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 includes information regarding Ralph Abernathy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1550974
label
White House - Congressional Leadership Meeting, 4/29/69 (includes minutes and Ford notes)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1550974
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
White House - Congressional Leadership Meeting, 4/29/69 (includes minutes and Ford notes)
description
This file includes information regarding Ralph Abernathy.
citationUrl
collections
Robert T. Hartmann Papers
House of Representatives Subject Files
subjects
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Antimissile missiles
Civil rights
Federal aid
Legislation
Legislative liaison
Obscenity (Law)
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1550974
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1969-05-31
month
5
year
1969
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1969-04-01
month
4
year
1969
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
833823700e7a9504
ocrText
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP AGENDA
April 29, 1969
8:30 - 8:50 a. m.
I. Grant Consolidation Message -
8:50 - 9:10 a.m.
II. Obscenity Message
9:10 - 9:30 a.m.
III. Senate Report
9:30 - 9:50 a. m.
IV. House Report
I - menge Programs like Reorg. ligislature.
5 agencies 1 Jenses T Water
II Obseanety -
Post oppice 9 / sending to minoro.
Hengburg cash andering consept.
2
Regulation by "invasion of
proway consept.
LIBRARY GERALD : FORD
These documents were scanned from Box 106 of the Robert T. Hartmann Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
DIARY OF WHITE HOUSE LEADERSHIP
MEETINGS -- 91st CONGRESS
April 29, 1969
The President entered at 8:40 a.m. and introduced
Mr. Hughes of Budget, who explained the essentials
of the so-called "Grant Consolidation" message,
which the President will send to the Congress shortly.
The draft legislation would give the President power
to consolidate programs within category functions.
Conceptually, this would parallel the Reorganization
Act of 1949. Either House of Congress would have
power within 60 days after receipt of a consolidation
plantto veto it but no power to amend it. The draft
legislation would limit the Presidential power to make
modifications only within statutory limitations govern-
ing all programs involved.
Mundt recited the hostory of Senate hearings last week
and said that the Committee took no action because
it was generally agreed that the reorganization device
should not be used as a substitute for the legislative
process in this context. However, he said that the new
proposal defined in the Presidential message would likely
be acceptable to his Committee.
RMN said that programs have "grown like topsy and piled
up on each other." The problem has not been corrected
primarily because no central authority existed to take
remedial action. He said that the President will consult
with Congressional leaders before any consolidation plan
is sent down. Ford said that the objective is good but that
he was not optimistic about its prospects in the House.
The Government Operations Committee has a weak chairman,
and the draft should go to the Senate for action first.
Mitchell explained in a general way the new legislation to
control obscently and pornography. He discussed recent
Supreme Court decisions. One phase of the bill will be
designed to accept the invitation of the Court in the Ginsberg
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
2
case. That invitation was for the Congress to legislate
to protect young people under the age of 18. This will
require a new definition of obscenity, the most difficult
part of the chore. Another phase of the legislative effort
will be new regulatory power for the Post Office Depart-
ment, perhaps added as a rider to the Postal Rate Increase
bill. This would require mailers of obscene literature to
place identifying marks on the outside of packages, and
the legislation would improve the procedure by which the
householder has the right to reject unsolicited mail.
Allott interrupted to inquire why the legislation could not
go a step farther and outlaw the delivery of the mail
unless the householder has given affirmative consent in
advance. Mitchell replied that this is not feasible as
a functional matter. Cramer Inquired about the definttion.
Mitchell said that it is sex-oriented rather than obscenity
and pornography-oriented and involves pandering.
Hruska said that an obscenity definition would have to be
included in the Mail to Minors statute. Dirksen said that
the best way to handle the problem was a bill he had
introduced to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to
review findings of fact by juries. If people drawn from
the local community agree that the matter is obscene, then
this should be sufficient. He promised to hook his bill onto
some proper vehicle. Fong said that the Senate Post Office
Committee would be eager to cooperate.
The President asked Dirksen to make a report for the Senate.
He spoke about the Cranston Resolution to suspend the
President's Job Corps plans until Congress has completed
an investigation. Dirksen outlined data he has compiled
concerning criminal offenses committed by Job Corps enrollees.
In one Illinois camp, he said that the principal problem was
sodomy. Mrs. Smith added that the situation in Maine camps
was "disgraceful." Taft raised the question about the continua-
FORD
GERALD
AIBRARY
3
tion of TV advertisementsecruiting for the Job Corps.
This furrowed the President's brow and clouded his
face. He turned to Kline. Kline said that the Advertis-
ing Council was responsible. The President said with
some heat, "Cancel my appearance." He modified
this injunction by adding that he expected the advertis-
ing to cease and that unless action was taken today, he
would not feel disposed to appear before the Advertising
Council.
Dirksen next reported on a civil rights bill to be introduced
by Hart, Kennedy, Scott and Hughes. It will contain four
titles. The first will extend the Federal Jury Selection
law to state juries, and the second would authorize EEOC
to issue cease and desist orders. Dirksen said that he
would not go along with this. Hruska said that he would
oppose giving any commission such judicial power.
Terris Leonard of Justice explained why he felt that such
power was justified. He said that nothing less would
satisfy groups which were demaning action. So far as the
business community is concerned, the complaints about
harassment stem from the overlapping jurisdiction of
several agencies and the interminable proceedings involved
in the present system. He said that the source of these
complaints could be largely resolved by pulling the functions
of the several agencies together. He also said that cease
and desist orders would be surrounded by safeguards, includ-
ing appeal to the District Courts. The four options would
be 1) to confirm and enforce the order; 2X to remand to the
commission with or without directions; 3) to remand with
an order for rehearings before the commission; or 4) authorize
a trial de novo in the District Court.
The Vice President said that if trial de novo is automatic, no
litigant bothers to put all his evidence before the commission.
He suggested an alternative, viz, the commission confine
itself to business of fact finding with right of appeal to the
Court on record. Scott suggested that Leonard should meet
BERALD
4
with the authors of the bill. RMN agreed and said that
the subject smould be discussed again next week. RMN
also complimented the House Leadership for the vote on
the school bill last week.
Ford reported that the Electoral College amendment would
likely be reported by the Judiciary Committee today and
asked the President to recognize Mr. McCulloch. McCul-
loch said the vote would be 4 or 5 to 1 for a direct vote
system with a runoff contingency. He predicted that the
Rules Committee would act within 2 or 3 weeks. He also
reported that all Republican Members of the Judiciary Com-
mittee but one had agreed to cosponsor the Administration's
anti-gambling bill.
Ford reported that the Supplemental Appropriation bill now
under consideration likely will contain a ceiling to con-
form expenditures to those projected in the Nixon budget.
The ceiling would apply across the board with no exceptions.
Harlow said that Mills wants a guarantee of an additional
$5 billion out and expressed the thought that the ceiling
approved by Bow and Mahon would head off this. Mayo
said he preferred a government-wide, overall ceiling which
would give the Budget Bureau more flexibility in meeting
priority needs in particular departments.
Rhodes said that it is better to insist upon the $192.1 billion
figure. RMN complimented Mayo for what he called his
"patient, skillful job" in convincing Cabinet members to
surrender some of their pet projects.
Harlow said that an effortwould be made to devise a government-
wide plan of action to deal with the proposed spring visit
of Reverend Abernathy, et al. Dirksen said that a second
Resurrection City is in the offing; that he spent 2 hours with
Abernathy last year; that he will spend no more time with him:
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
5
that he has had enough. Ford said that the Speaker last
year arranged a group meeting to which Abernathy was
invited and a similar thing could be expected this year.
RMN said that a power struggle for civil rights leadership
is underway and that Abernathy needs the forthcoming
performance in Washington to establish his credibility.
He said that it is "too early to crown him as the heir to
Martin Luther King, Jr." He cautioned that utter rejection
would play into his hands but that it would also be a
mistake to allow them to single out individual leaders and
"pick us off one by one." Scott expressed the view that the
Congressional leaders should meet Abernathy in groups so
as not to aggrandize Abernathy's standard.
The meeting concluded at 9:50 a.m.
RICHARD H. POFF
FORD is STUBED LIBRARY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 29, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN,
AND CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:13 A.M. EDT
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Let me say first of all that we
had a very brief discussion of the ABM situation. I expressed
my opinion to the effect that whenever this measure is called
up to the Senate that it will pass by a comfortable majority.
Beyond that I don't think we discussed It further, except that
Jerry expressed himself with respect to the House of Representa-
tives and he thought it would pass the House by a substantial
majority.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: We also talked about a message which
is coming up sometime this week on grant consolidation, which
is on effort to getsin the hands of the Executive the authority
to consolidate programs such as the Executive now has for the
consolidation of agencies and the like.
In other words, for example, I think there are five
agencies that handle sewer and water pollution. If they can
consolidate the programs with their varying formulas within an
agency, it would be highly beneficial both in cost and the
expediting of the programs themselves.
This message will come up Wednesday or Thursday, as
I understand it.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: We also discussed the forthcoming
message on obscenity. The approach, of course, will be to a
modification of postal statutes so that you can put a res-
ponsibility on the mailer, make him identify the content on the
outside of the package, so that if it is sent unsolicited, the
householder or the recipient can readily identify what it is
and can either accept it or not accept it.
It probably will be offered as an amendment to
something that will be coming along very shortly in connection with
postal legislation.
It is of a rather extraordinary interest to me because
I have teed off on this general subject and on hard core
pornography over a period of time. You will remember in
connection with the last judicial nomination that it came rather
prominently into the discussion on the Senate floor. Then, too,
there was this strike down by the Court of the 27 or 28 cases
that came out of California. All of those California decisions
were nullified.
MORE
(OVER)
GERALD LISBURY in
- 2 **
Then, again, it comes up in connection with this
recent film, "I Am Curious (Yellow). I understand there
is going to be a sequel called, I Am Curious (Blue). It
is going to make "I Am Curious (Yellow)" look like some
pinkie film, and you have seen nothing yet.
But I have had an amendment pending up there and I
am going to offer it to anything that comes along which
utilizes a provision in the Constitution where Congress can
fix the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts and in this case,
you deny to them the review power of a finding by a jury
where there is a finding of fact that a given thing, whether
it is a letter, or a book or a film is indeed pornographic and
obscene.
So I intend to offer that somewhere along the line
and then we will see where we are. But it has occurred to me
for a long time that that is about the only way you can get at
it really, and get around the courts' interpretation of the
First Amendment.
Incidentally, the California legislature is considering
the same kind of legislation and for all I know, it probably
will be enacted during the course of the present session.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I might supplement what the Senator
said. The message involving obscene and pornographic material
will be, I think, very favorably considered by the House
Committee on the Judiciary and by the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service.
I think that Congress will respond favorably. The
House Committee on the Judiciary is about to report out its
version of electoral college reform. I understand following
that action it will either take up the previous crime message
or the message that will be coming on pornography and obscenity.
If I might add to what Senator Dirksen said about the
ABM, we hope to get the military authorization bill out of the
Committee on Arms Services and get it to the floor of the House.
We believe this will be a good test, because in my judgment,
the House of Representatives will substantially approve the Presi-
dent's recommendations for ABM.
The Democratic leadership, the Republican leadership,
and an overwhelming number of members of the House will support
the President on the ABM. This will be laying the groundwork,
I think, helpfully, as far as the consideration in the Senate
is concerned.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I mention the fact that the so-called
illegal gambling act, or bill, will probably be introduced
today. There will be a few sponsors from both sides of the
aisle.
I also call attention to a proposal that will be
introduced today dealing essentially with civil rights. It
will have four titles, one dealing with the selection of
juries at the State level to bring them in line with what is
required in the case of Federal juries under the Federal
Selection Act.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
MORE
- 3 -
Another title deals with appropriations for the
Civil Rights Commission. A third deals with so-called cease
and desist orders, insofar as the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission is concerned.
I have taken a rather dim view of granting that kind
of authority to any commission. I recall all the discussion
we had on equivalent power given to the Federal Trade Commission.
Now it is proposing this new bill to give that authority to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Maybe something can be said for it, if the thing is
nailed down, so that you don't impair the rights of the persons
against whom the complaint is filed and, secondly, if there is
adequate protection by reference to a Federal District Court
in the first instance so that always and always there is that
immediate right of review without prejudice of the right of
the employer or the right of the employee.
It will be introduced today, as I understand, and
there are four sponsors: Senator Javits, Senator Hart, Senator
Scott and Senator Kennedy.
So there will be a very considerable discussion about
it and I suppose long hearings, if it goes to the Committee.
But if there is a chance to have it done, I think I will contend
that it ought to be referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Q Senator, how would you feel about the nomination
of a National Science Foundation man, of any name, should he
be opposed to the ABM?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: You say how do I feel about it?
Q
How would you feel about it?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't have any bias one way or
the other. He may have a lot of other redeeming qualities
that might overcome that.
Q
Senator, did you discuss with the President your
opposition to the nomination of Dr. Knowles?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I did not.
Q
Have you ever discussed that with him?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Never.
Q
Are you still opposed to it?
GERALD A. FORM
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I am still opposed.
Q
Senator, did you discuss Dr. Long and the
President's statement yesterday?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No.
I
That seems to be in conflict with your feelings
on the matter.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't think SO.
MORE
(OVER)
- 4 -
Ω
Were you not reported as opposed to Dr. Long as
Director?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: When I was asked about it I said
I thought under the circumstances I might oppose him.
Q
Senator, why are you opposed to Dr. Knowles'
appointment?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: That matter has been, shall I say,
adjudicated in the sense that I have nothing more to say about it.
Q
Senator, what are the chances of passage of the
bill vesting greater authority in the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission? You cound as if you would oppose the bill that is
expected.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Definitely not. But I can be opposed
to some item in a bill without being hostile to the bill.
As a matter of fact, I think what is shaping up is very
desirable.
?
You said the matter of Dr. Knowles had been
adjudicated. I don't quite understand that.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I have made all my discussions and
that is adjudication for me. I have nothing more to say.
Q
For those of us who haven't heard that discussion,
can you give us some background?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, I don't think SO. I don't know
why I should.
Q
Are you going to make it a matter of Executive
or Senatorial privilege to oppose him or allow it to go through?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: On that point, I have nothing to say
until we see what happens. If his name should appear, I can
always take a second look.
2 Senator, do you have a lot to say about the
President's appointments?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: What appointments?
0
Any?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Well, I don't know that the President
confers with me about appointments. They are noticed up at the
Senate. They are referred to the proper Committee. The Committee
takes action one way or the other. If it is favorable, it goes
MORE
LIBRARY CERALD R. FORD
- 5 -
to the Executive calendar and at that point, as a Member of the
Senate, not as Minority Leader, but as a Member of the Senate,
I work my will. Any Senator can do whatever I can do.
Q
Senator, respectfully, that would strike some
as sounding as if you are backing down on the Knowles' matter.
Is that a correct interpretation?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't propose to be lured into a dis-
cussion of the matter. Why not let events speak for themselves?
You will find out soon enough.
2 Senator, you are believed to have opposed not
only Knowles and Long, but Mr. Driver -- all three of them ---
their nominations seem to have come to a stop.
SENATOR DIRKSEN: The Driver matter was suitably
venilated in the press. Mr. Driver resigned. Why should I
discuss it any further? I can only say to you when I look
into these matters, I do my homework. Put that down. (Laughter.)
0
In terms of your homework, have you done a head
count on the ABM to back up -- do you have any kind of ratio
you think it will go by?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I have been fingering a little.
(Laughter.)
Q You said you were confident that the ABM would pass
in the Senate. What kind of compromise is the Administration
willing to offer to get it passed?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: There is no compromise in the
offing insofar as I know.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think this was clearly stated by
the President in conversations with Senator Dirksen and myself,
that the President was not compromising. He felt that the
Safeguard proposal, as recommended by him, was the minimum
that we could undertake for our National security.
2 Senator Dirksen, in your discussion of the matter
of obscenity, you mentioned the bill you want to have Congress
fix the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. Does the President
support that bill?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I didn't ask him.
LISBARY GERALD GERALDR. FOR
CI
Did you talk with the President this morning.
about the program announced yesterday at HUD on the change
in the operation of the Model Cities program?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No, it wasn't discussed this morning.
C'
Did the President express a view about the bill
that you were talking about, the equal opportunity bill, Senator?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: No. We had a discussion of the bill
that is proposed, but it centered mainly on this question of
the enforcement of the cease and desist order.
MORE
(OVER)
- 6 -
a
Did he express a view on that?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: He participated in the discussion,
without expressing a real hard and fast view.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it is fair to say that
the matter will be discussed next week or in the near future
again to try and refine it so that there is unanimity on
what ought to be recommended.
Q
On the ABM, you made a point a minute ago that
the President felt that the safeguard was the minimum that he
would accept. Was there any discussion of making some other
policy choices in the National security field which could be
tied in with ABM and in that sense placate some of the critics
on Capitol Hill?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, there was no discussion of that.
Q
Do you know what his attitude is about that?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: It wasn't disclosed and we didn't ask.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think it is significant to point
out --- and this relates to some extent to what you have raised --
that there are those, I noticed yesterday, who wanted to stop
the development of a strategic bomber, thereby knocking out our
capability for long range high performance aircraft. I
noticed there was some discussion yesterday that we ought to
knock out both offensive and defensive capability in chemical,
biological warfare. There are people who want to knock out
the ABM, strip us of any defensive capability against ballistic
missiles.
Where are they going to stop? Do they want to
unilaterally disarm America, when we have a serious threat
from the Soviet Union?
When you add up this whole package, and I think there
must be some concert in the action, I think it is a very
serious turn of events as far as the United States is concerned.
Q
Are you charging that they are intending to
unilaterally disarm America?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I am simply saying that when you
add up all of the things that I see coming from various sources,
if you make that total package -- and they achieve their
results -- in effect, the United States is seriously eroding their
defensive capability against attack.
Q What do you mean when you say a serious threat
from the Soviet Union? What is the serious threat?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If you go back to the speech that
is often quoted in part by former President Eisenhower, not
the part about the military industrial complex, but the other
part, if you will recall, former President Eisenhower warned us
against a threat from overseas and warned us that we must be
strong militarily in order to preserve the peace and to protect
our own National security.
MORE
GENALD FORD LIBRART
- 7 -
I am not naive enough to believe that the Soviet
Union is going to just roll over and take the same kind of
actions that some people in America want us to do. They are going
to be strong. We have to be strong. This may be the best way
to preserve the peace.
But if you do all of the things that some of these
people apparently want us to do, put them in a package,
I think our military situation at home is in serious jeopardy.
Q
Congressman, I think you used the word "concert."
Are you suggesting that there might be some central direction
to this opposition to the ABM and other military ---
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I have no facts on this, but I
see these several steps or recommendations or speeches being made
and I can't help but be interested and I just hope that they
are not in concert and I trust that they won't be successful
in concert.
Q
Who are you talking about, sir? Could you call
some names?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: The speech made yesterday on the
floor of the House of Representatives by Congressman Max
McCarthy, in reference to chemical and biological warfare. I
can't recall who in the news yesterday advocated the stopping
of any development of a strategic long-range bomber, but as I
recall, it was some Member of the House or Senate, and, of course,
you are as familiar as I am with those who are urging that we
not proceed with the minimum program of an ABM.
Ω
What do you think is their motive in this?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I don't challenge their motives.
I simply say that I think the Congress ought to be very alert
not to do all of the things all of these people want or we will
find ourselves in the same kind of a serious situation we were
in prior to World War II.
0
Mr. Ford, the way you used that word "concert"
gives it a devious, even a subversive element in there. Aren't
you people in concert trying to get the ABM through? What is
wrong with being in concert?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I said it may appear to be that
they are in concert, but those of us who support a minimum
ABM program are acting on the basis of a recommendation from
the President and on the basis of previous Chief Executives.
This is just one defensive weapon system that is
important to the National security of the United States,
at least we think SO. I don't challenge any motives. I
simply say on the basis of the facts this is a program
that is needed in the overall picture of our defense setup.
Q
Has the President expressed himself about this
trend that you mentioned?
F.O.RU
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No, the President has not.
MORE
(OVER)
- 8 -
Q
Senator Dirksen, do you share Congressman Ford's
view of this situation?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Let me simplify it. I know what I
think. I know what I believe. If I believe it hard enough,
then I will go out and get a few converts to my cause. I am
for ABM, period. If I can talk somebody else into it who has
some voting power, that will be all right, too, because I will
just ask them to share my convictions, period.
Q
Senator, do you see a trend toward unilateral
disarmament developing among the opposition?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I wouldn't know. I don't pay enough
attention to it, I suppose.
Q
To that extent then, you don't agree with Congress-
man Ford?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: I don't agree or I don't disagree.
He has heard speeches over on the House floor. I have heard
no comparable speeches over on the Senate floor except people
who are opposed to the ABM. They are entitled to their opinion.
I don't fuss about it. I don't quarrel because their prerogatives
are equal to mine as a Senator.
Q
Senator, do you think Congress will pass higher
postal rates this year?
SENATOR DIRKSEN: Higher postal rates? Definitely SO.
It is absolutely necessary if you are going to protect the budget.
There has to be additional revenue. Otherwise, your deficit gets
larger and larger and goodness knows, that postal deficit
is astronomical already.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 10:35 A.M. EDT.)
FORD & LIBRARY GERATO
HOUSE ACTION, PERIOD APRIL 22 THROUGH 28, 1969
Wednesday, April 23, 1969
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
The House passed by record vote of 400 yeas to 17 nays H.R. 514
extending assistance for elementary and secondary education.
PERKINS SUBSTITUTE
The Perkins Substitute was defeated by teller vote of 152 for
to 203 against.
The Perkins Substitute:
1. extended the act for 3 years instead of 5
2. retained individual funding for library books, innovation
programs, science equipment and guidance and counsel
3. eliminated State and local advisory councils
GREEN OF OREGON SUBSTITUTE
The Green Substitute was adopted by a record vote of 235 yeas to
184 nays.
The Green Substitute:
1. extends the act for 2 years instead of 5
FORD
2. eliminates Federal matching requirements, institute block
grants for States for library books, innovative programs
science equipment and guidance and counsel
LIBRARY
3. eliminates State and local advisory councils
RECOMMITTAL
Prior to passing, the House rejected the recommittal motion by voice
vote.
Thursday, April 24, 1969
INVESTIGATION AUTHORIZATION
The House agreed by voice vote to H.Res. 347 authorizing the Sub-
committee on Education and Labor to conduct investigation and
- 2 -
study on production of foreign-made goods competing with domesti-
cally produced goods and new developments in coal mine safety
and health practices in Great Britain.
Monday, April 28, 1969 - District Day
The House passed by voice vote the following Bills:
1. H.R. 254, to authorize the expansion of D. C. Canine Corps
2. H.R. 4182, to authorize voluntary admission of patients, D. C.
Training School
3. H.R. 9526, exempting certain public international organizations from
D. C. Unemployment Compensation Act
Program Ahead - Tuesday and Balance of Week
H.R. 4153, to authorize appropriations for procurement of vessels and
aircraft and construction of shore and offshore establishments for
the Coast Guard
H.R. 9825, Civil Service Retirement Amendments
H.Res. 17, to create a Select Committee to conduct an investigation
and study of all aspects of crime in the United States
Supp. app. - expendition certing.
Electronal Reform - -
SERVICE tono VERANT
Cqual Employment opportunity legalation
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY TO THE SENATE OR THE April 30, 1969
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AT 12 NOON EDT
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
In the administration of Federal programs, one of the principal
needs today is to improve the delivery systems: to ensure that the
intended services actually reach the intended recipients, and that they
do so in an efficient, economical and effective manner.
As grant-in-aid programs have proliferated, the problems of
delivery have grown more acute. States, cities, and other recipients
find themselves increasingly faced with a welter of overlapping programs,
often involving multiple agencies and diverse criteria. This results
in confusion at the local level, in the waste of time, energy and
resources, and often in frustration of the intent of Congress.
As a major step toward improved administration of these programs,
I urge that Congress enact a Grant Consolidation Act.
Under our present fragmented system, each one of a group of
closely related categorical grants is encumbered with its own individual
array of administrative and technical requirements. This unnecessarily
complicates the planning process; it discourages comprehensive planning;
it requires multiple applications, and multiple bookkeeping both by the
Federal agencies and by State and local governments.
The legislation I propose would be patterned in part after procedures
used successfully for the past 20 years to reorganize Executive Branch
functions. It would give the President power to initiate consolidation
of closely related Federal assistance programs, and to place
consolidated programs under the jurisdiction of a single agency.
However, it would give either House of Congress the right to veto
a proposed consolidation within 60 days, and it would establish stringent
safeguards against possible abuse.
In order to make consolidation possible, it would be necessary in
many cases to make changes in the statutory terms and conditions under
which individual programs would be administered. Formulas, interest
rates, eligibility requirements, administrative prodedures, and other
terms and conditions of the various programs being consolidated would
have to be brought into harmony. The proposed legislation would empower
the President to do this in drawing up his consolidation plans -- but only
within carefully defined limits. For example:
Only programs in closely related functional areas
i
FORD
could be consolidated.
GERALD
Terms and conditions could be changed only to the extent
necessary to achieve the purposes of the consolidation plan.
In setting new terms and conditions, the President would be
limited by the range of those already provided in the programs
being consolidated. Thus, if a program providing for a
10 percent State matching share were being merged with
one providing a 20 percent matching share, he would have
to propose a matching share between 10 and 20 percent.
more
2
No consolidation plan could continue any program beyond the
period authorized by law for its existence.
-- No plan could provide assistance to recipients not already eligible
under one of the programs being merged.
-- Responsibility for the consolidated program could not be vested
in an agency or office not already responsible for one of those
being merged.
The effect of these limits would be to safeguard the essential intent
of Congress in originally establishing the various programs; the effect
of consolidation would be to carry out that intent more effectively and
more efficiently.
The number of separate Federal assistance programs has grown
enormously over the years.
When the Office of Economic Opportunity set out to catalogue Federal
assistance programs, it required a book of more than 600 pages even to
set forth brief descriptions. It is an almost universal complaint of local
government officials that the web of programs has grown so tangled that
it often becomes impermeable. However laudable each may be individually,
the total effect can be one of government paralysis.
If these programs are to achieve their intended purposes, we must
find new ways of cutting through the tangle.
Passage of the Grant Consolidation Act would not be a substitute for
other reforms necessary in order to improve the delivery of Federal
services, but it is an essential element. It would be another vital step
in the administrative reforms undertaken already, such as establishing
common regional boundaries for Federal agencies, creating the Urban
Affairs Council and the Office of Intergovernmental Relations, and
beginning a streamlining of administrative procedures for Federal
grant-in-aid programs. Its aim, essentially, is to help make more
certain the delivery and more manageable the administration of a growing
complex of Federal programs, at a time when the problems they address
increasingly cross the old jurisdictional lines of departments and agencies.
This proposal would permit rapid action, initiated by the President,
while preserving the power of Congress to disapprove such action. It
would benefit the intended beneficiaries of the programs involved; it would
benefit State and local governments, which now have to contend with a
bewildering array of rules and jurisdictions; and it would benefit the
American taxpayer, who now bears the cost of administrative inefficiencies.
RICHARD NIXON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 30, 1969.
####
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY TO THE SENATE OR THE May 2, 1969
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
American homes are being bombarded with the largest volume of
sex-oriented mail in history. Most of it is unsolicited, unwanted, and
deeply offensive to those who receive it. Since 1964, the number of
complaints to the Post Office about this salacious mail has almost
doubled. One hundred and forty thousand letters of protest came in
during the last nine months alone, and the volume is increasing.
Mothers and fathers by the tens of thousands have written to the
White House and the Congress. They resent these intrusions into their
homes, and they are asking for federal assistance to protect their
children against exposure to erotic publications.
The problem has no simple solution. Many publications dealing
with sex in a way that is offensive to many people -- are protected under
the broad umbrella of the First Amendment prohibition against any
law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.'
However, there are constitutional means available to assist parents
seeking to protect their children from the flood of sex-oriented materials
moving through the mails. The Courts have not left society defenseless
against the smut peddler; they have not ruled out reasonable government
action.
Cognizant of the constitutional strictures, aware of recent Supreme
Court decisions, this Administration has carefully studied the legal
terrain of this problem.
We believe we have discovered some untried and hopeful approaches
that will enable the federal government to become a full partner with
states and individual citizens in drying up a primary source of this
social evil. I have asked the Attorney General and the Postmaster
General to submit to Congress three new legislative proposals.
The first would prohibit outright the sending of offensive sex
materials to any child or teenager under 18. The second would prohibit
the sending of advertising designed to appeal to a prurient interest in
sex. It would apply regardless of the age of the recipient. The third
measure complements the second by providing added protection from the
kind of smut advertising now being mailed, unsolicited, into so many
homes.
GERAIN
SEAL
AUTHORT
PROTECTING MINORS
Many states have moved ahead of the federal government in drawing
distinctions between materials considered obscene for adults and materials
considered obscene for children. Some of these states, such as New York,
have taken substantial strides toward protecting their youth from materials
that may not be obscene by adult standards but which could be damaging
to the healthy growth and development of a child. The United States
more
2
Supreme Court has recognized, in repeated decisions, the unique status
of minors and has upheld the New York Statute. Building on judicial
precedent, we hope to provide a new measure of federal protection for
the young.
I ask Congress to make it a federal crime to use the mails or other
facilities of commerce to deliver to anyone under 18 years of age material
dealing with a sexual subject in a manner unsuitable for young people.
The proposed legislation would not go into effect until the sixth month
after passage. The delay would provide mailers of these materials time
to remove from their mailing lists the names of all youngsters under 18.
The federal government would become a full partner with parents and states
in protecting children from much of the interstate commerce in pornography.
A first violation of this statute would be punishable by a maximum penalty
of five years in prison and a $50, 000 fine; subsequent violations carry
greater penalties.
PRURIENT ADVERTISING
Many complaints about salacious literature coming through the mails
focus on advertisements. Many of these ads are designed by the advertiser
to appeal exclusively to a prurient interest. This is clearly a form of
pandering.
I ask the Congress to make it a federal crime to use the mails, or other
facilities of commerce, for the commercial exploitation of a prurient interest
in sex through advertising.
This measure focuses on the intent of the dealer in sex-oriented
materials and his methods of marketing his materials. Through the legis-
lation we hope to impose restrictions on dealers who flood the mails with
grossly offensive advertisements intended to produce a market for their
smut materials by stimulating the prurient interest of the recipient. Under
the new legislation, this form of pandering could bring a maximum penalty
of 5 years imprisonment, and a fine of $50,000 for a first offense and
10 years and a fine of $100, 000 for subsequent offenses.
INVASION OF PRIVACY
There are other erotic, sex-oriented advertisements that may be
constitutionally protected but which are, nonetheless, offensive to the
citizen who receives them in his home. No American should be forced to
accept this kind of advertising through the mails.
In 1967 Congress passed a law to help deal with this kind of pandering.
The law permits an addressee to determine himself whether he considers
the material offensive in that he finds it "erotically arousing or sexually
provocative. " If the recipient deems it so, he can obtain from the Postmaster
General a judicially enforceable order prohibiting the sender from making
any further mailings to him or his children, and requiring the mailer to
delete them from all his mailing lists.
More than 170, 000 persons have requested such orders. Many citizens
however, are still unaware of this legislation, or do not know how to utilize
its provisions. Accordingly, I have directed the Postmaster General to
provide every Congressional office with pamphlets explaining how each
more
LIGHTS
3
citizen can use this law to protect his home from offensive advertising.
I urge Congress to assist our effort for the widest possible distribution
of these pamphlets.
This pandering law was based on the principle that no citizen should be
forced to receive advertisements for sex-oriented matter he finds offensive.
I endorse that principle and believe its application should be broadened.
I therefore ask Congress to extend the existing law to enable a
citizen to protect his home from any intrusion of sex-oriented advertising
regardless of whether or not a citizen has ever received such mailings.
This new stronger measure would require mailers and potential
mailers to respect the expressed wishes of those citizens who do not wish
to have sex-oriented advertising sent into their homes. These citizens
will put smut-mailers on notice simply by filing their objections with a
designated postal authority. To deliberately send such advertising to
their homes would be an offense subject to both civil and criminal
penalties.
As I have stated earlier, there is no simple solution to this problem.
However, the measures I have proposed will go far toward protecting
our youth from smut coming through the mails; they will place new restric-
tions upon the abuse of the postal service for pandering purposes; they
will reinforce a man's right to privacy in his own home. These proposals,
however, are not the whole answer.
The ultimate answer lies not with the government but with the people.
What is required is a citizens' crusade against the obscene. When indecent
books no longer find a market, when pornographic films can no longer draw
an audience, when obscene plays open to empty houses, then the tide will
turn. Government can maintain the dikes against obscenity, but only
people can turn back the tide.
RICHARD NIXON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 2, 1969
# # #
&
3
DERALD
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
May 5, 1969
Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., placed in the Body of the Congressional
Record of Monday, May 5, 1969.
Mr. Speaker: Congress has struggled long and unsuccessfully to cope with
the problem created by the mailing of obscene material. Now the Nixon
Administration has come up with three proposals which offer genuine hope of
curbing this despicable activity of the smut profiteer.
The trend of most United States Supreme Court decisions in recent years
has caused some members of Congress to throw up their hands and take the attitude
that little or nothing can be done about obscene mail.
But President Nixon appears to have found the means of stopping the flood
of obscene mailings. This mail is aimed at expanding the smut peddler's market
and is therefore directed to our youth and to adults as well.
In the case of our young people, President Nixon is proposing an anti-
obscene mail law which is based on a New York statute already upheld by the
U.S. Supreme Court. This law would place a flat ban on the sending of obscene
materials to any young person under 18. The court has indicated that such a
blanket prohibition on the mailing of offensive sex materials to under-18
Americans will be upheld because of the age of those involved.
The other two of the Nixon Administration's anti-obscenity proposals
involve mailings to adults. I strongly support these proposals as well as that
dealing with young people. It is long past time that the courts recognize
there must be a basis in law to support the desire of decent Americans to curb
the smut peddler.
The people rightly are looking to the Federal Government for protection
from the flood of pornographic mail. The laws now on the books have definitely
proven inadequate.
President Nixon's anti-obscenity proposals constitute a reasoned and
workable approach to a most difficult problem. I intend to press for prompt
enactment of his recommendations. I would expect that the Congress would
welcome Mr. Nixon's legislative initiative in this problem area.
###
CERRED to FORD