Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "4795341",
    "label": "Ford Newsletter, October-December 1971",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4795341"
}

{
    "id": "4795341",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4795341",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Ford Newsletter, October-December 1971",
    "description": "This file contains material relating to Richard Nixon.",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4795341",
    "collections": [
        "Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
        "Newsletters"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Campaign funds",
        "Cancer",
        "Children",
        "Compulsory national service",
        "Consumer protection",
        "Drug abuse",
        "Economic stabilization",
        "Equal rights amendments",
        "Federal aid to education",
        "Foreign aid",
        "Government salaries",
        "Legislation",
        "Poisons",
        "Prayer in the public schools",
        "Student aid",
        "Taxation",
        "Universities and colleges",
        "Vietnam War, 1961-1975",
        "Welfare"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/41/7953/4795341/content/library/document/fordcong/4795341.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/41/7953/4795341/content/library/document/fordcong/4795341.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/41/7953/4795341/content/library/document/fordcong/4795341.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4795341",
    "naId": 4795341,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1971-12-31",
        "month": 12,
        "year": 1971
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1971-10-01",
        "month": 10,
        "year": 1971
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/41/7953/4795341/content/library/document/fordcong/4795341.pdf",
    "mediaId": "a75151f291dc9f17",
    "ocrText": "Report\nServing\nFrom Your Congressman\nKent and Ionia Counties\nJERRY FORD\nOctober 11, 1971\nINCT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE\nHOUSE VOTES $15.4-BILLION TAX CUT\nThe House last week approved by voice vote an historic tax reduction bill I believe will\nbring us prosperity in peacetime.\nA LONGRANGE LOOK\nThe bill would cut taxes $15.4 billion over a\nthree-year period--1971 through 1973.\nAT UNEMPLOYMENT\nIt is part of President Nixon's New Economic Pol-\n8%\n(Annual\nicy--a program of price and wage restraints, job\nAverages)\ndevelopment tax cut incentives, personal income\ntax cuts, auto excise tax repeal, realignment of\nmajor international currency exchange rates, and\nimposition of a 10 per cent surcharge on imports.\nThe tax relief in the bill is overwhelmingly in\nfavor of consumers, contrary to charges made by\n4\nsome labor leaders.\nThe only part of the bill that could be considered\n2\npro-business is the reinstatement of the investment\ntax credit, which was first enacted in 1962 and\nrepealed in 1969. But the investment tax credit is\nbeing reinstituted to stimulate the economy and\ncreate jobs, not as a bonanza for business. And\nPost WW2\nKorea\nVietnam\nBoom\nthose very labor leaders who are criticizing rein-\n1945\n51\nso\nof\n66\n71\nstatement of the investment tax credit supported it\nPROSPERITY IN PEACETIME As this graph\nin 1962 when it was proposed by a Democratic\nclearly shows, our periods 06 low unemploy-\nPresident.\nment since world war II have generally been\nassociated with war. The goal of the Presi-\nTax cuts benefiting the consumer total $12.41 bil-\ndent's New Economic Policy is prosperity in\nlion under the bill passed by the House, when you\npeacetime. Most economists regard 4 per\nadd in the savings from repeal of automotive excise\ncent unemployment as \"full employment.\"\ntaxes. Reductions in individual income taxes alone\ncome to $5.69 billion--$1.37 billion this year,\n$3.23 billion in 1972. and $1.09 billion in 1973.\nOver the five years starting in 1969, individual income taxes will have been cut by $36.4\nbillion while corporate tax payments will have been increased by $3.2 billion.\nHere is what the Revenue Act of 1971, as passed by the House, would do:\n*Increase the $650 personal income tax exemption to $675 this year and to $750 next year.\n\"Raise the standard deduction--in 1972--from 13 per cent of taxable income with a $1,500\nmaximum to 15 per cent with a $2,000 maximum.\n*Increase the low-income allowance from $1,000 to $1,300 in 1972. (This is the amount of\nincome not subject to taxes, in lieu of the standard deduction.)\n*Stimulate business investment in new machinery by allowing a businessman to subtract\n7 per cent of the cost of this new machinery from his taxes, effective with orders\nplaced on or after last April 1.\n*Repeal the 7 per cent excise tax on automobiles, retroactive to August 15, and the\n10 per cent tax on light trucks, retroactive to Sept. 22.\n*Reduce the depreciation allowance granted business under fast writeoff rules last Jan. 1.\n*Allow U.S. exporters to defer taxes on profits from goods sold overseas.\nLet me emphasize that the Revenue Act of 1971 is only part of the President's New Economic\nProgram. His program also calls for inflation control through price and wage restrictions and\nrestraint in Government spending, and these aspects are equally important.\nI am firmly convinced that when the entire program is implemented, we will be on the path to\nhigh growth in the economy along with price stabilization.\nCONGRESS UPHOLDS PAY RAISE DEFERRAL\nThe Administration's new economic program passed its first political test last week when\nboth the House and Senate upheld a Presidential order putting off a scheduled pay increase for\nFederal employes by six months.\nUnder the Comparability Pay Act, the 4.2 million Federal employes normally would receive a\n5.5 per cent pay increase next Jan. 1. But the President must cut $5 billion from the fiscal\n1972 budget in order to offset loss of Federal revenue under the tax cut bill now moving through\nCongress as a stimulant to the economy.\nDeferring the Federal pay raise until next July 1 will reduce the fiscal 1972 dollar outlay\nby $1.3 billion.\nUnder the Comparability Pay Act the President has the power to defer a Federal pay raise\n\"because of national emergency or economic conditions affecting the general welfare.\" However,\nhis action is subject to veto by either House of the Congress.\nThe House upheld the President 207 to 174 on the pay raise deferral. The Senate backed him\n51 to 32, after voting a day earlier to give Federal employes whatever percentage raise is\nallowed private sector workers under Phase 2 of the President's wage and price control program.\nI feel that those members of Congress who are pressing for & Federal employe pay raise next\nJan. 1 are playing partisan politics with America's economic recovery. It is vital that everyone\njoin hands in holding back the forces of inflation, and this will mean sacrifices by Federal\nemployes as well as others. To go back to \"business as usual\" would torpedo the President's New\nEconomic Program. Nobody will hold the line on inflation if members of Congress do not. It is\nin the best interest of all of our people to curb runaway inflation.\nI favor comparability of Federal pay with that in the private sector of the economy. But\nthe choice in the Congress last week was between deferring a pay raise or forcing the President\nto lay off some Federal employes in order to accomplish a $1.3 billion budget cut.\nA SUMMING UP SINCE LABOR DAY\nSince the House returned to action after Labor Day, we have handled three major issues\nwhich should be brought to your attention.\nThe House passed bills to regulate the dumping of material into the oceans, coastal and\nother waters, to repeal authority for the establishment of emergency detention camps to house\npolitical subversives, and to strengthen the hand of the Equal Employment Opportunities\nCommission. I voted for all three bills. In fact, I sponsored the bill regulating ocean dumping.\nLAKE ODESSA VISIT\nMy district assistant, Gordon Vander Till, will be at the Village Hall Council Room in\nLake Odessa from 2:30 to 5 p.m. Friday, Oct. 15, to meet on my behalf with anyone having a\nproblem I can be helpful with or anyone simply\nwishing to express his views on national or\ninternational issues.\nAPOLLO 15 FILM AVAILABLE\nA NASA film on the Apollo 15 Flight is avail-\nable to schools and public service groups\nthrough my district office. This is a 16 mm.\ncolor film and lasts about 35 minutes. It\ndepicts the astronauts' ride on the moon in\nthe Rover moon exploration vehicle. Arrange-\nments for use of the film can be made by\ncalling 456-9607.\nACADEMY APPOINTMENTS\nTwo appointments to the U.S. Military Academy\nat West Point and two to the U.S. Air Force\nAcademy at Colorado Springs are open to young\nmen of Kent and Ionia Counties who are single,\nunder 22, and high school seniors or graduates.\nTests for candidates unable to take earlier\nAVID BASEBALL FANS Like millions of others,\nexaminations will be given Nov. 2 in Grand\nHouse Speaker care Albert and I are caught up in\nRapids and other cities. Applications may be\nthe fever that sweeps the nation during world\nobtained from my district and Washington\nSeries time.\noffices and may be filed as late as Oct. 29.\nWASHINGTON **\nReport\nServing\nFrom Your Congressman\nKent and Ionia Counties\nJERRY FORD\n- All GOVERNMENT EXPENDE:\nOctober 18, 1971\nCONSUMER PROTECTION BILL MOVES THROUGH HOUSE\nThe House last week passed a bill which would create a new Consumer Protection Agency (CPA)\nwithin the Federal Government. The vote on the House-approved Consumer Protection Act of 1971\nwas 344 to 44.\nThe new Consumer Protection Agency, which would be an independent agency in the Executive\nBranch of the Government, would have the following responsibilities:\n*To represent consumers in the proceedings of other Federal agencies;\n*To handle and follow up on consumer complaints;\n*To develop and disseminate information of interest and value to consumers; and\n*To protect and advance consumer interests on a broad front\nI strongly supported the bill because I felt it was sensible, workable, effective legisla-\ntion. There is no question about the need for the bill. It is recognized that the consumer\nneeds protection from those firms which engage in deceptive advertising, packaging and labeling\ntricks, the use of hazardous substances which may improve appearance or taste but are harmful\nto health, and faulty design or quality control.\nThe fight in the House came on just what the role of the new agency should be. There were\nthose who sought to create a \"super-czar\" agency, one which\nINFLATION:\nother House members felt would interfere with the workings\nof the regulatory agencies and cause administrative chaos.\n9%\nPERSPECTIVE\nThose seeking to give the new agency sweeping powers offered\nan amendment giving CPA broader authority to intervene in the\nproceedings of Federal regulatory agencies. This amendment\nwas defeated 218 to 160. I voted against it.\nContrary to statements made by the extremists, the Consumer\nProtection Agency set up under the bill would have ample\npower to appear before other Federal agencies in proceedings\nunder way.\nCPA also could request a proceeding if necessary for the pro-\ntection of consumer interests, could obtain judicial review\nof any Federal agency proceeding, and could compel agency\naction when there is undue delay or failure to complete a\nproceeding.\nFurther, the legislation would generate a flow of information\nfrom CPA to other Federal agencies to alert them to consumer\nneeds and stimulate corrective action.\nGermany\nUnited\nItaly\nCPA will not operate a testing laboratory to identify \"best\nFrance\nJapon\nUnited\n(West)\nStates\nKingdom\nbuys.' Product tests will take place only in connection with\nthe proceedings of Federal regulatory agencies or studies of\nhazardous household products and will be performed by the\nNational Bureau of Standards or a similar agency.\nINFLATION AND THE WORLD--\nOur inflation rate is less\nThe intent of the bill is to employ the CPA to make use of\nthan that of England, Japan\nexisting Federal resources and promote the best interests of\nand France. However, this\nconsumers through cooperative action rather than to build up\ndoes not make our inflation\na vast new bureaucracy.\nany the less serious. And so\nwe welcome the President's New\nThe bill approved by the House is strong legislation. It\nEconomic Policy as a step to-\nrecognizes that every agency of the Federal government must\nward a sound economy.\ngive heed to consumer concerns.\nHOUSE APPROVES WOMEN'S EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT\nBy the overwhelming vote of 354 to 23, the House last week approved a proposed Constitution-\nal Amendment guaranteeing women equal rights under the law. The Amendment now is in the Senate.\nTo become B. part of the Constitution, the Amendment needs two-thirds approval by both\nhouses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the States.\nThe Amendment as adopted by the House reads as follows: \"Equality of rights under the law\nshall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.\"\nThe House Judiciary Committee had reported out this Amendment in modified form by adding\nwhat became known as the Wiggins Amendment. The principal change was made by adding the words:\n\"This article shall not impair the validity of any law of the United States which exempts a\nperson from compulsory military service or any other law of the United States or of any State\nwhich reasonably protects the health and safety of the people.\nRep. Martha Griffiths of Michigan, principal sponsor the the original Equal Rights\nAmendment, fought the proposed change on the grounds it would render the original Amendment\nmeaningless. She and others argued that many State laws enacted in the name of health and\nsafety actually discriminate against women.\nBackers of the Wiggins Amendment contended that any future draft would involve taking women\ninto the service and that no distinction could be made as to duties of the female draftees on\naccount of sex. They also argued that domestic relations laws in the States would be \"reduced\nto a shambles.\"\nSupporters of the original Amendment replied that the military services now assign draftees\naccording to their physical capabilities and could therefore assign women as they please. They\nalso charged that the arguments advanced by the Wiggins Amendment backers were simply scare\ntactics aimed at preserving discriminatory State laws.\nThe House rejected the Wiggins Amendment 265 to 87 and then went on to adopt the original\nConstitutional Amendment, the Griffiths Amendment.\nCONSUMER 'INFO' INDEX AVAILABLE\nA Consumer Product Information Index, a listing of Government publications containing\nadvice for the consumer, has been put together by the President's Office of Consumer Affairs and\nthe General Services Administration.\nI have obtained 500 copies of this index and will make it available--free--to anyone\nrequesting it from either my district or my Washington office. Let me emphasize that this is\nmerely a list of Government consumer information bulletins. You must send an order for the\nbulletins, which cost anywhere from 10 cents to 75 cents in most cases. A few of the bulletins\nare free.\nVETERANS DAY CEREMONY SCHEDULED\nFifty years ago an unknown soldier of World War I was laid to rest in a hero's grave at\nArlington National Cemetery--and 37 years after two other unknown combat heroes of World War II\nand the Korean Conflict also were buried there.\nNext Monday, Oct. 25, the Nation will pay tribute to these men and the country's 28 million\nliving veterans with a Presidential wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknowns in\nArlington Cemetery and a program in Arlington's Memorial Amphitheater.\nVeterans Day falls on a new date this year. It formerly was Nov. 11. But the spirit of\nAmerica is as vital today as it was some 195 years ago when this country first proclaimed its\nfreedom. The purpose is still the same-to honor those who have fought and died in defense of\nthis Republic and its freedom; to salute the men and women who are today's veterans and have\nearned the gratitude of every American.\nThis fourth Monday in October is a time for all Americans, young and old, to rededicate\nthemselves to the preservation of our way of life. It is 8. day when we pause for a moment with\nbowed heads in honor of those who gave their lives on foreign shores--a day when we express our\nthanks to those who have returned.\nI urge that you, too, take a moment from your holiday to join in thanks to the men and\nwomen who served and still serve this Nation so well. Let us salute those who have fought to\nkeep our freedom and demonstrate our will to live as free Americans.\nDISTRICT VISIT\nGordon Vander Till, my district assistant, will be at Cascade Township Hall from 2:30 to\n5 p.m. Friday, Oct. 22, to hear from area residents there on my behalf.\nWASHINGTON\nREVIEW\nReport\nServing\nFrom Your Congressman\nKent and Ionia Counties\nJERRY FORD\nOctober 25, 1971\nHOUSE BACKS PRESIDENT\nOn August 4 the House approved a modified version of the so-called Mansfield Amendment. It\nbecame law Sept. 28 when President Nixon signed legislation extending the Selective Service Act\nfor two years.\nThat modified Mansfield Amendment reads in part: \"It is hereby declared to be the sense of\nCongress that the United States terminate at the earliest practicable date all military opera-\ntions of the United States in Indochina, and provide for the prompt and orderly withdrawal of\nall United States military forces at a date certain subject to the release of all American\nprisoners of war held by the Government of North Vietnam and forces allied with such Government,\nand an accounting for all Americans missing in action who have been held by or known to such\nGovernment or such forces.\"\nWe now have a Mansfield Amendment on the statute books? How many more do we need?\nSo it was that the House last week endorsed the President's handling of the Vietnam situa-\ntion.\nBy a vote of 215 to 193, the House refused to consider telling the House managers of\nmilitary procurement legislation to accept a Mansfield Amendment setting a six-month deadline\non removing all U.S. troops from Vietnam subject to release of American prisoners of war.\nIn the light of recent legislative history, the House would have made a mistake if it had\nvoted to open up the Mansfield Amendment question again.\nThis would have undermined the President's role as the chief architect of our foreign\npolicy. It would have been a vote of no-confidence in the President at the very time when he\nis making plans to go to Peking and Moscow in quest of world peace.\nThere is no reason why any member of Congress should not have the greatest confidence in the\nPresident's efforts to wind down the war. He has kept every promise he has ever made on Vietnam.\nHe has reduced the nubmer of U.S. troops in Vietnam from 535,000 to a little more than\n200,000 and they will be down to 184,000 or less by Dec.l. On Nov. 15 the President is scheduled\nto announce a new program of troop withdrawals, and our combat role in Vietnam is slated to end\nnext spring.\nAmerican battle-related casualties were averaging over 5,000 a month when President Nixon\ntook office. They now are down to an average of 442 per month. And the number killed in action\nis down to 12 a week or less--less than one-tenth what it was.\nInstead of drafting 25,000 young men a month as we were doing in 1968, the Pentagon's latest\ndraft call, for the last three months of this year, averages 3,333 per month.\nThat is progress toward peace and that is keeping promises.\nMeantime we are moving toward an end to the draft and establishment of an all-volunteer Army.\nThe President wants to end the Vietnam War-in less than six months if possible. He in\neffect is our chief negotiator. And the war can be ended only at the negotiating table, not by\npassing a law. Congress cannot negotiate with foreign countries. That is not Congress' proper\nfunction. That is a job for the President, and the Congress should not interfere.\nThe Congress and the President should cooperate in the search for peace in Vietnam. It is\nnot helpful for the Congress to inject itself into the President's negotiating efforts or his\ntime-table for winding down the war. This is the first time in our history that Congress has\nattempted to do this, to my knowledge, and it is most unwise.\n(over)\nFIGHT AGAINST DRUG ABUSE STEPPED UP\nThe pace of the fight against drug abuse is quickening. That fight must be one of our\nhighest national priorities. We must engage in a comprehensive drive at all levels of govern-\nment to stamp out this menace to our society.\nOn the Federal level the battle against drug abuse has been sharply stepped up.\nFederal spending for drug abuse control and preven-\nMillions\nFEDERAL\n$400\ntion programs nearly tripled during the three fiscal\nEXPENDITURES\n$50\nyears from 1969 through 1971, rising from an estima-\nFOR\nted $67.9 million to $166.4 million. For the current\nEducation &\nDRUG\nTraining\nfiscal year the budget called for $206 million, but\nthe President since has requested an additional\n$169.4 million in supplemental funds to further\n300\nABUSE\nResearch\nexpand the fight against drug abuse.\nCONTROL\nLast June 17 the President by Executive Order estab-\nEnforcement\nlished a Special Action Office for Drug Abuse\nPrevention. At the same time the President asked\nCongress to give the Office a three-year life span\n200-\nand give it authority to coordinate the various\nprograms now handled individually by a half-dozen\nFederal departments and agencies.\nTreatment\nThe Mission of the new Special Action Office is to\n100\nappraise current programs and to seek new solutions\nto the drug problems that have gone unchecked under\nmany of those old programs. The three-year life span\nproposed for the Special Action Office was aimed at\nkeeping it under pressure. This will also give the\nCongress and the public an opportunity to measure\nFY\n1967\n1968\n1969\n1970\n1971\n1972\naccomplishments before making future decisions in the\ndrug abuse control area.\nSource Exec. OH the President\nIt may take considerably longer than three years to\nDRUG FIGHT OUTLAYS DOUBLED--Funds\nbring about final solutions to the drug problem in\nto fight drug abuse have been doubled\nAmerica. We may only be making the first real dents\nin fiscal 1972 over fiscal 1971 and\nin the problem by that time. It may be necessary to\ntotal more than 10 times as much as\nextend the life of the Special Action Office two\nin fiscal 1967.\nyears or more. But at least we are now moving in\nthe right direction.\nFARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION HELPS DISTRICT\nKent and Ionia County residents were among the rural people helped by the Farmers Home\nAdministration when that agency's loans reached record heights in fiscal 1971.\nFHA made loans nationwide totalling more than $2.4 billion, up 50 per cent over the previous\nfiscal year. More than three million rural citizens acquired better homes, strengthened farming\noperations, or improved their communities.\nAid to the Fifth Congressional District amounted to $2,907,000. This included eight farm\nloans totalling $172,000; 95 housing loans adding up to $1,443,000; and six community facilities\nloans (water, sewer and recreation projects) totalling $1,292,000.\nOf the total loans to the district, Ionia County residents received $2,311,000. That sum\nwas made up of six farm loans for a total of $159,000; 70 housing loans, amounting to $1,070,000;\nand four community facilities loans totalling $1,082,000.\nKent County residents borrowed $596,000 from the FHA--two farm loans amounting to $13,000;\n25 housing loans coming to $373,000; and two community facilities loans totalling $210,000.\nI JOIN IN URGING DIRECT ELECTION OF PRESIDENT\nI have joined with 32 other congressmen--Democrats and Republicans--in proposing that the\nConstitution be amended to permit the direct popular election of the President and Vice President.\nIn co-sponsoring this Constitutional Amendment, I am following up on the role I played last\nyear in pushing for such an Amendment. I and other backers of the amendment won two-thirds\napproval in the House in 1970 but the proposed amendment died in the Senate. We must win ulti-\nmate approval of such a Constitutional Amendment. It is the only way we can carry out fully the\nSupreme Court mandate of one-man, one vote. It is the only way we can make every American's\nvote for President count just as much as the next man's.\nREVIEW\nReport\nServing\nFrom Your Congressman\nKent and Ionia Counties\nJERRY FORD\nPRINTED GOVERNMENT EXPENSE)\nNovember 8, 1971\nHOUSE ENDORSES GENERAL AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION\nThe U.S. House of Representatives last week took an historic step.\nThe House voted 310 to 84 to keep in the Higher Education Act of 1971 a program of general\naid to our colleges and universities.\nI voted with the majority because I believe there is a real need to provide the 2,600 insti-\ntutions of higher learning in the country with Federal aid.\nThis need is pointed up in a special report on college and university finances by William W.\nJellema, research director of the Association of American colleges. Jellema states:\n\"Most colleges in the red are staying in the red and many are getting redder, while colleges\nin the black are generally growing grayer. Taken collectively, they will not long be able to\nserve higher education and the nation with strength unless significant aid is soon forthcoming.\"\nEnrollments in our colleges and universities have tripled in the past 15 years and now total\nabout 8.5 million. All this time the cost of education has been steadily rising. We have\nauthorized student assistance programs making it possible for a greater number of disadvantaged\nstudents to attend college and in doing this we have aggravated the financial problems of our\ncolleges. It seems only right that we should now help our colleges get out of the hole we have\npushed them into.\nUNIFORM STUDENT AID REJECTED\nPOLLUTION CONTROL AND\nA number of House members, both Democrats and\nRECREATION AREAS\nRepublicans, sought to put Federal aid to\n$3,890\ncollege students on a formula that would be\nMillions\n$3,500\nuniform nationwide. I strongly supported this\nmove because it would have channeled Federal\nfunds to the neediest students no matter where\n3,000\nthey were enrolled.\n2,500\nPOLLUTION\nHowever, a majority of the House decided\nCONTROL\nMAJOR FEDERAL\n$2,151\notherwise and the formula amendment was\n2,000\nINVESTMENTS\ndefeated 257 to 117.\n$1,623\n1,500\n-\nThe upshot was House approval of a House\nEducation and Labor Committee provision which\n1,000\n1988\ngives college financial aid officers leeway in\n$880\n$882\nOPEN SPACE\ndeciding individual students' needs.\n$635\nAND\n500\n$ 371\n$370\n$423\n$289\nRECREATION\nThe committee bill raises maximum Federal\nAREAS\ngrants to students to $1,500 a year and allo-\n1962\n64\n66\n68\n70\n72\ncates Federal funds among the states on the\nhelps\nHigh\nbasis of the number of their high school grad-\nFiscol Years\nuates, students enrolled in college, and the\nPOLLUTION CONTROL STEPPED UP -- Actual out-\ntotal number of children under 18 in families\nlays for pollution control will be increased by\nwith below $3,000 annual incomes.\n$746 million in fiscal 1972. The Administration\nwill double grants for municipal waste treatment\nThe aid-to-higher-education bill passed by the\nfacilities, curb pollution from Federal facili-\nSenate last August contains the need formula\nties, expand the Environmental Protection Agency's\nwhich I supported in the House. So the House\npollution control activities, and develop new\nand Senate will have to work out their differ-\npollution abatement techniques.\nences on student aid.\n(over)\nCOLLEGES KEEP ADMISSIONS CONTROL\nThe House voted 194 to 189, with my support, to let most colleges retain the right to\ndecide how many male and female students they will admit.\nThe House Education and Labor Committee bill had contained a provision barring any \"discrim-\nination\" on account of sex in college admissions policies.\nI agreed with those who contended that the Federal Government has no business telling our\ncolleges what their student admissions policies should be.\nHOUSE ACTS TO CURB BUSING\nSpurred by the tremendous public sentiment against forced busing to achieve racial balance,\nthe House approved an amendment by Rep. William S. Broomfield, R-Mich., that would delay busing\nunder a lower-court order until all legal appeals have been exhausted. I strongly supported this\namendment. It passed 235 to 125.\nThe House also approved another anti-busing amendment which bars the Federal Government from\npressuring or requiring school districts to spend local or state money on busing aimed at forced\nracial alance. I also voted for this amendment, which passed 231 to 126.\nThe House adopted an amendment providing $1.5 billion to help school districts pay the costs\nof desegregation but prohibited the use of any Federal funds for court-ordered busing. I voted\nfor this amendment.\nFINAL VOTE ON COLLEGE AID ACT 332 to 38\nI joined with the majority in approving the Higher Education Act of 1971 by a vote of 332 to\n38. Final action came after the House had worked on the bill for four days and had engaged in a\nmarathon 13-hour session which ended at 2:30 a.m. Friday.\nThe bill covers a five-year period and carries a price tag of roughly $24 billion. But this\nis an authorization bill only, and the actual outlays will be determined by the appropriations\nprocess of the Congress.\nMILITARY MEDICAL ACADEMY APPROVED\nTo meet the severe shortage of physicians in the military, the House last week approved, 351\nto 31, the setting up of a military medical academy in the Washington, D.C., area. The estimated\ncost is $240 million over a 10-year period. I voted for the bill. Students admitted to the\nacademy must serve seven years as military doctors after receiving their degrees. The bill also\nprovides for up to 5,000 civilian scholarships to medical students attending other colleges.\nThese students would have to serve one year in the military for each year of scholarship after\nbecoming M.D.'s.\nMY ASSISTANT TO VISIT ROCKFORD\nMy district assistant, Gordon Vander Till, will be at the Rockford City Hall from 2:30 to\n5 p.m. Friday, Nov. 12, on my behalf. Rockford area citizens are invited to make known any prob-\nlems I may be able to help solve or simply to voice their views on public issues.\nAPPLY NOW FOR SUMMER JOBS\nAnyone interested in a summer job with a Federal agency next year may obtain pertinent\ninformation from my district or Washington offices. I have copies of a booklet explaining\nsummer job opportunities and how to apply. The number of such jobs is limited. Apply now.\nTHIS IS YOUTH APPRECIATION WEEK\nYouth Appreciation Week is being observed Nov. 8-14, under sponsorship of Optimist Clubs\nthroughout the United States and Canada. This is the first year that Congress has given official\nrecognition to the program.\nI personally feel that our good young people should be singled out for praise. Many of them\nwork as volunteers in hospitals, cooperate with the police in law enforcement efforts, tutor\nretarded children, do church work. Let's consider their constructive and beneficial contribu-\ntions.\nREVIEW\nReport\nServing\nFrom Your Congressman\nKent and Ionia Counties\nJERRY FORD\nNovember 15, 1971\nPRAYER AMENDMENT FAILS TO GET TWO-THIRDS\nA proposed Constitutional Amendment permitting voluntary prayer or meditation in the public\nschools failed to win two-thirds approval of the House last week but I do not believe the issue\nis dead.\nUltimately we will authorize voluntary prayer in the public schools. Either a Supreme Court\nwhich is altered in membership will reverse the rulings of 1962 and 1963 or a Constitutional\namendment will in time prevail.\nThe Prayer Amendment considered by the House last week fell 28 votes short of the required\ntwo-thirds majority.\nI felt it should have won two-thirds approval for three basic reasons:\nThe Supreme Court made a mistake in 1962 and 1963 in interpreting the First Amendment as\nit applies to prayer in public schools. From 1791 until 1962 (171 years) the First\nAmendment did not prohibit public school prayer.\nThe Congress has a responsibility to give the people--through their State Legislatures--an\nopportunity to decide the issue of prayer in public schools.\nThe Prayer Amendment deserved two-thirds House approval on its merits.\nThe First Amendment to the Constitution states: \"Congress shall make no law respecting an\nestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.\nJustice Potter Stewart dissented from the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the New\nYork case in 1962 and in the Pennsylvania and Maryland cases in 1963. I agree with Justice\nStewart when he declared in the New York case: \"I cannot see how an 'official religion' is\nestablished by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to\ndeny the wish to these children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity\nof sharing in the spiritual heritage of our nation.'\nI further agree with Justice Stewart when he wrote in the Pennsylvania and Maryland cases:\n\"The choice involved is one for each community and its school board, and not for this (Supreme)\nCourt.\n\"\nThose of us who believe in the sovereignty of the people should have no hesitancy in submit-\nting to them a proposed Constitutional amendment in which there is great public interest. In\nfact, the Congress has an obligation to do SO.\nThe proposed Prayer Amendment deserved two-thirds House approval on its merits because the\namendment would only have authorized what is done in the House of Representatives every day--the\nopening of the session with a nondenominational prayer. Or it could be meditation, as the case\nmight be.\nIn this period in our Nation when there obviously has been a general decline in morals, we\nought to promote those practices which uplift and inspire us. We are a religious people. Our\nConstitution should encourage us to be so, We should confirm the American people's determination\nto emphasize the place of religion and the spiritual in the life of our Nation.\nHOUSE STRENGTHENS PESTICIDE CONTROL BILL\nThe House last week strengthened a pesticide control bill by giving the states the power to\nprescribe more strict requirements than those laid down by the Federal Government.\nThis was the only amendment adopted as the House voted 288 to 91 to regulate 60,000 pest-\nicide products used by farmers, industry and housewives.\n(over)\nUp to this time, we have only had a law requiring that labels on pesticides set forth the\ningredients and the instructions for use of the product.\nThe House-approved bill provides for a regulatory program instead of 8. labeling law. For the\nfirst time, the Government is given control over the manufacture, distribution and use of pesti-\ncides.\nHere are the major provisions of the bill.\nThe user of a certain pesticide deemed dangerous by the Government must be licensed to\napply it or must work under the supervision of a licensed applier.\nAll pesticides will be grouped into two classifications--general and restricted. Those\nfor restricted use can be applied only under a licensing system administered by the States\nin line with Federal standards.\nThe States are empowered to lay down stricter requirements than those of the Federal\nGovernment.\nThe Environmental Protection Agency is given new authority to restrict or even cancel the\nregistration of a particular pesticide if it is considered to be an imminent hazard.\nI strongly favored the one amendment which was adopted--giving the States the authority to\nimpose more rigid requirements than those of the Federal Government.\nA minority of House members felt the pesticide control bill should go further than it does.\nBut we should employ some common sense in such matters. We should bear in mind the testimony of\nU.S. Agriculture Department officials who declared that a complete ban on pesticides would triple\nthe cost of food to the consumer and would lower its quality.\nCONGRESS ACTS TO EXPAND DOCTOR SUPPLY\nThe House has wrapped up and sent to the White House two bills aimed at increasing the number\nof doctors, nurses and other health personnel through a $3.7 billion program of grants and loans\ncarried out over a three-year period.\nThe legislation to expand the number of doctors provides funds to establish five new medical\nschools. Existing three or four-year schools would receive $2,500 for each student in the first,\nsecond or third year of a medical program. Bonuses will be paid by the Government to medical\nschools which graduate students sooner than in four years and expand their enrollments. The\nexisting program of loans and scholarships to students is continued and expanded. It is hoped\nthe estimated shortage of 50,000 doctors can be wiped out by 1978.\nThe Nurse Training Act is designed to increase the number of nurses from the present 700,000\nto 1,100,000 by 1980. It includes start-up grants for new schools of nursing and guaranteed\nloans plus interest subsidies for construction assistance.\nHOUSE VOTES TO KEEP FOREIGN AID ALIVE\nBy voice vote, the House last Wednesday voted to keep the foreign aid program alive at least\nuntil the end of this congressional session. The House did this by voting to provide funds at\nthe fiscal 1971 level until the adjournment of\nFIGHTING CRIME\nCongress for the foreign aid program as well\nas other programs not yet funded by the\nCongress for fiscal 1972. This includes\n$ MILLIONS\ndefense, the poverty program, and the District\n2000\n$1300\nof Columbia government.\nFEDERAL OUTLAYS FOR CRIME REDUCTION\n367\nLAW ENFORCEMENT\nSUPPORT\nThe House acted to allow time for the House\n1500\n$1444\nForeign Affairs Committee and the House Approp-\n282\nriations Committee to bring regular foreign aid\n726\nFEDERAL LAW\nauthorization and appropriation bills to the\nENFORCEMENT\n1000\nHouse floor.\n$857\n616\n83\nBefore approving the resolution making this\n$ 658\n254\nCRIME PREVENTION\n49\n500\n480\npossible, the House overwhelmingly rejected\n194\n361\namendments which would have killed off con-\nADMINISTRATION OF\n34\n553\nJUSTICE REHABILITATION\ntinued funding at the fiscal 1971 level of the\n75\n348\nAND OTHER\n173\n224\ndefense, military assistance and economic\n1969\n1970\n1971(est)\n1972(mi)\nassistance programs.\nCRIME FIGHT ACCELERATED--The Administration's\nI urged the House to take the responsible\nfiscal 1972 budget calls for a 32 per cent rise\ncourse, to provide for continued funding of the\nin crime-fighting outlays. This money will be\nforeign aid program at the 1971 level until it\nused to step up the war on organized crime, des-\nwas possible to act on the authorization and\ntroy the drug racket, strengthen local law\nregular appropriation bills. I have always\nenforcement through special revenue sharing,\nsupported the principle of foreign aid, because\ncontinue the anti-hijacking campaign, and fur-\nI think this program promotes world peace and\nther improve our correctional systems.\nstability.\nWASHINGTON REVIEW\nReport\nServing\nFrom Your Congressman\nKent and Ionia Counties\nJERRY FORD\nPRINTED\nEXPENSE)\nNovember 22, 1971\nHOUSE BACKS NATIONAL CANCER ATTACK\nLast week the House passed legislation which I think will lead to a cure for our most\ndreaded disease, cancer.\nThe bill the House approved, 350 to 5, is known as the National Cancer Attack Act of 1971.\nIt represents the launching of an all-out effort to conquer cancer. Here is what the legisla-\ntion does:\n*\nIt gives new vigor to cancer research.\nIt provides for increased organizational efficiency within the National Cancer Institute.\nIt streamlines the Institute's administrative procedures.\nIt calls for greater funds for the fight against cancer.\nIt sets the National Cancer Institute budget apart from that of the parent organization,\nthe National Institutes of Health.\nWith this bill, the House committed itself to providing for the cancer fight $400 million\nthis year, $500 million next year, and $600 million the following year--$1.5 billion over the\nnext three years.\nBut the cancer attack bill does much more than simply assure adequate funding for a research\nprogram. It sets up a three-man panel to monitor the program and report directly to the\nPresident on progress being made. It also reestablishes programs to help people immediately--\ncancer control programs.\nIt reestablishes such programs as testing for the early detection of breast cancer, cervical\ncancer and oral cancer, which were phased out a year ago. It also authorizes generous support of\nexisting clinical research centers and the establishment of 15 new cancer research centers across\nthe country.\nFUNDING RANGES FROM $6.5 MILLION TO $337.5 MILLION\nFunding for the National Cancer Institute, since it first was established, has ranged from\n$6.5 million for the period 1938-47 to a current figure of $337.5 million. The complete set of\nappropriations shows a jump to $111 million in 1961 and a steady rise since that time. The total\nfunding to date comes to $2.6 billion.\nCANCER INSTITUTE SCORES CLEAR ADVANCES\nWhat do we have to show for our money? The Cancer Institute can point to a long list of\naccomplishments since its establishment in 1937.\nThe Institute has:\nParticipated in the development of more than 35 drugs useful in the treatment of advanced\ncancer.\nDemonstrated the reliability of the PAP test as an aid in diagnosing early cancer of the\nuterine cervix.\n-Developed an effective, frequently curative chemotherapeutic regimen for chloriocarcinoma,\na rare but once fatal cancer of the placenta.\nIdentified several cancer-causing chemicals and chemical mixtures in the environment and\nreduced exposure to many of these agents.\n--Demonstrated that animal tumors can be produced by the nucleic acid core of 8. tumor-\ncausing virus, and that viral genetic material is incorporated into the cellular genetic\nmaterial of animals with virus-induced cancer.\n-Cured 50 per cent of patients with early stage Hodgkin's disease through high-dose\nintensive radio-therapy to affected lymph nodes and adjacent lymph node regions.\n(over)\nMORE SOLUTIONS TO COME\nThese are only a few of the accomplishments of the National Cancer Institute, but they give\nus real cause for hope.\nIt is my belief that the National Cancer Attack Act of 1971 will complete the job--will\ninvigorate the best of biomedical science toward finding full solutions to a complex and\ndevastating disease.\nThe need for the cancer attack program is great. Of the 200 million Americans now alive,\n50 million will develop cancer at present rates of incidence and 34 million will die if better\nmethods of prevention and treatment are not discovered. Cancer deaths last year were eight times\nthe number of American lives lost in six years of war in Vietnam, five and one-half times the\nnumber killed in U.S. automobile accidents, and greater than the number of Americans killed in\nbattle in all four years of World War II.\nCOMPROMISE MUST BE WORKED OUT\nSo there is no question about the need for the program. The only difference which has\ndeveloped in Congress is over the approach. The Senate passed a bill which sets up an indepen-\ndent cancer attack agency. The House bill provides independent budget authority but otherwise\nkeeps the cancer attack effort within the National Institutes of Health. This difference has to\nbe resolved. Whatever the outcome, the fight against cancer must be won.\nHOUSE REJECTS VIETNAM FUNDS CUTOFF\nThe House last week refused to cut off funds for the Vietnam War effective next June 1.\nThe vote was 238 to 164.\nThe move to impose the funds cutoff was made by Rep. Edward Boland, D-Mass., who tried to\ntack his amendment onto a $71 billion defense appropriation bill for fiscal 1972.\nAdoption of the Boland Amendment would not have brought about the release of American\nprisoners of war. The North Vietnamese want more than simply a pullout of all U.S. troops from\nVietnam. A funds cutoff for Vietnam effective next June 1 would simply have made the other side\nmore intransigent than it already is because it would have weakened President Nixon's ability to\nnegotiate for release of American prisoners of war and a settlement of other Vietnam questions.\nIt would have knocked all of the President's bargaining chips off the board.\nOnly a President can negotiate an acceptable settlement of any military conflict. President\nEisenhower, not Congress, negotiated the end of the Korean War.\nDRAFT CALLS\nAs the President himself said: \"Regretfully (such\nactions as the Boland Amendment) hinder rather than\n400,000\n(ACTUAL SELECTIVE SERVICE CALLE)\nassist in the search for a negotiated settlement.\nOur goal--and my hope--is a negotiated settlement\nproviding for the total withdrawal of all foreign\nforces, including our own; for the release of all\n134.500\nprisoners and for a ceasefire throughout Indochina.\"\n300,000\n757091\nHOUSE VOTES DEFENSE FUNDS\nAfter rejecting the Boland Amendment, the House\n200000\napproved the Defense Department appropriation bill\n200,000\nfor fiscal 1972.\n154.000\nThe sum appropriated is $2.5 billion less than\n41.000\nrequested by the Administration.\nInflation has hit the defense budget hard. The de-\n02:00\n100,000\nfense dollar buys far less now than it did in past\n79,000\nnon\nyears. Although we will have 200,000 fewer person-\nnel in the Armed Forces in 1972 than in 1964, infla-\ntion has added $17 billion to personnel costs and\nthat figure does not include the recent pay raise.\nThe Administration did not request one additional\n1963\n1964\n1965\n1956\n1967\n1968\n1969\n1970\n1971\n1972\nstrategic missile or one additional strategic bomber\nDRAFT CALLS DROP--Draft calls have\nfor our forces, and none is in the defense money\ndecreased steadily since 1968, dropping\nbill. We are refraining from increasing our strat-\nfrom 343,000 that year to an estimated\negic nuclear forces while the Strategic Arms Limita-\n75,000 for 1972.\ntion Talks are in progress although the Soviets are\nincreasing theirs.\nWASHINGTON\nREVIEW\nReport\nServing\nFrom Your Congressman\nKent and Ionia Counties\nJERRY FORD\nINCI PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE)\nDecember 6, 1971\nHOUSE MAKES HISTORY ON CAMPAIGN FINANCES REFORM\nThe U.S. House of Representatives has achieved a minor miracle--melding two House bills\nand a Senate bill to produce historic election campaign finances reform.\nThe House last week passed a strong campaign financing reform bill 373 to 23. Assuming\nthat the House and Senate can work out their differences and that the President signs the legis-\nlation, this will mark the first overhaul of campaign financing law in 46 years.\nHere is what the House bill does:\nEstablishes for the first time a national limitation on campaign spending.\nLimits spending by Presidential candidates next year to $13.9 million for communications\nand advertising, with no more than $8.4 million of that sum to be used for radio and TV.\nLimits spending on radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, billboards, computerized mailings\nand mass telephone campaigns to 10 cents per voting-age resident in the congressional\ndistrict, state or nation-with no more than six cents of that amount to be used for\nany one medium, such as TV.\nRequires that candidates file financial reports three times a year-with extra reports in\nelection years, 15 days and five days before the election.\nLimits the amount a. wealthy candidate can contribute to his own campaign-$50,000 if he\nis a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate, $35,000 if he is running for the\nSenate, and $25,000 for the House.\nMEDICAL SERVICES FOR CIVILIANS\nThe bill also would require 8. newspaper selling advertising\nspace to a candidate to sell equal space to his opponents.\nFEDERAL OUTLAYS\nIt further provides that newspapers and broadcasters would have\nBillions\nto sell space and time to political candidates at rates no\n$16\nhigher than those charged other advertisers for comparable use.\n14\nA move was made to repeal the equal time provision as it applies\n12\nto the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, senatorial\ncandidates and congressional candidates, but this was defeated\n10\n277 to 95. I voted for it.\n8\nThe equal time provision in existing law means that broadcasters\n6\nmust give all candidates for a Federal elective office equal\ntime to express their views except under circumstances specif-\n4\nically exempted from the equal time provision.\n2\nThe exemptions are a bonafide newscast, bonafide news interviews,\nbonafide news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of bonafide\n1960 62 64 66 '68 '70 '72\nnews events.\nHEALTH HEARINGS--The House\nMy position on equal time is that the provision should apply\nways and Means Committee has\nequally to all candidates for Federal elective office. If it is\nbeen conducting hearings on\nrepealed as to the Presidential candidates, then it should also\nnew health legislation. The\nbe repealed as regards senatorial and congressional candidates.\nAdministration has proposed a\nI favored repeal of the equal time provision for all candidates\ncomprehensive health policy\nfor Federal elective office. Since that proposal failed, I then\nfor the 70's--employers to pay\ntook the position it should not be repealed for any.\nthe bulk of health insurance\npremiums, low-income families\nI personally have never refused to debate my principal opponent,\nto be protected, Parts A and B\nand I have repeatedly engaged in TV debate with all candidates\nof Medicare to be combined and\nfor Congress in my district.\npremium payments eliminated,\nHealth Maintenance Organiza-\nAnother issue which excited much controversy during the election\ntions to be developed.\ncampaign reform debate was that of political spending by unions.\n(over)\nThe House adopted an amendment providing that labor unions may use union dues for get-out-\nthe-vote drives aimed only at the families of union members (with corporations permitted to use\ncorporate money to such drives directed at their stockholders).\nThis amendment was approved 233 to 147. I opposed it. I was prepared to vote for an amend-\nment which would have permitted unions to use only money voluntarily given by union members for\npolitical purposes. The issue as I see it is voluntarism versus compulsion. I do not think a\nman's dues money should be used to support some candidate or cause in which he may not believe.\nHOUSE-SENATE COMPROMISE MUST BE WORKED OUT\nThe campaign finances reform legislation passed by the House is very close to the version\napproved by the Senate earlier this year. Consequently, I do not believe there will be any great\ndifficulty in arriving at a compromise final form.\nThe sharpest difference is that the Senate repealed the equal time provision as it applies\nto all candidates for Federal elective office, while the House refused to do this.\nOther ways in which the House bill differs from the Senate bill:\n*\nThe House bill requires that campaign reports be filed with the clerk of the House, the\nsecretary of the Senate, and, as regards the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candid-\nates, with the Comptroller General. The Senate bill would create a new bipartisan\nFederal Elections Commission to receive such reports.\n*\nThe House bill eliminates a Senate requirement that copies of the financial report be\nfiled with the nearest Federal District Court.\nThe House bill omits a Senate requirement that $100 contributors be identified in reports,\nthus limiting the listing to those donating more than $100.\nSTRONG REFORM BILL HAD MY SUPPORT\nI vigorously supported election campaign finances reform. In fact, I was the co-sponsor of\na bill introduced early this year by Rep. John B. Anderson, R-Ill., which closely resembled the\nSenate reform measure. I am pleased to have seen this legislation adopted.\nDISTRICT VISIT\nINCOME SECURITY\n($ BILLIONS)\n85\n$60.7 (est) total\nGordon Vander Till, my district assistant, will\n60\nbe in the City Council Room at Portland from 2:30\nFEDERAL\nto 5 p.m. on Dec. 10 to talk on my behalf with\nOUTLAYS\nanyone who has a problem needing my attention.\n50\n38.2\nD. C. FUNDS VOTED\n40\nThe House approved a $974 million appropriation\n30\nbill for fiscal 1972 for the District of Columbia\nafter resolving a dispute over release of subway\nSOCIAL\nfunds.\nSECURITY\n20\n>10.8\nThe House voted to release the subway money after\nlearning that the U.S. Court of Appeals here had\n10\nrejected the Government's request for a rehearing\nOTHER RETIREMENT\n11.7\nPUBLIC\non construction of a Potomac River span known as\nAND SOCIAL INSURANCE\nASSISTANCE\nthe Three Sisters Bridge.\n61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72\nThe House also passed a supplemental appropria-\nSECURITY OUTLAYS UP--Outlays for income\ntion bill for fiscal 1972 totalling $786 million.\nsecurity programs will reach $60.7 billion\nOf this amount, two-thirds is for mandatory pay-\nin fiscal 1972, up 9 per cent over 1971.\nments under existing law.\n06 this amount, 81 per cent is for retire-\nment and social insurance programs Isocial\nsecurity, railroad retirement, civil ser-\nWILD HORSES PROTECTED\nvice retirement and unemployment insurance),\nand 19 per cent is for public assistance\nand services to one-parent families with\nThe House approved the final version of a bill\ndependent children, the aged, blind and\nrequiring protection of wild horses on public\ndisabled.\nlands.\n# # #\nREMEN\nReport\nServing\nFrom Your Congressman\nKent and Ionia Counties\nJERRY FORD\n(NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE\nDecember 13, 1971\nHOUSE APPROVES FINAL FORM TAX CUTS BILL\nAs the week neared an end, the House approved the final version of the Federal Revenue Act\nof 1971, voting cuts in personal income taxes, wiping out the 7 per cent automobile excise tax\nand restoring the 7 per cent investment tax credit as a job-creating measure.\nThe final version of the tax cut bill resembled very closely the bill that originally passed\nthe House earlier this year.\n--It increases the $650 income tax personal exemption to $675 for the 1971 tax year and to\n$750 next year.\n--It increases the present standard deduction (13 per cent or $1,500, whichever is smaller) to\n15 per cent or $2,000, effective in 1972.\n--The low-income allowance will be increased to $1,300 in 1972, removing from the tax rolls\nall persons with incomes at or below the expected 1972 official poverty levels. For 1971, the\nlow-income allowance will be adjusted to give more tax relief to persons with incomes just above\nthe 1969 poverty levels.\n--The bill retroactively repeals the auto excise tax and the 10 per cent tax on light trucks,\neffective August 15 for cars and Sept. 22 for trucks of 10,000 pounds or less.\n--The bill restores the 7 per cent credit to business for investments in new equipment and\nwrites into law in modified form the depreciation deductions ordered administratively earlier\nthis year.\nThe tax reduction bill should provide the stimulus needed to push the economy upward across\na broad front while Phase 2 economic controls promote price stability.\nALL-OUT ATTACK ON CANCER MOUNTED\nMoving toward adjournment, the House and Senate agreed on the final form of an historically\ncomprehensive attack on the dreaded disease, cancer.\nThe two bodies approved the approach authored by the House, a $1.6 billion program that\nkeeps the cancer fight within the National Institutes of Health. The Senate bill would have set\nup an independent Conquest of Cancer Agency. I strongly supported the House bill.\nThe National Cancer Institute will be able to send its budget directly to the White House.\nThe director of the cancer institute will be a presidential appointee. And a three-member panel\nwill monitor progress in the battle against cancer and report its findings to the President.\nPRESIDENT VETOES HOUSE-APPROVED CHILD DEVELOPMENT BILL\nThe House last week passed and sent to the President a child development program I supported\nin principle but voted against as administratively unworkable. I personally co-sponsored child\ndevelopment legislation in 1969, but the bill that came before the House was totally unrealistic.\nThe President promptly vetoed the bill.\nThe bill providing for the child development program also included two other measures:\nExtension of the Office of Economic Opportunity (the anti-poverty agency) for two years and the\nestablishment of a Legal Services Corporation aimed at taking legal services for the poor out of\npolitics. The bill passed 210 to 186.\nMy position was that the House should have rejected the bill because of the poorly drafted\ntitle on child development and then should have begun work on three separate measures--immediate\nextension of O.E.O., a sound legal services program and a workable child development program.\nO.E.O. will continue to be funded this fiscal year under a supplemental appropriation.\nWHAT THE BILL PROVIDED\nThe Child Development Title in the O.E.O. bill went far beyond custodial care for children.\nIt was not a baby-sitting operation. It would have provided comprehensive services for the full\ndevelopment of children, whether their mothers work or not.\nHere are the key provisions of the program. It would have:\n*\nProvided a wide variety of services to children, such as all-day care for pre-schoolers,\nafter-school and vacation programs, nutrition, medical, dental and psychological\nservices, and education for parents in child-care and development.\n*\nAuthorized $100 million this fiscal year for planning the program and $2 billion in fiscal\n1973 to implement the services (including $500 million for continuation of Headstart).\nAllowed communities or combinations of communities with 5,000 or more people to be \"prime\nsponsors\" of child development programs, meaning that they could apply directly to the\nFederal Government for money without coordinating with the state.\nAllocated the money among the states according to a formula but allowed the money to be\nadministered locally.\n*\nRequired each prime sponsor to set up a Child Development Council, half of whose members\nwould be elected by parents.\n*\nProvided that individual child development projects be run by Project Policy Committees\ncomposed of parents and local community members.\nMade child development services available free to a family of four with income of less\nthan $4,320 a year and would have established a fee schedule related to income for\nfamilies with more resources.\nWHY WAS THE PROGRAM UNWORKABLE?\nThe projected child development program was an administrative nightmare because it virtually\nbypassed the states and allowed a community or combination of communities with 5,000 or more\npeople to apply directly to the Health-Education-and-Welfare Department for a Federal grant.\nThis meant the Federal Government could have had as many as 5,000 applications to process.\nAside from this, there would have been no coordination of child development activities on the\nlocal, state or Federal level.\nIt is important that child development services be made available to children. But this\nshould be done in a way that will work-with a limited number of \"prime sponsors. You then\nwould have coordination, no matter how many program operators you had.\nHOUSE PASSES GRAIN SUBSIDY BILL\nIn the waning days of the session, the House passed a bill that would put the Government in\nthe business of buying and storing huge amounts of grain and boosting price support loans to\ngrain farmers by 25 per cent. Cost of the program would run between $1.5 and $2 billion. The\nbill passed 182 to 170. I voted against it as a costly program which will prove ineffective in\nthe long run.\nThere is no question that advocates of the bill were playing politics with the farmer,\nparticularly since Agriculture Secretary Earl Butz announced just last Dec. 3 that the \"Ag\"\nDepartment would soon begin purchasing corn in the open market. Backers of the national granary\nbill would not wait to see what effect the \"Ag\" Department actions will have on corn prices.\nThey want to grab credit for any price improvement.\nFOREIGN AID HELD UP\nThe House passed a $2.7 billion appropriation for the foreign aid program while the foreign\naid authorization bill was still hung up in a House-Senate conference committee.\nThe amount was the lowest in the history of the foreign aid program--$925 million below the\nfigure recommended by President Nixon.\nDISTRICT VISIT\nMy district assistant, Gordon Vander Till, will be at City Hall in Cedar Springs from\n2:30 to 5 p.m. Dec. 17 to talk on my behalf with anyone having a problem I can help them with\nor anyone simply wanting to express his views on the issues.\n# # #\nReport\nServing\nFrom Your Congressman\nKent and Ionia Counties\nJERRY FORD\nNOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE)\nDecember 20, 1971\n92nd CONGRESS WRAPS UP FIRST SESSION\nThe 92nd Congress last week ended a first session marked by a half dozen major accomplish-\nments but otherwise notable only for its lack of follow-through.\nCongress deserves high marks for passing the tax reduction bill, the extension of price and\nwage control authority, the 18-year-old vote amendment, health manpower legislation, campaign\nspending reform legislation, and a draft extension with provisions pointing toward the establish-\nment of an all-volunteer army.\nBut the failures of the 92nd Congress to date are also noteworthy--failure to put special and\ngeneral revenue sharing into effect; failure to reform the obsolete welfare system except in\nembryo; failure to enact new measures for dealing with national emergency labor disputes in\ntransportation; failure to reorganize Federal cabinet departments; and failure to abolish the\nElectoral College and provide a better method of electing the President.\nViewed in terms of enacting the major presidential proposals, the 92nd Congress has a poor\nrecord up to this point. The Democratic-controlled Congress failed to complete action on more\nthan three-fourths of the 56 major measures President Nixon has tagged as \"must\" legislation.\nWe can only hope that the 92nd Congress will remedy these shortcomings next year.\nCONGRESS EXTENDS PRICE-WAGE CONTROLS\nBefore quitting for the year, the Congress extended President Nixon's economic control\nauthority through June 30, 1973.\nIn doing so, Congress gave workers and teachers a break on retroactive pay. The House had\nadopted an amendment authorizing retroactive pay increases where there had been price, tax or\nappropriation increases in anticipation of paying higher wages under contracts negotiated before\nthe August 15 wage and price freeze went into effect for 90 days. The Senate had approved\nlanguage authorizing retroactive pay increases that were \"not inconsistent with\" Presidential Pay\nBoard standards. The legislation finally adopted by both houses of Congress and sent to the\nPresident contained both the House and Senate language on retroactive pay. This gives workers\nand teachers two cracks at retroactivity.\nThe Congress also:\n*\nApproved a 5.5 per cent pay boost as of Jan. 1 for Federal workers and servicemen, tying\nthis in with the Pay Board guideline of a 5.5 per cent increase for workers generally.\n*\nEliminated a Senate provision which exempted the news media from Pay Board and Price\nCommission rulings.\n*\nExempted pensions, group health, life and accident insurance and profit-sharing plans from\nthe 5.5 per cent pay boost ceiling--but gave the Pay Board power to set separate guide-\nlines covering such fringe benefits.\n*\nExcluded interest rates from Price Commission actions but required the President to state\nwhy each category of interest rates should be excluded.\nIn legislating on retroactive pay, House members were particularly concerned about inequities\ndone to teachers. Under the retroactivity provisions of the economic controls bill as finally\nenacted, it is estimated that about 2 million teachers--out of about 2.2 million--will qualify\nfor a retroactive salary increase.\nI voted for the retroactivity provision as a sound compromise between the position that no\nretroactive pay increases should be authorized and the position that there should be no curbs\nwhatever on retroactivity.\nCAMPAIGN REFORM HELD UP\nAll that remains for campaign reform legislation to take effect is for the House to formally\napprove it. This, I am sure, will occur early in the next session of the 92nd Congress.\nAfter the Senate had approved the final, compromise, version of the campaign reform legisla-\ntion, the House member whose privilege it was to bring the matter up for House action refused to\ndo SO. Rep. Wayne Hays, Democrat of Ohio who is chairman of the House Administration Committee,\nsaid he wanted all House members to have an opportunity to read the \"conference report,\" so each\nmember would know exactly what is in the reform legislation before voting on it. This put the\nmatter off until next year, but the new campaign spending and contributions legislation will take\neffect sometime early in 1972.\nCampaign spending reform is one of the truly outstanding accomplishments of the 92nd Congress.\nI am proud to have had a hand in fashioning this historic legislation.\nWELFARE PROGRAM ENACTED\nWithout any preliminaries, the Congress approved in the last days of the session a surprise\nwelfare reform bill, to be effective next July 1.\nThe reform measure requires all welfare recipients to register for work or training unless\nthey are children under 16, or are ill or old, or are required to take care of someone who is\nincapacitated, or are mothers with children under six years old.\nThere is a work requirement under present law but the states decide who should register. As\na result, what is known as \"The Work Incentive Program\" or WIN, has not worked well. The new\nFederal rules would enforce the work requirement under penalty of loss of benefits.\nThe new requirements could affect as many as two million adults. It applies particularly to\nthe Aid-to-Dependent-Childrer category of welfare.\nI strongly favor a work requirement for welfare recipients but this new program is not a sub-\nstitute for President Nixon's sweeping new welfare reform bill--and House Ways and Means\nCommittee Chairman Wilbur Mills, D-Ark., said as much in presenting the work requirement program\nto the House.\nMills said the objective is to put the work requirement program into effect a year in advance\nof overall welfare reform.\nMajor provisions of welfare reform still to be enacted are an income floor and cash incen-\ntives for working. These reforms are essential if we are to move welfare recipients from the\ndole to payrolls. Only a major overhaul of the present welfare system can erase the problems\ninherent in the present outmoded welfare structure.\nI INTRODUCE PENSION REFORM BILL\nPension reform is one of the greatest needs of the American people. Accordingly, last\nTuesday I introduced an Administration bill which would be a dramatic step forward in providing\nretirement income security for Americans.\nThe bill would establish vesting standards to assure retirement benefits for employes even\nthough they leave their jobs before retirement. The bill also would allow individual employes\nwho wish to provide for their own retirement through pension plan contributions to deduct those\ncontributions on their income tax returns. The employe contribution may be made to a group plan\nor to an individual plan of his own choosing. The only requirement would be that it be a bona\nfide plan for retirement income.\nI hope the Congress acts as expeditiously as possible on my pension reform bill next year.\nI CO-SPONSOR SURVIVOR BENEFITS BILL\nLaw enforcement officers lay their lives on the line every time they go out on duty. And the\nfamilies of these officers are left with little if these officers forfeit their lives while pro-\ntecting others.\nFor this reason I have co-sponsored a bill to provide $50,000 to survivors of policemen\nkilled in line of duty-also to the survivors of correction officers, sheriffs, guards, judges,\nmagistrates and prosecuting attorneys who are killed while performing their offices.\n###"
}