
soldiers too - have died on the battlefields of Korea because of a belief in the
idealism of democracy.
It seems incredible that shameful materialism should be offered now
as more important than human life itself.
Does this mean that we can protect our youth only by using our dollars
- by buying off the British Government so she will not desert the basic princi-
ples of the economic alliance against our enemies recently entered into through
the United Nations?
This policy, of course, would be better than to sacrifice any more
lives necdlossly in a war that thus far has not been won but which can be won
if the allies stick together on the issue of an economic embargo.
Surely all the revenue from trade between Britin and the Communist bloc
countries is a drop in the bucket - a mere fraction in dollars or pounds when
measured by the billions proposed by the President and Congrossional leaders in
United States aid to foreign countries.
Several months ago Congress enacted a provision into law that prohib-
ited U. S. foreign aid to any country doing business with the Communists. The
President almost inmediately gave a blanket exception thereby nullifying the
intent and action of Congress.
Right now Congress has S before it another amendment to an appropriation
bill which would prohibit the granting of military or economic assistance to any
foreign government which allows trade in strategic naterials with the Communist
countries. Such an amendment should pass by overwhelming vote if only to keep
faith with the 80,000 Americans who have given their blood to a great cause in
Korea - the fight against Communist imperialism. If it does pass, and I am sure
it will, it is hoped President Truman will not again nullify what Congress has
done.
Several weeks ago I discussed the appropriation bill for the War Emer-
gency Agencies and the Civil Defense Program. You will be interested in what the
House of Representatives did on this problem. The President recommended that the
Congress appropriate over 2 billion 300 million dollars. The House Committee on
Appropriations sliced 625 million dollars from the total. This amounted to a 25
per cent reduction in the funds for the various price and wage administrative
agencies and an 88 per cent cut in the funds for the federal civil defense
authorities,
Several months ago the House Committee on Appropriations recommended a
concept of civil defense based on the training and education of the general publi
in matters of self protection and the coordination of the civil defense efforts i
the several states and municipalities. Unfortunately the plans and estimates sub
mitted to the committee in justification of the new appropriations did not reflec
this concept. It was the unanimous opinion of the committee that the confidence
of the American people in a civil defense program cannot be won merely by making
large appropriations of federal funds.
Here is a typical example. The federal civil defense authorities wanted
the House to appropriate 35 million dollars for the stockpiling of 1,500 miles,
I repeat 1,500 niles, of 8" steel pipc, and 150 miles of 16" stoel pipe. It was
the unanimous opinion of the committee that this itom along with many others was
not needed at this tine. Perhaps it's a calculated risk but first things must
come first, including some savings for the American taxpayers.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week,
same tine, same station.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
WFUR - 12:00-12:05 PoMs SATURDAYS
WFRS - 12:05-12:10 P.M. TUESDAYS
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P2Ms SUNDAYS
WJEF - 2:30- 2:35 P.M. SUNDAYS
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 PoMe MONDAYS
WLAV - 12:25-12:30 P.M. SUNDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERAID R. FORD, JR, FOR USE IN FIFTH
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - SEPTEMBER 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from
the Nation's Capital.
The restrictions put upon General MacArthur by the State Depart-
ment in his purely military conduct of the Korean War were brought sharply into
focus by the recent B-29 bombing raids on the city of Rashin in Korea. A
glance at your world map will indicate the Korean harbor of Rashin is 17 miles
south of the Soviet Siberian border. It is the principal port through which
Communist war material has been shipped from Russia to the Red forces in Korea
These recent bombing attacks by American B-29's raise the questio
why General MacArt ur was denied this same authority in August of last year
when our G.I.'s in Korea were under heavy attack by the North Koreans. In
reference to this point, General MacArthur in the Senate Investigation testified
as follows, and I quote,
"I was very anxious to destroy that (Racin). Its usefulness to
the enemy was self-evident. Great accumulations, depot accumulations, were
made there. It was a great distributing center. They could run--the Soviets
could run stuff from Vladivostok right down there, We asked to bomb that (Racin
and we were forbidden." End quote.
The records show one bombing raid on Rashin was carried on by
the United States Air Force on August 12, 1950. However, since that date, and
that was 12 months ago, the State Department laid down the law so vigorously
that the Joint Chiefs of Staff never again dared to authorize such a raid until
the belated attack of a few days ago.
Secretary Acheson, who is not a military man and who has never
been in Korea, told the Senate Investigating Committee, and I quote, "The
view that this (Rashin) is an important supply point. 0 is not borne out by
the facts." End quote. As a result of State Department intervention in
military strategy the build-up of Russian supplies through this strategic
port continued for over a year without interference. Now at this late hour
we find the Korean port is admitted to be an important supply point which
the Communists have been using to good advantage,
The recommendations of General MacArthur on this issue were
confirmed by General "Rosey" O'Donnell, Commander of the Far Eastern Air
Force Bomber Commander when he said, and I quote:
"So I scheduled a mission on Racin (Rashin) which was the nor-
thernmost town of Korea. the marshalling yard at Racin was the focal
point through which most of the supplies coming from Russia had to go down
through the east coast to the support of the North Korean troops. the
squadrons got up there. 0 they bombed through the overcast and I heard
later on that people back home were concerned about our hitting Siberia,
but Siberia is 17 miles from Racin, and we don't make that kind of errors.
"And there was no question in my mind that we should have
stayed on;.
0" End quote®
All Americans should ask this question de Why, since Rashin was
so important in the autumn of 1950, was General MacArthur as a military man
told by the Secretary of State, a nonmilitary man, how the Armed Forces should
fight the war in Korea? The responsibility for 80,000 battle casualties and
70,000 noncombat casualties is involved in the answer. If General MacArthur's
advice a year ago had been followed, conceivably our losses in dead and
wounded would have been far less. The danger of provoking war with Russia
is as great now as it was then and in the interval America has suffered
over 150,000 casualties, It would appear on military matters perhaps the
Joint Chiefs of Staff should make up their own minds and be guided by the
advice of men in the battle area rather than be guided and controlled on
military strategy by State Department diplomats.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till
next week, same time, same station.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
WFUR - 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAYS
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAYS
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAYS
WLAV - 7:55- 8:00 A.Ms SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:55-8:00 P.M. MONDAYS
WJEF - 2:30- 2:35 P.M. SUNDAYS
WFRS - 12:05-12:10 TUESDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R, FORD, JR. FOR USE IN FIFTH
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - SEPTEMBER 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital.
For the past two weeks the House of Representatives has been in recess.
Meanwhile the Senate kept plugging along trying to catch up. Inevitably the
Senate takes longer to do its share of the legislative job and as a result
toward the end of a session the House knocks off to let the "Upper Body"
make up for lost time.
During the short recess I was home for a few days. The remainder of the
recess was spent attending committee hearings in Washington and preparing
for some rugged conferences on the river, harbor and flood control appropria-
tion bill with the Senators who as you know increased the bill about
124 million dollars or almost as much as my committee slashed it. These
House-Senate conferences, particularly on "pork-barrel" appropriation bills,
can be long drawn out sessions. For example, in 1949 the House and Senate
conferees started their negotiations for a compromise on June 1st and reached
no settlement until October 6th, or some four months later. It is hoped
there will be no such delay this year, although if the Senate insists on
its free spending policies, we in the House will be just as determined on
the side of economy.
Two recent public statements by well known /mericans have provoked con-
siderable editorial comment by newspapers and radio commentators. Herbert
Hoover's stirring call for higher standards of honesty and decency in public
life hit the right note. In contrast the demand by Supreme Court Justice
Douglas that the United States recognize the Chinese Communist government
struck a very sour key.
Mr. Hoover properly warned that reform must go beyond written codes of
ethics. He pointed out that dishonesty is not only a matter of graft, but
of false propaganda and half-truths. Particularly helpful was Mr. Hoover's
reminder that "our strength lies in spiritual concepts" and his rejection of
the cynicism which accepts legal but unethical practices. Unfortunately there
are some officials in our federal government who seem to feel that unethical
practices and corruption are necessary evils in a free government. Certainly
the overwhelming majority of Americans disagree and as a result there is a
grass-roots movement for a code of public morality based on the Ten Command-
ments and the Sermon on the Mount.
The rebirth of public morality should not be a partisan issue. The
American people did not approve of the corruption under Presidents Grant and
Harding and they don't like it one bit better at the present time with all
the revelations of mink coats, deep freezes, and the R.F. scandals. The
graft and corruption of 50 or 25 years ago does not excuse what has been
going on in recent years. It is not a sound or logical argument to contend
that corruption is permissible now just because it existed many years before.
Our citizens rightfully expect high standards in public life at all times and
it is encouraging to know there is an expanding moral crusade to bring about
the long overdue results.
The statement by Supreme Court Justice Douglas advocating recognition of
Red China was a bombshell that will damage American prestige at home and abroad,
The Russians and all communist sympathizers applauded Justice Douglas' state-
ment just as the Communist newspaper, the Daily Worker, recently commended
him for voting against the conviction of the 11 top commies. The United States
should not recognize Communist China and it is difficult to understand how a
Supreme Court justice can favor a government that mistreats our missionaries
of all faiths in China and whose army kills our soldiers in Korea. Justice
Douglas was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1939 by President Roosevelt and
confirmed by the Senate. If the Senate could pass on his confirmation now,
it is very doubtful if he would be confirmed.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week,
same time, same station.
LIBRARY
WFUR 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAYS
WOOD 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAYS
WGRD 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAYS
WLAV - 7:55- 8:00 P.M.SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 P.M. MONDAYS
WJEF - 2:30- 2:35 SUNDAYS
WFRS 12:05-12:10 TUESDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN FIFTH
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - SEPTEMBER 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from
the Nation's Capital.
This past week in Washington a sizeable verbal fracas developed
on the issue of expenditures by the federal government. President Truman
stated at the dedication ceremonies of a new 25 million dollar government
office building that economy advocates who have criticized his 100 billion
dollar budget base their arguments on "butterfly statistics" which would
not stand up under homest analysis. The President admitted that federal
expenditures have been and will be very large but at the same time he
contended "our budget is as tight and solid as we can make it."
Immediately Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans
alike, directly and indirectly attacked the President's statements. For
example, Representative Martin of Massachusetts said Mr. Truman's remarks
make it clear that Congress can expect no help from the President in the
elimination of waste, extravagance and corruption.
The most dramatic response to the President, even though it was
an indirect attack, came from Democrat Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois.
For many months Senator Douglas, along with Senator Ferguson of Michigan, and
Byrd of Virginia, has conscientiously and intelligently hammered away at
waste and overspending by the President and his various advisors in the
Executive Branch of the federal government. Senator Douglas reached the
climax of his economy efforts last week when he proposed certain cuts in
the 61 billion dollar military appropriations bill.
For two hours in the debate the Senator cited item after item,
example after example, of waste in the military establishment. It was not
his object to cut defense funds by the meat axe method and thereby weaken
our military strength, but he was attempting to make certain that our tax-
payers were not overpaying for their defense, that a lot of money was not
going down the drain.
At the end of Senator Douglas' fine speech he was bitterly attacked
on the floor of the Senate by Senator O'Mahoney, Democrat of Wyoming. At this
point Senator Douglas impulsively let go a wild sound, variously described
as a shriek, a scream and a piercing emotional outcry.
Later Senator O'Mahoney said he had no intention of implying that
Senator Douglas by his remarks and economy efforts was giving aid and comfort
to the enemy. Yes, I think Senator O'Mahoney truly regretted his caustic crit-
iciam, for Senator Douglas, a combat marine hero of World War II, was only
doing his best to cut down the inexcusable waste and inefficiency that pre-
dominates in the President's 100 billion dollar budget.
It might interest you to know that during this session of the Con-
gress I have worked with both Senator Douglas and Senator Ferguson in an attempt
to reduce the expenditures in the so-called pork barrel portions of the federal
budget. As a Member of the Appropriations Committee I had acquired consid-
erable information on river, harbor and flood control projects which clearly
indicated waste and extravagance all along the line. This data convinced the
House of Representatives we could cut the President's budget 25 per cent or
about 126 million dollars on certain items. Senators Douglas and Ferguson used
this material from our office but unfortunately didn't get much cooperation
from their colleagues in the so-called "Upper Body". This accumulation of frus
tration had much to do with Senator Douglas' emotional outburst of despair.
The President in his speech condemning Congressmen for economy said,
and I quote "I don't want to lose a horse thru being too stingy to buy enough
rope to tie him with." end quote. In reply, someone appropriately said, quote
LIBRARY
"A rope raveled by waste and extravagance will never hold any horse." end quote.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week,
same time, same station.
WFUR - 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAYS
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAYS
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAYS
WLAV - 7:55- 8:00 A.M. SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 P.Mo MONDAYS
WJEF - 2:30- 2:35 PeMe SUNDAYS
WFRS - 12:05-12:10 P.M. TUESDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN FIFTH
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - - SEPTEMBER 22, 23, 24 and 25, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital.
First an important message from the National Production Authority.
This emergency agency has notified me that it needs our help in conducting a
nationwide scrap iron and scrap steel drive. There is an urgent need for
heavy industrial scrap for our steel-producing industries. Without steel
we cannot produce guns, tanks, ships, all vital to our defense program ...
or the tractors, binders, factories, freight trains, gas ranges, the important
things we need at home----in business-on the farm. I sincerely urge all our
citizens to scour every nook and cranny of their plants, business establish-
ments, and farms for this unused scrap--scrap that should be making the steel
we so desperately need for our defense program and civilian economy. Start
your own scrap metal drive - put unused scrap to work making the things this
country desperately needs. In other words, let's get in the scrap metal for
the defense effort.
Several months ago it appeared that Congress would adjourn or recess
on October 1st. This schedule would have permitted Senators and Representa-
tives to get back home where they could spend some time finding out what citi-
zens feel about the state of the Nation. Frankly, in my judgment, Congressmen
should spend as much time as possible talking with individuals and groups at
home but it is mighty difficult if not impossible when Congress is in session
nearly 12 months each year. Obviously a member of the Congress can't be home
and in Washington at the same time and as long as Congress is in session it
seems to me your representative should be on the job in the Capital.
One of the principal reasons for the delay in adjourment is a new
proposal and a very expensive one recently submitted to the Congress by Presi-
dent Truman. The President has proposed a 400 million dollar flood indemnity
program for those who were affected by the Kansas-Missouri flood disaster.
This 400 million dollar program would be in addition to the 25 million dollars
in emergency funds Congress has already appropriated to help the citizens of the
stricken areas. The funds would also be supplemental to the money the Red Cross
and other organizations have donated to the relief of those whose homes and
businesses were devastated by the greatest flood in history.
Will the Congress appropriate 400 million dollars for this purpose? It's
hard to tell at this point. The President wants the federal government to reim--
burse directly the citizens of Kansas and Missouri for their flood losses. In
other words, if a corporation's manufacturing plant was flooded, Mr. Truman pro-
poses that Uncle Sam reimburse the company for its losses. On the same theory,
farmers and home owners would be paid directly for their flood losses by the fed-
eral treasury.
Obviously this new program would be very expensive to all the taxpayers
of the United States. It is doubtful if the 400 million dollars recommended by
Mr. Truman would cover all the claims in this one geographical area. Further-
more once such a policy was inaugurated it would have to prevail for all future
disasters throughout the country. In addition, what about past floods? Should
the federal government go back and reimburse citizens in other areas throughout
the United States who have suffered flood damages in previous years. These are
important questions to all our taxpayers that cannot and should not be decided
by the Congress without careful study. It would be unwise for Congress to embar'
on such an expensive program without understanding the past and future commit..
ments on all the taxpayers of the nation and for that reason we may be in sessio:
longer than originally anticipated.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week,
same time, same station.
TFUR - 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAYS
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P.M. SUNDAYS
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAYS
WLAV - 7:55-8:00 R.M. SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 P.M. MONDAYS
WJEF - 2:30- 2:35 P.M. SUNDAYS
WFRS - 12:05-12:10 P.M. TUESDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN FIFTH
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - - - OCTOBER 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital.
President Truman this past week stirred up another extremely bitter
controversy by invoking a news blackout on what goes on in the various agencies
and bureaus of the federal government. A good many folks believe the Presi-
dent(s censorship regulation goes far beyond the reasonable Limits of military
security. The news blackout directive from the White House gives to a federal
official the right to withhold any information with any bearing, however
remote, on national defense. For example, the R.F.C. could have covered up
its unfortunate loans, many of which went to alleged defense plants. The
Department of Agriculture could hide the quantity of potatoes bought for
industrial alcohol on the basis that industrial alcohol relates to the national
defense program. Apparently under the President's iron curtain order the
"top secret" label, already used by the Departments of State and Defense to
cover up their blunders, will now be available to any federal official who
feels he has something to conceal. This so-called security program could be
available to hide the truth from the American people. In light of the recent
scandals concerning the RFC and other federal agencies it would seem the em-
phasis at this point should be on full disclosure rather than more secrets.
In the last few days Members of Congress have been swamped with mail
protesting the President's "iron curtain" censorship order. Apparently
citizens are wondering by what authority the President can abridge the freedom
of the press. Congress under the Constitution could not pass any law to
bottle up news or gag public officials. The American people appear to ques-
tion the authority of the President to suppress legitimate public information.
One of the letters of protest received in my office goes to the nub
of the issue. Let me read a paragraph: Quote "As one who has actually lived
in a Communist dominated country - Hungary - for almost ten months, I am
quite aware of the terror and unrest resulting from suppression of informa-
tion and truth. What is the reason for such tactics in our Executive Branch?
Many of the past flagrant actions of the President have been criticized and
apparently brushed off - however, this action is almost sinister and makes
one wonder where we are headed." End quote.
What can Congress do to rescind the President's order? A number of
Members of the House and Senate including .myself have introduced legislation
to repeal the censorship order. It is hoped that legislative action will
result but if the President and his advisors remain adamant it is doubtful if
the desired results can be achieved.
It seems almost unbelieveable that young Americans are fighting in far
off lands for the protection of our freedoms while at the same time these
same freedoms are being wiped out by administrative action at home. Americans
are fighting on the battlefields and giving their tax dollars to lift the
Iron Curtain in Europe and in Asia. Can Americans stand idly by while the
Iron Curtain is placed upon us at home? This censorship order is a funda-.
mental challenge to our basic freedoms. Truth and full information should
be available to all /mericans. Secrets and distortions of the news are for
Russia and the Communists. To keep faith with our young men who are fighting
for the perpetuation and expansion of our freedoms the President's iron curtain
order must be repealed or rescinded.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week,
same time, same station.
LIBRARY
WFUR - 12:00-12:05 P.M. SATURDAYS
WOOD - 12:10-12:15 P,Ms SUNDAYS
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M. SUNDAYS
WLAV - 7:55- 8:00 AcMo SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 P.M. MONDAYS
WJEF the 2:30- 2:35 P.M. SUNDAYS
WFRS - 12:05 - 12:10 P.M. TUESDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. USE IN FIFTH
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN - OCTOBER 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital.
One of the most controversial problems in the Congress this year has
been the St. Lawrence Seaway & Power Project. The legislation has been kicked
around in the Congress for several decades. In July of this year it was turned
down by the House Committee on Public Works on a 15 to 12 vote. However, the
proponents of a deepwater link between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean
are forcing a new vote, From all indications there is some chance the previous
decision will be reversed.
The issue now is simply this: Will the Canadian government build and
control the project alone or will the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project be
a joint effort with the financial burdens, control and benefits shared equally
by the two nations?
Canada, weary of waiting for the U.S. to cooperate, now is offering to
complete the St. Lawrence Seaway alone. The U.S., once the chief promoter. is
dragging its heels.
Electric pcwer, more than shipping. is sparking Canada's interest in the
development. Canada, like the U.S., is short of electric power and wants to
tap the hydroelectric resources at the rapids of the St. Lawrence River. The
U. S. Government wants, along with pcwer development, a 27-foot channel to
permit a flow of iron cre from Labrador mines to American steel mills in the
Great Lakes region.
Most of the Seaway, stretching 2,342 miles from Duluth to the Atlantic
Ocean, can be used now by deep-draft vessels. Some dredging is required in
the St. Lawrence and in waterways connecting the Great Lakes. Most of the
work that remains to be done is concentrated in a single 114-mile section of
the St, Lawrence between Ogdensburg, N.Y., and Montreal. Into that stretch
would go two dams; a 27-foot channel with seven locks and the world's second
largest hydroelectric power plant
The remaining cost is estimated officially at 818 million dollars,
roughly as much as the cost of four modern aircraft carriers, Inc U.S., if
Congress agrees, is to pay 567 million, Canada 251 million, All but 93 million
is intended for the 114-mile bottleneck.
Canada already has spent 132 million, chiefly for the Welland Canal that
links Lake Erie with Lake Ontario. The U.S. has spent 32 million. for the
MacArthur Leck and deeper channels between lakes,
An immense power plant is planned at a site astride the international
boundary near Massena, N.Y. Once in operation, this plant can produce an esti-
mated 12.6 billion kilowatt hours of power a year, That is enough for two
industrial cities as large as Defect. Canada would get half the output, the
U.S. the other half.
Canada, if it actually starts the project alone, looks forward to pay-
ing off the entire cost within 50 years. Power sales are counted upon to meet,
a large part of the expense, ship tolls the remainder. Instead of 23 or 24
cents of every dollar in tolls from a joint Seaway, Canada could pocket every
penny of revenue from an all-Canadian waterway,
U.S. Government experts predict that the Seaway can pay for itself easily,
chiefly from tolls cn U.S. ships carrying iron ore, coal, grain and oil through
the waterway during the seven ice-free months. Others in UtSo challenge these
estimates and insist that both the Seaway and the power project are unnecessary,
and needlessly expensive, This dispute has held up congressional action on
St, Lawrence development for years.
Affirmative action by the House Committee on Public Works at this time
does not mean the project will be started immediately. Committee action would
be an important step in bringing this vital project into reality but the legis-
lation would still have a number of roadblocks to hurdle including the Committee
on Rules, the House as a whole, and then the Senate, If the Public Works Com-
mittee gives its O.K., this legislation will have top billing when Congress
reconvenes next January. Canada in the meantime will be marking time but any
negative action by the Congress will be a green light for Canada to go it
alone on the St, Lawrence Seaway & Power Project.
Thanks for listening. This is Jerry Ford signing off till next week,
same time, same station.
WFUR - 12:00-12:05 P,M, SATURDAYS
WOOD we 12:10-12:15 PoM. SUNDAYS
WGRD - 11:55-12:00 M, SUNDAYS
WLAV - 7:55- 8:00 AcM, SUNDAYS
WHTC - 7:55- 8:00 PeMc MONDAYS
WJER- 2:30- 2:35 P.M. SUNDAYS
WFRS - 12:05-12:10 P.M. TUESDAYS
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE IN FIFTH DISTRICT
OF MICHIGAN - OCTOBER 20, 21, 22 and 23, 1951
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, this is your Congressman Jerry Ford from the
Nation's Capital,
Economy in the federal government took another beating last Wednesday.
A real effort was made to convince the members of the Senate conferees and the
House as a whole that pork barrel legislation and log rolling was unsound,
but to no avail. Some time ago I told you about a flood control and river
and harbor appropriation bill that passed the House at a figure of 514 million.
The Senate upped it to 638 million dollars. The House and Senate conferees
compramised at 597 million which is 83 million more than the House figure,
You can see the Senators got two thirds of what they wanted. Because the
compromise was a bad deal, the two House Republican conferees including myself
refused to sign the report. Congressman Davis of Wisconsin and I fought
against the acceptance of such a proposal on the ground that it involved too
much of the taxpayers' money and in addition the funds that were approved
were badly distributed among the various projects.
Frankly, the experience tn this appropriations subcommittee was most
revealing. In 9 months one learns plenty about "cloak-room" politics, "log-
rolling" and "pork-barrel" appropriations. In the final days of the House
and Senate conference when we were trying to work out some kind of a com-
promise I was badgered night and day by various Congressmen to support
appropriations for their particular projects. One has to be sympathetic
to the individual problems, but if we on this small committee agreed to
every request for funds the Treasury of the United States would be in the
red worse than it is at the present time.
One attitude by certain Congressmen was a little hard to understand.
On last Tuesday a majority of the Members of the House voted against a new
tax bill. The next day some of the same members who voted against new taxes
refused to cut the appropriation bill for river and harbor and flood control
projects, In other words, some of my colleagues favored new financial obli-
gations for Uncle Sam but were opposed to raising the money to pay for the
same obligations.
Let me make my own position clear. I am strongly in favor of a
balanced budget and therefore have voted for economy whenever and wherever
possible. However, when economy hasn't been accomplished, when sufficient
cuts in the President's budget have not been achieved to balance the budget,
there is no alternative but to vote for higher taxes.
Here is an appropriate analogy. Occasionally my good wife will
suggest that we buy something for the family which admittedly is desirable
but which I don't think we can afford at the present time, We discuss the
proposed purchase. Betty says yes; I say no. Let's assume she makes the
purchase on credit despite my opposition. Should I then refuse to pay the
bill? Definitely not, I can still object to the purchase but in good con-
science the bill must be paid. The same holds true as far as the federal
government is concerned, I'm against all of the free spending policies of
President Truman and I've voted to cut his budget every time the opportunity
was presented, but when such economy efforts fail because we don't have
enough votes, there is no choice but high taxes to pay the cost of an expensive
and inefficient government.
This is the last broadcast this year as the Congress is closing up
shop until January 3, 1952. Thanks for listening. I'll be back next year
over this same station with more weekly reports from the Nation's Capital.
RADIO TALK BY GERALD R. FORD, JR. FOR USE
IN FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT - JANUARY 26, 27,
28 and 29, 1952
This is your Congressman Jerry Ford with the first weekly
radio report from the Nation's Capital during this crucial session
of the 82nd Congress.
In 1949 there were 43 weekly radio reports from Washington.
In 1950, 27, and during 1951, 42. This year unless there are un-
foreseen obstacles there will be a report each week on the Con-
gress and related matters.
The big news in Washington in the past few days concerned
President Truman's proposed budget for the next fiscal year.
The President's budget message to the House and Senate took a
reading clerk 47 minutes to drone out the summary of his recom-
mendations. The budget itself, a sizeable volume weighing over
5 pounds, covers 1222 pages of fine print including thousands
of charts and a maze of statistical detail.
Mr. Truman proposes that in the next 12 months starting
July 1st the federal government spend 85 billion 400 million
dollars. One of the Congressmen after listening to the Presi-
dent's recommendations said, "It's a volume destined to break
a taxpayer's heart, sprain his arm if he has to carry it far,
and ruin his eyes if he must read the astronomical figures."
To be serious, and this is a most serious problem, there
is considerable doubt as to whether the President's budget mes-
sage can be accepted as an adequate summary of the nation's
economic position or as a sound program for legislative action.
There is a basic unhealthy economic condition in America which
we must recognize, namely, the fact that so much of the economy
of the United States is dependent on military and foreign aid
billions, not merely to prime the pump but to run it. Added in-
flation is a continuous and very real danger, particularly with
Mr. Truman's budget indicating a deficit of 8 billion dollars in
the coming year and 16 billion in the year to follow.
What does President Truman propose to cure the anticipated
deficits totalling 26 billion dollars in the next two years? Mr.
Truman's only remedy is more federal taxes piled on top of the
burden already carried by our citizens, Unfortunately the
President's budget message failed to present any suggestions for
economy in the operation of the federal government. The White
House said "True economy" is desirable but offered no concrete
proposals for reductions in the budget.
As long as the President refuses to do much about cutting
expenditures it is again up to Congress to see what can be done
to relieve the excessive burdens on our taxpayers. At, the our-
set there are three definite opportunities for substantial
savings. First, the waste of manpower and material in the Army,
Navy and Air Force is unbelievably high. Several Congressional
Committees are working on this problem right now and will come
up in the near future with some astounding revelations and
sound recommendations. Second, there must be careful scrutiny of
the foreign aid programs which in the past few years have total-
led many billions. There is a growing feeling in the Congress
that the Administration is wastefully spending foreign aid funds
for political reasons rather than on the basis of American se-
curity. In addition, sizeable reductions in the budget could be
achieved if the remainder of the Hoover Commission recommendations
were put into effect immediately. Presently the President and
his legislative leaders are ducking the Hoover Commission pro-
posals because certain lobbyists are opposed to the necessary
reforms and economies.
This we should remember. For every dollar Mr. Truman pro-
poses to spend, he plans to have the federal treasury borrow 17
cents. This budget is another example of spend, spend, tax, tax,
borrow, borrow. This country can borrow and waste itself into
helplessness as readily as it can be reduced to such a condition
by Russian aggression.
This is Congressman Jerry Ford signing off. I'll be back
again next week, same time, same station.
LIBRARY