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 Dwight Eisenhower.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4782382
label
Ford Newsletter, May-September 1960
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4782382
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Newsletter, May-September 1960
description
This file contains material relating to Dwight Eisenhower.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Newsletters
subjects
Agriculture
Appropriations and expenditures
Arms transfers
Capital punishment
Federal aid to education
Government salaries
Legislation
National security
Public works
Social security
U-2 Incident, 1960
Unemployment
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4782382
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1960-09-30
month
9
year
1960
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1960-05-01
month
5
year
1960
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f6da7e65d5ede14f
ocrText
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
May 4, 1960
The American people are buying and paying for a national defense program in which
there is no deterrent gap, The major security issue confronting our nation today concerns
an adequate deterrence against war. As Dr. Herbert York, Defense Department Director of
Research and Engineering, has put it, "The question is not whether we have more missiles
than they have, but whether our strategic deterrent can or cannot survive the first
attack. If it cannot, then you would speak of that as being a deterrent gap. If it can,
then there is no deterrent gap."
In the Defense Appropriation Bill presented to the House of Representatives this
week, the Committee on Appropriations of which I am a member, recommended funds for a
defense program with absolutely no deterrent gap. We recommended a sound program calling
for the appropriation of $39.3 billion during fiscal year 1961 for the Army, Navy, and
Air Force.
It is most significant to me that this amount is only $2.8 million more than re-
quested by President Eisenhower last January. You will remember the severe and persistent
criticism that was levied at the President when he presented his defense budget. It was
alleged, mostly by partisans on the other side of the political fence, that Ike's proposed
expenditures were woefully inadequate, that we were becoming a second-rate power, and
that we were losing "World War III." Yet in May, after four months of hearings, the
Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations recommended an insignificant increase of only
7/1000 of 1 percent in defense funds over the January proposals of President Eisenhower.
To be sure, some specific changes in the overall program were ordered which resulted in
committee additions of $1.5 billion, but these were offset by committee reductions in
other instances. The net increase in the defense budget was only $2.8 million over the
January request.
These four months of hearings were presided over by Rep. George Mahon (Dem., Texas),
the highly competent and respected chairman of our subcommittee. The nine Democrats and
seven Republicans on the subcommittee heard all the top civilian and military leaders of
the Department of Defense plus outside, non-government witnesses. On a non-partisan,
non-political basis, it examined the various items in the budget and questioned in
detail all witnesses who appeared before it. As our Report stated, "The Committee was
not unanimous in many of the actions taken, as our defense civilian and military leaders
have not been unanimous in the recommendations made to Congress and in testimony given
the committee. The actions have been taken, however, in the expectation of better defense
for the dollars expended,"
The Committee added $321 million to provide a more aggressive anti-submarine program,
$250 millions to provide a greater airlift capability, $241 millions for additional
Polaris submarines, and $215 millions more for fighter planes as replacements for
Bomarc-B anti-aircraft missiles.
Reductions made by the Committee included $400 million for general "procurements,"
to force more economical buying practices. By eliminating an aircraft carrier, $293
million was cut out of the budget and an additional $294 million was eliminated by
virtually terminating the Bomarc-B anti-aircraft missile.
These changes point up the fact mentioned in our Report that "It is not an easy
chore to pick and choose among competing weapons systems (And) the problem is compli-
cated by the accelerating rate of technological progress which is making weapons systems
almost obsolete or at least obsolescent before they become operational."
Our Committee has endeavored to approve a program in line with the recommendations
of civilian and military defense leaders which will provide sufficient deterrence through
a "mixed strategic attack force." The policy of a "mixed force" defense includes the
use of a variety of retaliatory weapons systems. While, therefore, there may be a
temporary missile gap, this does not mean under any circumstance that a deterrent gap
exists.
The $39.3 billions recommended by the Committee is $103.6 million more than was
appropriated for the present fiscal year. I am convinced that we are spending enough
for a powerful and ready defense now and in the future. The program as presented by the
Appropriations Committee is an endorsement of the sound and effective national defense
recommendations made by President Eisenhower last January.
A DUTCH THANK YOU: Tomorrow afternoon (May 5) the Netherlands Carillon Tower, with
its 49 bells, located across the Potomac from the Lincoln Memorial, will be dedicated.
Tomorrow is the 15th anniversary of the liberation of the Netherlands from Nazi domination.
The 49 bells and the Carillon Tower are a gift from the Netherlands people to the people
of the United States in gratitude for American assistance during and following World
War II, The tower stands near our own Marine Corp Iwo Jima Monument.
On May 5th, 1954 the bells were presented to the Speaker of the U. S. House of
Representatives by the Chairman of the Second Chamber of the Netherlands Parliament.
They were intended to symbolize the gratitude and friendship of the Dutch people; funds
for the bells were raised by voluntary contributions and each bell bears a reference to
a particular group or province of the Netherlands.
The Carillon Tower was designed by a leading Dutch architect and was approved by
Secretary of the Interior Seaton who tomorrow will accept the tower on behalf of the
American people.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
May 11, 1960
It took three quorum calls and eleven record votes (each consuming about 30 minutes)
for the House last week to pass S. 722, the Area Redevelopment bill, under the rules of
Calendar Wednesday.
"Calendar Wednesday" provides a means by which the House of Representatives can by-
pass its Committee on Rules and take up for debate a bill previously approved by one of
its standing committees. Generally, controversial legislation approved by a legislative
committee goes to the Committee on Rules which acts as the "traffic cop" for regulating
the flow of legislation to the House floor.
S. 722 passed the Senate on March 23rd a year ago. Allegedly it was to help
alleviate unemployment in certain distressed areas. The Committee on Banking and Currency
reported it to the House on May 14, 1959. Since then the Committee on Rules (8 Democrats,
4 Republicans) has refused to act on it. During the intervening 12 months economic
conditions have changed in such a way that the bill will not do what its sponsors origi-
nally intended it should do.
A year ago when the bill was reported, 32 major industrial areas would have quali-
fied for assistance. Today, 44 such areas would be eligible for special Federal funds
despite the fact that 9 out of 10 of the 149 major industrial areas show employment
totals greater than a year ago. This is possible because the bill defines a "depressed
area" as one with an unemployment rate of 6 percent or more in 18 out of the last 24
months. Cities therefore, which TODAY are in good economic condition with less than
6 percent unemployment could qualify for federal assistance. Those areas which are
really hard hit and depressed would get less because those areas needing it least would
get more. The bill as passed is out of date.
The bill is also unsound because it would authorize the use of Federal funds to
entice industry away from one area into another. Michigan is altogether too familiar
with this activity in connection with the low-cost power attraction of the TVA states.
One cannot justify the use of Federal taxes collected in Grand Rapids to help locate new
industry in Alabama, Tennessee, or North Carolina. Nevertheless the bill passed 201 to
184. I voted "No."
Consideration of the bill started at noon and the final vote came at 9:15 p.m.
Delaying tactics, including the roll call votes, employed by some opponents of the
measure created the long session. The last time the procedure under "Calendar Wednesday"
was used previously was on July 18, 1956. An amendment to the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 was passed then and only one roll call vote was
necessary.
It appears that in passing S. 722 the majority leadership was more interested in
a political issue than in assisting depressed areas. The President has said that area
redevelopment legislation needs priority attention. However, he has urged legislation
authorizing loans and technical assistance to help "areas afflicted with long-term,
substantial unemployment resulting from technological changes." His program would cost
$53 million. The out-of-date program passed by the House will cost more than $251
million.
THE PRESIDENT URGES ACTION: In a special message last week President Eisenhower
chided the Congress for inactivity and spoke in behalf of certain legislative needs.
He again reminded us that "in no domestic area do we have a more obvious need for
corrective action" than in the area of agriculture. When we know that on February 29th
the Federal Government had invested in surplus agricultural commodities a total of
$9,026,000,000 we realize how correct he is. With storage costs continuing at $1.3
million a day it is obvious that the present price-support program cannot be justified.
Corrective legislation must be passed. Only Congress can do the job.
Ike also stressed the need of 40 more Federal judges to eliminate the uncalled-for
delay often incurred in Federal Court cases. He pointed out that efficient debt
management requires the removal of the statutory limitation on the interest rates on
Treasury bonds. The President also said that the Highway Trust Fund needs more revenue
if we are to continue the highway-construction program on schedule. He reminded the
Congress that the $2-million-per-day deficit in the Post Office Department calls for
an adjustment in postal rates.
The President concluded by saying, "I point again to the need of restraint in new
authorizations for Federal spending." This is a fundamental issue and must be recog-
nized as such in the 1960 election. Ina recent address Mr. Maurice Stans, Director of
the Bureau of the Budget, explained that there are pending in this Congress bills which,
if enacted, would cost $300 billion over an average period of five years. "While there
is some duplication among them," he said, "if these and other bills were passed as
their sponsors want them, they would add 50 or 60 billion dollars a year to our present
spending--while on the other hand there are bills to reduce taxes by 5 to 10 billion
dollars a year." With a $290 billion debt we cannot gamble with our country's fiscal
strength. We must continue the President's conscientious effort to achieve a sound
fiscal policy to assure our nation's security, now and in the future.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
May 18, 1960
The mission of Francis Powers may well be one of the most significant events in
1960. Reams of copy have been written on this event and its implications, and millions
of words have been spoken about it. In all of this, certain basic considerations must
be established and emphasized:
1. It is the highest and most serious responsibility of the United States Govern-
ment, (the President, Congress, and Judiciary) to protect the lives and property of all
its people. In the year 1960 this means protection from any surprise attack by missiles
or manned aircraft of the Soviet Union.
2. To carry out successfully this responsibility, certain agencies of the Federal
Government must obtain sufficient essential information about the intentions and capa-
bilities of the Soviet Union in order that our Government can provide an adequate defense
program. To do less would amount to criminal negligence and could border on treason.
3. International spying as a diplomatic or military operation is as old as
recorded history. The fact that the spies bring back excellent photographs of military
installations rather than a "branch with one cluster of grapes" (Numbers 13:23) does
not change the nature of the business.
4. Because this business inevitably involves deceit, misrepresentation, falsehood,
intrigue, and every devious avenue of approach, public officials may not jeopardize the
national security by publicizing the true facts about the business. This in no way
reflects upon their personal integrity nor upon the broader aspects of public morality.
But when a given situation (no matter how embarrassing) becomes public knowledge, we
commend a frank and honest disclosure.
5. As long as the cold war continues it is absolutely imperative that our govern-
ment continue to obtain essential information about the Soviet military potential.
Aerial photography from high-altitude planes is a practical and effective method of
getting this information. There is no good reason to eliminate this practice as long
as there exists the possibility of a surprise attack upon the United States.
6. This event can help to assure the American people of OUR advancements in
aeronautics and aerial photography, and in our ability to penetrate the Iron Curtain
with manned and armed aircraft if that becomes necessary.
7. The over-all direction and control of our intelligence program is in the hands
of competent men, highly responsible, knowledgeable, and experienced. While the
President approved the program, it is not expected that he must have personal knowledge
of any given operation or of each specific plane flight.
8. The House of Representatives, through a special subcommittee of the Committee
on Appropriations, has not only authorized the espionage program but has specifically
supplied the funds necessary to carry it out. According to Representative Cannon,
Democrat of Missouri, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, the Central
Intelligence Agency was under specific instructions from the elected Representatives of
the people to make sure that we have no more "Pearl Harbors" nor any recurrence of the
sudden Chinese Communist attack experienced in Korea in 1950.
9. The establishment and use of over 250 overseas military bases is an integral
part of our national defense effort. We expect to keep these bases and to protect the
sovereignty of all free nations, including their right to participate in a mutual security
program.
All of this is not to say that we have no regrets concerning the incident. The
downing of one of our U-2 planes 1300 miles inside the boundaries of Russia while on an
espionage mission and the apparent capture of its American pilot is indeed regrettable.
1. We regret the existence of a cold war which makes this sort of business
necessary
2. We regret that the event occurred so close to the date of a summit meeting.
3. We regret the temporary propaganda advantage presented to Mr. Khrushchev.
4. We regret that the incident may result in cancellation of the visit to the
Soviet Union of President Eisenhower, America's greatest ambassador of good
will whose person-to-person appeal to the Russian people would be a mollifying
influence in the cold war.
5. Most assuredly, we regret what appears to be the capture of Francis Powers,
the pilot of the plane, on this vital national-defense mission.
However, we must point out that there are workable alternatives to cold war and
espionage, and that out of this incident overall benefits may be derived.
1. At Geneva in 1955 President Eisenhower proposed that the major powers give to
each other "a complete blueprint of our military establishments." He
suggested that each nation "provide within our countries facilities for aerial
photography to the other country." Regrettably this "open skies" plan was
rejected by the Soviets. The U. S. is prepared to offer this plan at the
summit meeting this month. Its acceptance by Russia will eliminate further
need of U-2 flights.
2.
President Eisenhower also said in 1955 that we were ready to consider a
reliable system of inspections and reporting in an effort to reduce all
armaments. Good faith on the part of the Communists at the disarmament con-
ference at Geneva would help to ease world tensions. A safe disarmament
program must be our ultimate goal.
3
We trust that the demonstrated success of our aircraft flights over Russia
during the past four years will have a salutary effect on the Kremlin. The
masters there must know that we are as sincere and effective in playing
according to their rules as we are in urging a change in the rules for the
benefit of all mankind.
In closing, your Congressman highly compliments the Democratic Chairman of my
Committee, Rep. Cannon, who in a dramatic speech on the floor of the House of Representa-
tives, fully endorsed United States policy in protecting our citizens and our cherished
land. Mr. Cannon, a 38-year veteran in the House reemphasized there must be no more
Pearl Harbors or Koreas. I concur without qualification or hesitation.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
May 25, 1960
The hard-core Communists in the Kremlin and in Red China prevailed on Mr.
Khrushchev to sabotage the Summit Conference. The Soviet Government has confirmed the
fears of many Americans that it has again adopted the "cold war" as an instrument of
national policy. All Americans are strongly behind President Eisenhower in resisting
every attempt of the Communists to weaken our unity at home or to create abroad further
discord among our many allies.
While the tempest raged in Paris, two domestic issues in which many of our citizens
are personally concerned were receiving special consideration in the House of Represen-
tatives. These are Federal Aid to Education and the problem of the cost of hospitali-
zation and medical care for the aged.
AID TO EDUCATION: On June 8, 1959 the House Committee on Education and Labor
recommended the adoption of H. R. 22, a bill authorizing over $1 billion a year for four
years for school construction and/or teachers' salaries. On March 25, 1960 the same
Committee recommended approval of H. R. 10128, a second bill with alnew version autho-
rizing $325 million a year for three years for school construction only. Until last
week neither bill progressed any further than the Committee on Rules. This Committee,
which schedules legislation for consideration by the House, had refused to take action.
It was announced early last week, however, that H. R. 10128 would be taken up
under the rules of Calendar Wednesday, a procedure which by-passes the Committee on
Rules. By Tuesday evening Rep. Howard Smith, Chairman of the Committee on Rules
reported that his group would hold hearings on both H.R. 22 and H. R. 10128 on Thursday.
It was then agreed to drop the "Calendar Wednesday" idea and to proceed in the more
regular fashion.
Following the hearings on Thursday an open rule providing for three hours of
debate was granted for H. R. 10128. This means that the bill will be taken up in
regular order, probably today (May 25), that the bill will be open to amendments, and
that there may be three hours of general debate followed by additional debate on any
amendments. We can expect that an amendment will be offered to provide for federal funds
to supplement teachers' salaries.
In fact I have been advised by Michigan leaders for Federal aid to education that
the proponents of the legislation do not want H. R. 10128 to pass unless it is amended
to include Federal funds for teachers' salaries.
Frankly and straight from the shoulder I have had to tell the advocates of this
new spending project that I cannot support it at the present time as proposed in either
version. I have had no evidence that a sizeable number of people of the Fifth District
want Uncle Sam to help pay salaries of teachers in schools throughout the land. At the
same time I have received many indications that the citizens of Kent and Ottawa Counties
do not want Federal aid to education in any form. I have agreed that there may be some
justification for Federal assistance for school construction under a tightly-drawn
formula for those areas of our country which have demonstrated a sincere interest in
education but do not have the wealth to provide adequate school facilities. This would
be a "one-shot" proposition to meet a specific need. It would not be a continuing drain
on the taxpayers of the country.
In connection with this latter point, it is interesting to note that proponents
of this legislation no longer refer'to "Federal AID to education." It is now "Federal
SUPPORT of education." This change in terminology connotes definite long-range implications.
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CARE FOR THE AGED: The House Committee on Ways and Means has
held months of hearings and weeks of executive sessions on legislation designed to meet
the problem of the cost of hospital and medical care of our senior citizens.
The Committee has based its work on H. R. 4700 introduced by Rep. Forand and on
the recommendations of Secretary Arthur Flemming of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. Last Thursday the Committee approved a new title in the Social Security Act
designed to cover this topic. It instructed its staff to produce a new bill which will
be considered further by the Committee tomorrow. The provisions of the bill, I am told,
will follow the guide lines recommended by Secretary Flemming. However, the final version
of the legislation will not be available until the Committee reports a bill to the House.
All of us, I'm sure, are concerned with the problem of hospital and medical care for
those over 65, but we are equally concerned that any legislation in reference to it be
fair and equitable and in accordance with sound economic and social principles.
IN BRIEF: Michiganites in Washington gathered for the annual Michigan Week
breakfast last Wednesday in the restaurant of the new Senate Office Building. About 250
were present to meet Michigan congressmen and other Federal officials from our state, to
eat scrambled eggs and bacon, and to take home a dozen souvenir-favors
Over 1,300
requests for agricultural bulletins have been received with the most distant coming from
a mission station in Nigeria in West Africa.
SOME HELPFUL MATERIAL: We have available for distribution as long as the supply
lasts the following governmental publications. Address your requests to me at 351 House
Office Building, Washington.
1. "The Capitol,' pictorial story of Capitol and House of Representatives.
2. "Our American Government," -171 questions and answers on federal government.
3. "The Mutual Security Program," summary of operation of mutual security program.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 1, 1960
The House of Representatives approved its 14th appropriation bill of this session
when it passed by a vote of 387 to 18 a $3.9 billion Public Works bill for fiscal year
1961. It was the 1960 Public Works appropriation bill which was twice vetoed by Presi-
dent Eisenhower because it contained too many unbudgeted projects which eventually
would have cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Ike's second veto, you
will remember, was overridden by the Congress, the only one of his 163 vetoes to be
upset in his 7-1/3 years in office.
The $3.9 billion provided in the 1961 House bill is $86.2 million less than the
request submitted in the Budget but $41 million more than was appropriated for fiscal
1960.
The bill as passed allocates $32.3 million for construction work in Michigan. Of
this amount $30 million is to be spent on developing the connecting channels for the
St. Lawrence Seaway. An additional $264,000 is provided for developing plans on four
specific river and harbor projects in Michigan. One of these involves the harbor at
Grand Haven.
The bill grants to the Corps of Engineers the sum of $27,000 to develop plans for
rehabilitating the north and south piers at Grand Haven. Both piers are deteriorated
and subject to constant repair. The funds in this bill are to be spent on engineering
studies to determine the best method of providing adequate protection for the harbor
and will include preliminary designs and cost estimates.
The most controversial item in the bill, and the one which produced a special
roll call vote, involved the Kinzua Dam of the Allegheny River Reservoir project in
Pennsylvania. The bill carried $4.5 million for the construction of an 180-foot dam on
the Allegheny to protect communities in Pennsylvania, especially Pittsburgh, from recurring
floods. Opposition to the project developed largely because the reservoir behind the
dam would inundate 9,000 acres of a Reservation of the Seneca Indians in New York State.
Opponents to Kinzua produced evidence to show that there was an alternative method
(the Conewango Plan) for controlling floods in the Ohio Valley, that it had advantages
over the Kinzua plan, and that it would take little of the Seneca land.
On a motion to recommit the bill to Committee for the purpose of deleting the
Kinzua Dam project, I voted "yes." We lost, however, 110 to 294 and the project stayed
in the bill. Subsequently, on final passage, I voted for the bill.
APPROPRIATIONS TO DATE: At this writing the House has passed 14 appropriation
bills totaling $66.4 billion. This is a half-billion dollars less than was requested by
the executive branch of the government for agencies and projects included in these bills.
This amount is also $1.5 billion less than was appropriated for 1960. This demonstrates,
among other things the determination of the House Committee on Appropriations to hold
down expenditures.
Two major appropriation bills, military construction and mutual security, must still
be approved by the House of Representatives. As you know, the Senate also must act on
all these spending bills and the final amounts appropriated by law may differ from those
initially approved by the House In a later issue of "Your Washington Review" I will
report the final appropriation figures.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: Michigan was the first state in the union to abolish capital
punishment. It eliminated the death penalty in 1847, one hundred and thirteen years ago.
Last Wednesday the House Committee on the Judiciary conducted hearings on a bill designed
to abolish the death penalty and to substitute life imprisonment under all Federal laws
except those specifically governing the armed forces. This bill would have no effect on
the criminal laws of the various states.
The author of the bill, H. R. 870, gave the usual arguments against capital punish-
ment including the contention that it does not deter crime and that in fact it may hinder
the administration of justice. He argued that often a jury will refuse to convict a
defendent for a crime bearing the death penalty whereas it would find him guilty if he
could be imprisoned for life.
Testimony at the hearings disclosed that since 1930 the Federal Government has
carried out 31 executions. Of these 15 were for murder, 8 for espionage, 5 for kid-
napping, 2 for rape, and one for armed robbery. Two of the 31 were women, 27 were white,
3 were negroes and one an American Indian.
While H. R. 870 would apply to the civil courts and not to courts martial under
the Uniform Code of Military Justice, at least one witness urged the complete abolition
of capital punishment under all Federal law, He stated that while the Navy has not
executed anyone for 118 years, the Army executed 159 soldiers since 1930. The extreme
penalty was paid by 106 murderers and in 52 cases of rape. There was one execution for
cowardice.
In objecting to capital punishment in the armed forces the witness said that since
1930 over 40,000 charges involving cowardice were preferred. Out of these 2,894 men
were convicted and sentenced to prison or death by general courts martial. Yet only one
was actually executed.
The Department of Justice in its report to the Committee concluded that "From the
information at hand the Department has no basis for urging a change in the law. It is,
however, obviously a matter of legislative policy to which Congress may wish to give
further study."
The matter now rests with a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 8, 1960
Six yea-and-nay roll call votes were recorded while the House of Representatives
considered and passed the School Construction Assistance Act of 1960. On four occasions I
voted "yes" and on two I voted "no." I voted "yes" on a motion to take up the bill for
discussion because I thought the House ought to debate the issues and have an opportunity
to vote on amendments and substitute proposals. The motion carried 308 to 97.
I voted "no" on final passage of the bill because the legislation as approved by a
vote of 206 to 189 authorizes funds to all states solely on a basis of school-age popula-
tion without regard to the need of each state for Federal financial assistance in con-
structing school facilities. One Congressman compared this approach to the problem of
classroom shortage with that of the philanthropist who proposes to aid the poor in his
city by distributing $20 bills to every person who passes by. The Federal government may
be justified in helping to build schools in those limited areas which need classrooms,
have conscientiously made every legitmate effort to finance construction locally or on a
state-wide basis, but simply do not have the wealth required to provide adequate school
buildings for its boys and girls. This would mean that certain entire states, and certain
sec tions of other states would NOT be eligible for any federal assistance. Every man who
passes by should not get a $20 bill. The legislation which passed the House divides
$325 million a year for four years among all the states for the purpose of assisting in
school construction simply on the basis of the number of youngsters living in that state.
I voted for the Powell amendment which requires schools built with these Federal
funds to be open to all students regardless of race, and for an amendment requiring
matching funds by local or state governments the first year as well as the other years,
and for a motion to substitute the Administration loan program to needy areas in place of
outright grants to all. I voted against a proposal to return to the states for school
construction purposes 25 percent of the Federal tax on cigarettes sold in each state
because there would be no relationship between the amount going to each state and that
state's need for new school buildings.
A conference committee of Representatives and Senators will have to iron out dif-
ferences in the House and Senate versions of the Federal aid bill.
SALARY INCREASES FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES: A 9 percent across-the-board salary increase
with a $350 minimum, for most Federal employees has been recommended by the House Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service. In the majority report on the bill the Com-
mittee states that "representatives of postal and other Federal employees clearly
demonstrated that their salaries are well below salaries paid their fellow workers in
private enterprise whose levels of responsibility are comparable. These employees proved
that their salaries have been, and are today, far behind the national economy."
The Report includes a chart showing that the national salary schedule for letter
carriers and postal clerks provides an "automatic salary range" of $4,035 to $4,875.
Policemen and firemen in 17 of our largest cities have "automatic salary ranges" varying
from $4,365 to $5,305 and from $6,396 to $6,828.
"There are approximately 534,000 regular and substitute employees in the postal
field service," the Report continues, and "over 40 percent of these employees work and
live in the metropolitan area served by the 60 largest post offices. In other words, one-
sixth of one percent of the 35,750 post offices employ two-fifths of all postal workers.
These are the employees, and these are the cities and urban areas, concerned most directly
with the postal pay provisions of H. R. 9883." The Committee also said that because it
was traditional policy to extend to other government employees any pay increase granted
the postal workers, this bill takes in most Federal employees.
The Committee Report also includes the minority views of two members of the Com-
mittee (Chairman Tom Murray of Tenn. and Rep. August Johansen of Michigan) who emphasize
that the bill will add $810 million a year to the taxpayers' burden.
The minority state that "between 1945 and 1955 the postal employees working on an
annual basis have received an actual increase in pay of $1,770. Since 1955 postal
employees in the lower pay levels have actually received a 19 percent increase in pay.
---Since June 1958, when our Federal employees received their last salary increase, the
Consumer Price Index. has increased 1.6 percent. It is indeed difficult to understand
how a 9 percent salary increase can be justified" on an across-the-board basis, including
those now drawing up to $17,500 a year.
Rep. Murray and Johansen declare that "the only sound and justified basis for
setting Federal salaries is their comparability with rates paid for similar work in
private industry We cannot in the Federal Government succumb to a wage-fixing policy
based on personal need."
The minority point out that there are many applicants for every postal vacancy,
including those in the metropolitan areas, and that the number quitting the postal service
is low. "The facts are," the Report states, "that during 1959 the average quits per month
per 100 employees were as follows: 0.57 percent in the U.S. postal service, 0.70 percent
in the Federal Government as a whole, and 1.25 percent in private industry."
The minority report emphasizes that last year Congress provided $500,000 for a
survey of the salary rates being paid by private enterprise for work similar to that
performed by Federal employees. This information will be available in late September.
"This means that the Congress can adopt a principal for compensating Federal employees,"
continues the minority, "that can be reasonably compared with those paid by private
industry for work of similar skill and responsibility." Rep. Murray and Johansen feel
that before proceeding with a 9 percent across-the-board pay increase, Congress should
have the recommendations of this half-million dollar survey which will be ready in Sep-
tember and can be acted upon by Congress in January. I agree.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 15, 1960
The House of Representatives on June 3 by a roll-call vote in a most unusual action
refused to adjourn for that day. Not since July 3, 1952 had there been a similar yea-and-
nay vote on the question of adjourning a daily session of the House. In 1952 the House
voted to stay in session further to debate and eventually to defeat a bill designed to
establish a joint committee on the budget. This year the House voted 77 to 194 against
adjournment as a part of a maneuver designed to obtain signatures on the discharge peti-
tion for the Federal pay raise bill, and in order to give an individual House member the
opportunity to comment on certain allegations concerning congressional expense accounts.
I voted for adjournment especially because of the "gag rule" feature of the discharge
petition and with the knowledge that the comments on the other issue could be made on
Monday.
The House remained in session until the required 219 signatures had been placed on
Discharge Petition No. 6 which had been filed the previous day. The effect of this
action was to by-pass the Committee on Rules which normally schedules legislation for
House action, and to make eligible for consideration on the second Monday of the month
(June 13) the Federal Pay-raise bill, H. R. 9883. The bill under the discharge petition
would be subject to only two hours of general debate and would NOT be open to amendments
except those offered by the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service which originally
reported the bill. There would be one opportunity to recommit the bill to Committee with
instructions to make certain changes, but by-and-large it was a "take it or leave it"
proposition. This is not the way to handle controversial legislation which may be
improved by opening it up to amendments or to substitute proposals. The leadership
recognized this and on June 8 the majority leader announced that the bill would not be
taken up on Monday under the discharge rule but would be the first order of business on
Wednesday. It is not clear at this writing how the pay-raise bill will ultimately be
handled in the House.
CONGRESSIONAL EXPENSE ACCOUNTS: A secondary reason for the refusal to adjourn
earlier on June 3 was to give an individual House member mentioned in the national
publicity on congressional expense accounts an opportunity to discuss the charges which
had been made against him and others. In his address to the House this member denied
that his expense accounts were altered, that any public funds were expended to purchase
beverages for him as reported, and categorically he denied that he failed to pay for
personal items incurred by him while at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. It was generally
agreed that he presented a strong case against the allegations of the published account.
Concerning the current publicity on Congressional expense accounts, I would say,
1. Trips out of Washington on official business by members of Congress are
necessary and beneficial, and their costs are legitimate expenditures of
government. It is grossly unfair to label every trip "a junket."
2. Members of Congress, as all public officials, must understand that they are
spending "other people's money" and that an official expense account is no
license to extravagance. Most assuredly personal expense must be paid for
personally.
3. Congressmen should be willing to give a detailed accounting of their travel
expenses and to keep the record open for public scrutiny.
4. Newsmen who search these records and report their findings must be just as
scrupulous in presenting the whole truth as the Congressmen are in recording
it. Misrepresentation or misinterpretation is as reprehensible in one case
as the other.
PUBLIC DEBT AND TAX RATE EXTENSION: The House last week voted 223 to 174 to extend
the debt limit to $293 billion for one year and to maintain for another year the current
52 percent corporate income tax rate and the present excise tax rates on distilled spirits,
beer, wines, cigarettes, passenger cars, auto parts and accessories, local telephone
service, and on the transportation of persons.
Rep. Wilbur Mills, the highly competent and responsible Democratic chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means, told the House that the permanent debt limit of $285 billion
is temporarily increased through June 30, 1960 to $295 billion and that his Committee
proposed a temporary increase to $293 billion for the next fiscal year. He pointed out
that undoubtedly the public debt will be below $285 billion on June 30, but that while
expenditures are spread fairly evenly over the year, tax collections are greatest in the
latter part of the fiscal year. Between July and winter a higher debt limit is required
than from February through June.
In his Committee Report to the House, Rep. Mills urged continuation of the present
tax rates in order to preserve $4 billion a year of needed revenue, to MAINTAIN THE ANTI-
CIPATED TREASURY SURPLUS, and to eliminate the necessity of further increases in the
debt limit. He said "your Committee believes that there is no justification for selecting
corporate rates or the particular excise taxes involved in this bill for tax reduction
before consideration is given to individual income tax reductions."
Rep. Mills told the House, "What we are doing is that which the President has asked
us to do, and only that. But we are not doing it because he asked us to do it. We are
doing it because we think the circumstances warrant us doing it." I agreed with Ike and
the Committee on Ways and Means and supported the extensions.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 22, 1960
The news of the cancellation of the President's visit to Japan came the same day the
House of Representatives debated the Mutual Security Appropriation bill. Premier Kishi's
confession that his government could not maintain order demonstrated anew the plans and
power of the world-wide Communist conspiracy. It pointed up the necessity of a world-wide
campaign to preserve the free nations and democratic systems of government through a strong
and virile mutual security program.
The debate in the House last Thursday centered about the $525 million cut made by the
Committee on Appropriations in the President's request for funds to continue the military
assistance and the defense support programs in fiscal year 1961. Military assistance money
goes to strengthen the fighting forces of our allies who are on the front lines in our
mutual defense setup. It helps to insure to us over 250 military bases on foreign terri-
tory, close to any potential enemy and far from our own shores. "Defense Support" is
economic aid to 12 countries bordering on the Soviet Union which are providing military
bases and/or forces for their and our own defense to such an extent that it may overtax
their economies or otherwise create social and political instability.
The Committee on Appropriations slashed the military assistance budget request by
20 percent. It approved $1.6 billion but this total, according to our Army, Navy and
Air Force Chiefs of Staff, is not sufficient to help equip our allies with modern missiles
and aircraft. In the Committee an unsuccessful effort was made to restore one-half of the
reduction.
Because I am convinced that we get more and better defense at a reduced cost through
mutual security than we would by "going it alone", I supported the higher figure and
worked to try to convince my colleagues that the appropriation should be increased. I did
not do this "to buy friends,' nor to support a world-wide boondoggle. I favor a strong
mutual security program in order to protect the lives and property of all Americans. I
want to keep our lines of defense far from our national boundaries. I want our allies to
be strong militarily, politically, and economically. I want to see no further extension
of Communistic power.
While I endorse the mutual security program I am encouraged when its overall cost is
decreased. The record of the past seven years is encouraging. The following chart on
the cost of "military assistance" is revealing:
Appropriation
Expenditure
Unexpended Balance
1952
$ 5.7
$ 2,4
$ 8.4
1956
1.0
2.6
4.6
1960
1.3
1.8
2.1
The amounts are in billions and show a substantial reduction in both appropriations
and the unexpended balance at the end of the year. Expenditures from 1955 through 1959
averaged $2.4 billion a year. Annual appropriations were less because of the unexpended
balances left from past appropriations. This year the President requested $2 billion in
new money for badly needed modern military hardware because the backlog of funds has dried
up.
SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS: A 336-page Report has been submitted to the House by the
Committee on Ways and Means on the "Social Security Amendments of 1960.' The Committee
did not approve the original provisions of the Forand bill (H.R. 4700) to cover certain
hospital and medical costs of social security beneficiaries nor did it increase the pres-
ent earning limitation on those under 72 receiving social security benefits. One or the
other of these items was mentioned in the bulk of the mail I have received on social
security legislation this year.
The bill, H.R. 12580, will be considered in the House under a "closed rule" which
prohibits amendments from the floor. If the bill passes the House, however, it may be
amended in the Senate with any differences in the respective versions of the bill to be
worked out by a Conference Committee.
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' PAY RAISE: The House has voted a pay raise for most Federal
employees of 7½ percent across the board with $5 a year added for each step of the first
six postal field service salary levels. This means an 8.4 percent increase for most
postal employees but a lesser pay boost for other Federal employees in the same salary
brackets. A $15,150-a-year official will get a boost of $1145 a year while another
worker earning $4490 will get $350 more. I think there are more equitable ways of
making salary adjustments. I was one of 40 who voted against the bill in final passage;
378 voted for it.
While the above principle is also involved in any percentage increase, I did support
a motion to boost salaries 5 percent on the basis that it was a legitimate temporary
solution to the overall problem which can be more constructively solved after the Report
on the comparison of Federal and industrial salaries is available this fall. Furthermore,
it is doubtful whether the bill as passed will become law. Undoubtedly Ike will veto it
because of the added annual cost to the taxpayers of over $700 million. A bill with a
5 percent increase undoubtedly could become law and would assure larger paychecks for
Federal employees. In addition, a 5 percent increase is more in line with the 1.6
percent increase in the cost of living since June, 1958, when Federal employees received
their last salary increase which averaged 10 percent.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
June 29, 1960
The House of Representatives refused by a vote of 170 to 236 to approve a bill re-
commended by the Democratic members of the Committee on Agriculture concerning the price
support programs for wheat and feed grains. The bill, H.R. 12261, could have raised
price supports on wheat from 75 percent of parity ($1.77 a bushel) to 85 percent ($2.03
per bushel) and cut wheat allotments 25 percent. This purely political proposal probably
would have increased the cost of the farm price-support program by over $700 million
annually. There were so many other objections to it that every Republican member of the
Committee opposed the bill as did the American Farm Bureau and the National Grange. On
final passage, the House of Representatives repudiated the recommendations of its own
Democratic-controlled Committee. Prior to this action the House voted 195 to 211 against
a Senate-approved wheat bill which was a definite improvement over existing law and the
House proposal. I voted for this constructive measure and against the House bill. As a
result of all this, the Congress to date has brought forth no constructive alternative to
the present unsatisfactory and wasteful farm price-support program.
Latest available figures reveal that Uncle Sam has $8,831,833,000 invested in surplus
agricultural commodities. These have been accumulated under depression-bred legislation
and necessitated the expenditure of $1.3 million per day for storage charges during the
last fiscal year.
President Eisenhower in his agricultural message of Jan. 29, 1959, reported to the
Congress that "the price-support and production-control program has not worked." He stat-
ed that "most of the dollars are spent on the production of a relatively few large produ-
cers
(that) the control program doesn't control
(and that) the program is ex-
cessively expensive." Mr. Eisenhower went on to outline certain constructive recommenda-
tions for improving the situation. Congress did not adopt these recommendations.
Over a year later, in his special message of May 3, 1960, the President said, "In
an effort to break the legislative stalemate I recently advised the Congress that, within
broad guidelines which I suggested, I would approve any constructive farm bill that the
Congress might enact." In that same message Mr. Eisenhower insisted, "In no domestic
area do we have a more obvious need for corrective action.
By force of law the
Government's surplus holdings, especially of wheat, continually increase. These overhang
the market, depress prices, and impose an evermore onerous burden upon all citizens."
After a long wait and many changes in direction, the Democratic members of the House
Committee on Agriculture presented their recommendations in H.R. 12261, a bill entitled
"Farm Surplus Reduction Act of 1960". In its Report the Committee had to acknowledge that
there is "such misunderstanding and confusion among farmers and friends of farmers that
the Committee could not at this time develop wide agreement upon an overall commodity-by-
commodity approach to the general farm program." The Committee blamed this situation on
the Secretary of Agriculture and "others who oppose the parity principle for agriculture."
However, the 170 to 236 vote in the House against the Committee's proposal is the most
effective answer to this allegation.
The confusion acknowledged by the Committee, the general dissatisfaction with the
present programs, the disagreement between the Senate and the House on a new wheat law,
and the inability of the House to agree on any remedial legislation emphasize the urgent
necessity of an agonizing reappraisal of our current farm program. We may have to develop
an entirely new approach to the problem. But we can't sit by and do nothing. This is not
to advocate the abrupt discontinuance of all price-supports of agricultural commodities.
The Federal Government shares a responsibility for the "farm problem." It must, therefore,
share in the solution of those difficulties which in the words of Vice President Nixon
"stem from the fact that we produce more food and fibre than we can consume."
THE VICE PRESIDENT'S SUGGESTIONS: Dick Nixon recently outlined three points of a
farm program which he will more fully develop. He agreed with Gov. Rockefeller that our
nation ought to have on hand a one- or two- year supply of food for emergency use. He re-
commended a research program to find the best method of converting surplus grain into a
form for most economical storage.
Secondly, he advocated more research for expanding commercial uses of farm products.
He would increase the $16 million annual amount presently budgeted for this purpose.
His third proposal included a more extensive distribution of surplus foods through
the U.N. to the hungry people of those countries which are members of the United Nations.
DIRECT DISTRIBUTION OF SURPLUS FOOD: During the past 7½ years the U. S. Department of
Agriculture has provided, continually and without charge, 13.8 billion pounds of surplus
foods to people in the United States and overseas who can put these foods to good use.
Over 5.3 billion pounds costing $1.3 billion have been distributed in this country while
over 8.4 billion pounds costing a similar amount have gone to foreign countries.
During the first half of fiscal year 1960 a total of 14.3 million school children, 1.4
million needy persons in institutions, and 3.6 million needy persons in family units in the
United States have benefited from the donation of surplus commodities. During December,
1959, in Michigan over 241,000 needy persons obtained some of the surplus.
A LETTER TO MR. K.: An airmail envelope addressed to "Mr. Nikita Khrushchev, Moscow,
Russia" was recently returned to me for additional postage. Someone had placed my name in
the "Return to" spot after enclosing a copy of my Washington Review concerning the U-2
incident. I appreciate the gesture and approve the attempt
But the airmail rate to
Moscow is 15c!
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
July 6, 1960
We are in recess until August,
The Congress is returning to Washington to
continue its work after the presidential nominating conventions and prior to the election.
Its work could have been completed before the Los Angeles Convention and should have been
completed. Any activity by the Congress in August will be far more political than pro-
ductive.
Everyone knew from the first day of this session that the Democratic National Con-
vention was to open. July 11th. Only inept leadership or determined political strategy
could have brought about a post-convention session of Congress. The first is inexcusable
and the latter indefensible. Proper planning and scheduling of legislation in each House
could have brought all essential bills to the floor for final action before July 9th.
Determination to have and to use a post-convention session of the Congress as a political
sounding board for partisan political advantage is inconsistent with the constitutional
responsibilities of the Congress. It is evident that any Congressional action in August
will be influenced more by its specific potentialities for November 8th than by its
general benefits for the years ahead.
Better planning and more work would have eliminated the need for an August session.
For instance, the Democrats in the Senate spent two months in a filibuster against
legislation designed to protect the voting rights of all those qualified to vote under
State law. In the House there were many weeks when the Democratic leadership scheduled
for consideration no significant legislation. Now we are to return in August, after the
national conventions in a presidential election year, supposedly to make serious and
sound evaluations on a number of highly controversial and politically explosive issues.
It can't be done. Intelligent and constructive legislative results will not materialize
in a politically explosive atmosphere. In fact, the best action at this time on some
of the issues sponsored by the special-interest groups is no action at all.
THE APPROPRIATION BILLS: The minimum essential legislation in any congressional
session is the enactment of the appropriations bills. Members of the Congress, acting
as representatives of the taxpayers, must decide how much money the agencies of the
government are to have and how they are to spend it. At this writing nine of the 14 major
appropriations bills have been approved in final form by both Houses and call for the
expenditure of $59.5 billion for the fiscal year beginning July 1st. This amount is
$92.8 million more than the budget request. This is the net change after reductions and
increases were made following a thorough examination of the budget request by the
Committees on Appropriations.
DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS: The largest single money bill is that for the Department
of Defense and is handled by the Subcommittee nn which I serve. The original January
budget request was for $39,335 million. The House of Representatives on May 5 approved
an amount of $39,337.8 million but the Senate in its action on June 10 increased the
Defense appropriation to $40,514.9 million. Conferees, which included your Congressman,
were appointed by each House to reconcile this difference.
Two days in executive session produced a recommendation for a defense bill of
$39,996.6 million, or $661.6 million over the January request of the President. With all
the agitation by some politicians for an increased military spending of $3 million or
more per year it is significant that responsible Committees of the Congress upped Ike's
January budget request by only $661 million for a 1.7 percent increase.
The most important decisionsmade by the Conferees (5 from the House, 13 from the
Senate) were to include $293 million for a conventionally powered aircraft carrier as
recommended in the budget but eliminated by the House, to make $265 million available
for the B-70 supersonic bomber program for which the House had approved $75 million for
two prototype aircraft, and to provide $244 million for the Bomarc B air defense missile
program, a program which had been practically eliminated by the House. Both the Defense
Department and the Senate felt so strongly on the Bomarc that House Conferees accepted
the $244 million amount. Personally, I approved of the action taken by the Conferees in
these three instances. I concur in Chairman George Mahon's statement that "Congress has
done a reasonably good and workmanlike job for defense."
REPORT ON ROLL CALL VOTES: Since my last report on record votes in the House, I
have voted for the bill entitled, "Social Security Amendments of 1960," and for an
amendment to centralize authority for urban renewal in the District of Columbia in its
Board of Commissioners. I voted against a proposal to permit members of Congress to
send franked mail addressed "boxholder" to postal patrons in the city as now may be done
on rural routes, against spending $5 million to purchase additional land on "Capitol Hill,"
and against making the government-owned intrastate Alaska Railroad subject to regulations
by the Interstate Commerce Commission. I also voted against a joint resolution entitled
"International Health Research Act of 1960" because the House Committee had so amended a
Senate-approved version that we had a meaningless, unnecessary Resolution. I opposed
H. R. 8860, a bill to subsidize the producers of lead and zinc.
I voted for legislation authorizing participation by the U. S. with other highly
developed nations in providing special assistance for less developed areas of the free
world. I also voted for H. R. 7903 which extends the veterans' home loan guaranteed and
direct loan program for two years. The House unanimously approved a bill to give the
President authority until December 31, 1961 to control the importation of sugar from Cuba.
Next "Washington Review" will appear when Congress reconvenes.
Your Washington Review
KENT
OTTAWA
5
Congressman
JERRY FORD
September 7, 1960
The 86th Congress has adjourned. The "bob-tail" session is over. Conceived in
desparation and dedicated to an anticipated political advantage, this special session
resulted in only frustration for the leadership in both Chambers. Its last hours were
spent in a futile attempt to work out a sugar bill but complete disagreement resulted
in no legislation at all.
Final action was taken on the "Social Security Amendments of 1960" without the
inclusions of the controversial "Forand" approach to hospital and medical care for
Social Security beneficiaries. An attempt to raise the minimum wage and to extend the
coverage of the Act to include more persons was unsuccessful. It was frustrating indeed
for the majority leadership, backed by a 280 to 152 membership in the House and a 66 to
34 membership in the Senate, to be unable to get its legislation through the Congress.
Needless to say, the 21-point program submitted by President Eisenhower received little
attention.
The second session of the 86th Congress did enact President Eisenhower's recommen-
dations in the "Civil Rights Act of 1960" but only after a two-month's filibuster by
Democratic members of the U. S. Senate in opposition to the measure. This Act was
designed primarily to insure voting rights to all persons qualified under their respective
state laws to vote.
APPROPRIATIONS: Congressmen, as elected representatives of the taxpayers, have the
responsibility of appropriating funds for the operation of the Federal Government. This
is done through the enactment of 14 regular appropriation bills and for 1961 by the use
of two supplemental money bills.
The final amount approved in these 16 bills by both the House and Senate for fiscal
year 1961 was $72.64 billion. The Bureau of the Budget had recommended $72.79 billion
but final action by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations which held extensive
hearings on the budgetary proposals reduced this amount by $146.5 million.
But this does not tell the whole story. Backdoor appropriations which result from
direct authority to spend money without further action by the Appropriations Committee
added approximately $680 million to the amount requested by the Administration. Taking
this into consideration, we have an increase by Congress in the 1961 budget of about
$533.5 million over the amount requested by the President. Furthermore these figures do
not include permanent appropriations, estimated in the 1961 budget at $10.1 billion but
subject to some revision.
The largest cut made by the Congress was $559 million in the mutual security appro-
priation; the largest increase vas $661 million for the Department of Defense, In
studying the record I was surprised to find that during the last six years in which it
has controlled the Congress the Democratic Party has increased the President's military
budget in election years and decreased it in non-election years. In 1955 they cut $618
million from the funds for the Army, Navy, and Air Force; in 1957 they slashed $2.6 billion
from the Eisenhover military budget, and 4 year ago in 1959, the Democratic Congress
reduced funds for the armed forcus by $219 million This year as in 1956 and 1958 (all
election years) the party in control of Congress increased military appropriations. But
it is most significant that during these six years the Democratic Congress has made a
net reduction of almost $1.5 billion in the Eisenhower military budgets
ACADEMY OPPORTUNITIES; For young men of the Fifth District there are four opportu-
nities for appointment to the military academies in 1961. Anyone who is interested
should request an application blank from my office In either Grand Rapids or in Washington
D.C. During the middle of November a Civil Service qualifying examination will be given
to all applicants to select the two nominess for the Naval Academy at Annapolis, one
nominee for West Point, and one for the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs.
Information for admission to the Coast Guard Academy at New London, Connecticut
and to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at King' B Point, New York may also be obtained
from my office. Selection for admission to these schools is on a different basis than
for the other academies but all five institutions offer outstanding opportunities to
interested and qualified high school graduates.
PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE: My Washington office has a Limited supply of two beautiful
publications which will be sent to residents of Kent and Ottava Counties upon request.
The first 1a an 80-page illustrated booklet entitled "The Capitol" with the subtitle,
"A Pictorial Story of the Capitol In General and the House of Representatives in Parti-
cular. Filled with pictures, it presents historical and contemporary scenes of the
Capitol building and chose who work there
The second, an equally impressive booklet, and privately published, 1= entitled,
"The Mar Me are In.' It is an malysis of our conflict with the power of Communism and
what Ve must do to maintain our superior economic and military strength. Requests for
these should be made to me dt 351 House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DISTRICT AND MOBILE OFFICES: My district ffice at 425 Cherry Street, S. E., in
Grand Rapids Le open daily from 8:30 u.m. until at least 5:00 p.m. The telephone number
10 GLI 6-9747 and my staff and I valcome your calls and inquiries,
As during the past five years, I will tour Kent and Ottava Counties this fall with
my mobile office. We plan 70 stops beginning September 26th at Marne and ending
November 3rd at Byron Center, I hope to see many of you when ve come to your comunity.
This La the last newsletter in 1960. It has been a pleasure to write this personal
comment each wwek while Congress has been in session.