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 Clement Haynsworth.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1550990
label
White House - Congressional Leadership Meeting, 10/14/69 (includes minutes)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1550990
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
White House - Congressional Leadership Meeting, 10/14/69 (includes minutes)
description
This file includes information regarding Clement Haynsworth.
citationUrl
collections
Robert T. Hartmann Papers
House of Representatives Subject Files
subjects
Supreme Court of the United States. 2/2/1790-
Government salaries
Legislation
Legislative liaison
Presidential appointments
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1550990
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1969-10-31
month
10
year
1969
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1969-10-01
month
10
year
1969
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a44794df30ea10b4
ocrText
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
October 14, 1969
The President announced that we would have a briefing
on the Haynsworth nomination and introduced Mollenhoff.
He repeated much of the substance of the paper which he
prepared dated October 11 and entitled "Explanation of
the Haynsworth Case, a copy of which is attached.
Before he concluded, RMN got up and left the room and
in his absence, Tower addressed the VP and ventured
the thought that some Senators now uncommitted would
make a commitment of support if they were given absolute
assurances that there would be no retreat on the part of
the President or Haynsworth. The VP said he could not
speak for the President and would allow him to respond
when he returned. The VP asked for a list of the errors
in fact in which Senator Bayh is dealing. Mollenhoff
mentioned his statement concerning the Greenville case,
the Olin-Matheson case and the Kent Manafacturing
Company case.
Rhodes said that some of the most liberal Democrats in the
legal community were supporting Haynsworth and cited as
a conspicuous example Attorney John P. Frank of Arizona.
Morton asked if Haynsworth is charged with violating a
statute. Cook cited 28 USS 455 which defines the conduct
required of judges who have a "substantial interest" in a
litigant before them. With respect to the Canons of Judicial
Conguct, he called attention to the fact that they were not
adopted unitl 1968 after the cases cited by Senator Bayh
had been decided. Hruska pointed out that the statute cited
by Cook places in the hands of the judgethimself the discre-
tion to decide what is and what is not a "substantial interest."
Following miscellaneous dialogue concerning what assets a
judge should or should not own, RMN asked if the President
FORDO LIBRARY .: GERALD
2
should be reduced to appointing only paupers and college
professors to the Court. He expressed his view that if the
potential conflict of interest theme were carried to the
ultimate extremity, a federal judge could not own govern-
ment bonds since any decision he renders potentially
could affect their value in the market place.
Tower reiterated his point and waited for a reply from
the President. RMN turned to Mitchell. Mitchell said
that he had had a number of conversations with Haynsworth
and that he is convinced that Haynsworth has no intention
whatever of withdrawing. At this point, RMN began what
proved to be a 10-to-15 minute defense of Haynsworth.
He said that some lawyers feel that Haynsworth violated
the Canons of Ethics; some lawyers feel that he violated
the statute; still other lawyers, like the Washington Post
editorial, feel that when Haynsworth has been charged with
misconduct and some doubt about his ethical judgement has
been raised, the interests of the Court require that he
withdraw for be rejected by the Senate. While he said that
he respected the views of Republican Senators who took
this position, he could not accept their position. He said
that he had personally inquired carefully into the case; that
helhad asked Mitchell, Mollenhoff, Rehnquist, Walsh and
others to do so and that he had become entirely satisfied
that Haynsworth is simply the victim of a partisan attack
and is innocent of any conscious wrongdoing or impropriety.
He said that 6 judges who now sit on the Supreme Court own
a variety of stock in corporations involved, either directly
or through subsidiaries, in litigation pending before the Court.
To illustrate that he was not weeking to justify any conflict
of interest on his own part, he recalled that when he became
Vice President, he sold all of his stocks and bonds and
bought real estate. After 8 years in the Vice Presidency
at an annual salary of $45,000 a year, he left Washington
with barely $47. 000 in total assets. He chose Haynsworth
because he regarded him as the best judge on any circuit
FORD is LIBRARY 03RALD
3
bench and a man with the kind of philosophy he feels should
sit and in order to give the bench better balance. He said
again that all future appointments will be lawyers of the
same kind. With respect to future appointments, it can be
anticipated that similar attacks will be made by those who
object to the ideblogical persuasion of the nominee. His
final point impressed me deeply. "I hold in my hands the
fate of a man, 11 he said. "Nobody seems to care much
about that any more. I will not be party to destroying a
man." He said that he recognized that he could help himself
bywithdrawing the nomination. "All the liberals would clap,
but what would happen to him (Haynsworth)? What would
happen to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ?" With firm and
somewhat emotional emphasis, he said that he will stand by
Haynsworth if he gets only 1 vote in the Senate and then, to
break the tension, he looked squarely at the VP and said,
"Ted, you will vote for him, won't you?"
RMN then asked Dent to explain the advance procedure used
over the weekend in connection with the Presidential message
on the legislative program. Dent said that the staff worked
over time in corporation with the Republican National Com-
mittee, calling state chairmen, National Committeemen and
National Committeewomen and governors, advising them about
the Presidential messgge and urging them to give maximum
publicity to the fact that there are two administrations in
Washington, one in the White House and one on Capitol Hill.
RMN interrupted to say that this is the procedure that will
be followed on all major issues in the future. Ford said that
he approved the procedure and that he found enthusiastic
reaction to the speeches he made following the news stories
about the message. Scott said that he recognized the need
to take the neutral and non-inflamatory approach. He is
describing the President's words as a "reminder message. 11
Griffin agreed that the advance work amas "tremendous."
RMN said that his tone was carefully and deliberately temperate.
However, he wants the Leadership to be more vigorous in calling
FORO
LIDRART
4
attention to the delay that has ensued since legislative
messages on specific bills were sent to the Congress.
In some cases this delay has been more than 5 months.
He said that we should not allow the Democrats to get
away with the ploy that the Administration is late in
sending departmental reports to the Congress. The
Presidential message is a departmental report, and it
is fair to say that every major item in the Administration's
legislative package has been fully and favorable reported
by the departments to the Congress. We should also
remind the Democrats that they control both Houses 3 to 2,
and if they want to move a bill, they have the votes to move
it. We can run on action or we can run on the issue. We
would rather run on action.
Harlow said that next Thursday there would be a meeting
concerning economics and inflation, patterned after the
D.C. crime meeting held at the White House last Thursday.
Rhodes expressed surprise that the Abernathy Subcommittee
of the District of Columbia Committee feels that the package
cannot be enacted for at least 6 months. He said that
Abernathy's constituency certainly would favor the package.
I (Poff) interrupted to say that the Administration might
want to give some thought to separating the court reform
item in the package from the other items in the package.
This proposal, important as it is, has drawn the hostility
of bench and bar in the District of Columbia and some of
the Memisses of the Committee have strong feelings against
increasing the number of judges. These feelings have been
nourished in large part by the nature of the decisions which
some of these judges have rendered in recent years.
Turning to another subject, RMN gave flat, unequivocal
assurance that he will veto H.R. 13000, the postal pay bill
and that he will do it on television in prime time, showing
not only the process of veto, but explaining the reason.
GERALD 4. LIBRARY FORD
5
Copies of a letter dated October 13 addressed to Jerry
Ford were distributed among the leaders and the President
indicated that Ford was privileged to read the letter into
the record during floor debate and comment upon it in the
Republican Conference scheduled at 10:30 this morning.
Ford said that the strategy will be not to improve the bill
by amendment but to recommit it to the Committee, and he
expressed the hope that enough Republicans would vote to
recommit to indicate clearly that a veto would be sustained.
Allott expressed the hope that it will be possible soon to
announce some affirmative results in the fight against inflation.
RMN said that the present tight policies will be continued
this month andmext month and his present forecast is that
there will be a gradual turndown in prices over the next 4
or 5 months. We must maintain maneuverifiexibility. In
the spring, the conditions of the economy may require a move
away from tight policies. In light of the Republican Conference
in the House, the meeting adjourned early.
RICHARD H. POFF
RHP:MD
FIRED LIBRARY & GERALD
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 14, 1969
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
SENATOR HUGH SCOTT
AND
CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD
THE ROOSEVELT ROOM
AT 10:42 A.M. EDT
SENATOR SCOTT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
This morning the President and the Leadership
discussed several things: The Haynsworth nomination, the economic
questions, the October 15 moratorium, and others.
On the matter of the nomination of Judge Haynsworth,
the President expressed himself as firmly and unequivocally
determined to go forward with the nomination.
The President also has released a letter, which
Representative Ford will refer to, having to do with H.R. 13000,
the Postal Pay Bill.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Thank you, Hugh.
We also discussed, in addition to the letter that
I will summarize for you, the impact that some of us found
around the country over the weekend on the President's message,
which came to the House and Senate yesterday.
I was in Texas, Nevada, and Michigan over the weekend.
I can say that universally the public has responded to the
program the President has submitted. I think you will find
a great surge of public opinion insisting that the Congress
respond to the President's overall legislative package.
And I, for one, just as the President expressed it,
hope and trust that this Congress will act affirmatively on
this program. I don't think we ought to get into nitpicking
about who is at fault, if there is any blame. All of us
can be the beneficiaries of affirmative action. I think the
public is going to insist upon it.
One of the items that the House today is considering
involves H. R. 13000. It is a bill that, if in its present form
is passed, will add approximately $4.3 billion in Federal
expenditures. Secondly, if it is approved by the Congress
in its present form, it will undoubtedly undermine any
opportunity for bona fide, legitimate Post Office reform
legislation.
Because of its inflationary impact, and for the
other reasons that I previously mentioned, this bill, if it
comes to the President's desk in its present form, will be
unacceptable to the President of the United States.
MORE
- 2 -
I might add one paragraph, quoting from the
President's letter. "The increase which the Post Office
Department alone must absorb, for example, would require
cutbacks in a variety of services. They would include
the elimination of Saturday deliveries and window service
for rural, city and suburban areas alike."
If this legislation is enacted over the President's
veto, inevitably you are going to have just further deterioration
of Post Office Department service.
And I, therefore, hope and trust that the House
uses some good sense today and takes another look at this
kind of legislation.
I can add, as a supplement, that the President
has a group in the Executive Branch of the Government that
is working on pay comparability and pay problems for people
in the Executive Branch of the Government. But their recommenda-
tions certainly cannot follow the pattern of H. R. 13000.
SENATOR SCOTT: One last thing. Today is President
Eisenhower's birthday. We have been trying to get the
Eisenhower Dollar Legislation adopted by today in the Senate.
Senator Kennedy was in charge yesterday. There has been
some colloquy and it is our hope that that bill can be
disposed of today.
Q
Senator Scott, did you at any time write to
the President asking him not to make the Haynsworth appointment?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, sir, I did not.
Q
Senator, what did you talk about in regard to the
moratorium? What was your conclusion?
SENATOR SCOTT: Well, we, first of all, agreed that
there is no argument whatever in the fact that everyone
concerned, from the President down to every last American,
has the same objective: We are all for achieving peace.
Every President in recent years has known war.
And the President shares the anquish of spirit, which will be
exhibited tomorrow in memory of those who have fallen, and
in concern over the future course of America.
But the President is firmly on his course for peace.
His plan is a plan in progress. It is a plan which is the only
one in my judgment which offers an opportunity to achieve that
for which people will be demonstrating; that is, there is
only one negotiator at the top and if anyone has a better
plan than the President, obviously, everyone wants to hear it.
But no matter whose plan is offered, it has to be
implemented by the President. And he believes that his plan
is the working one; that it will work; that we will get out of
this war; and that we will do it as expeditiously as the sum
total of events will permit.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
Senator, do you find that it is the President's
view that the demonstration such as tomorrow will delay
the possibility of negotiating a settlement or hinder the
efforts to get a negotiated settlement?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President has made no such
statement, nor do I think that peaceful demonstrations would
impede or delay a settlement. I think that violence, those
people who want peace so much that they would fight everybody
in sight to get it, would probably be a counter-productive
effort.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: If I might add a comment. I
think it is well to point out that President Eisenhower, whose
birthday it is today, ended the war in Korea and the plan
that President Nixon has will end the war in Vietnam. But
there can only be one quarterback.
The American people selected President Nixon as
the quarterback for at least this four-year period.
I might use this analogy. This is the football
season. Joe Namath is a great quarterback. The New York
Jets seem to be doing pretty well with one quarterback. If
they had 11 Joe Namaths on the field, I don't think the
New York Jets would win very many football games.
I happen to believe that we have a good quarterback.
He has a good plan. I think it will be successful and will
get peace in Vietnam.
Q
What is your position on the all-night
marathon that some of the Democrats want in the House?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: As far as I am concerned, if
they want to go on all night, I am not going to object to it
personally. I think there may be some others who might do
otherwise. But if they wish to proceed that way, and as
long as they present reasonable arguments for the continuation,
fine.
They are going to take an awful lot of time to come
up with some ideas that I think they might more succinctly
submit through other channels.
SENATOR SCOTT: There might be occasion, if Members
of Congress want to have night sessions, to consider such
matters as obscenity, pornography, crime in the District
of Columbia, bail reform, and all the crime bills.
I haven't heard anybody offer to work overtime
on any of the pending legislation of that kind.
Q
Senator, yesterday in the Senate, if I am
not mistaken, you asked those who were introducing resolutions
opposed to the President's course to ask themselves the
question which side are they on. What did you mean by that?
MORE
- 4 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I didn't direct it to the people
introducing resolutions. I said to all those people who
share a common concern for peace, all the people who demonstrate,
all the people who will gather on October 15, ought to ask
themselves what side are they on, because it seems to me that
if Americans will examine the fact that they have only one
negotiator, not that they should agree with everything that
he says or does, but that they should give him the fullest
opportunity to bring about a peace.
I think it is a proper inquiry.
2
Is the implication of that question that these
people are not on the President's side, they are on the side
of Hanoi?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, the implication is not that.
The implication is not that they are the enemy.
The implication is that the enemy cites statements
made by Americans and that, therefore, Americans need to be
responsive in everything they say so as not to unwillingly
or unintentionally give information to Hanoi which can be
used as an argument that America is divided and therefore they
don't have anything to talk to us about.
2
Senator, Scott, when the Haynsworth nomination
reaches the Senate Floor, will you vote for it or against it?
SENATOR SCOTT: I will be glad to tell you at that
time. I expect the nomination to be approved.
Q
You said that economic questions were discussed
in the leadership meeting. Could you elaborate on that?
Is the President satisfied that his policies are working at
this point?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President is satisfied that his
policies are working. He is satisfied that inflation can be
brought under control, that the policies can be and are
being made effective, and that this can be done and it is
possible and feasible at the same time to hold down the
level of unemployment; that they are in a period where
certain Administration actions have to be taken.
From there, we may well move to a period where some
of these things can be lightened or lessened in their effect.
But, first, we must go through a period of some time in order
to hold the inflationary monster back and he believes that
that is being achieved. It is now in process.
Q
Senator, I am concerned about the apparent
contradictions between two things you said on this
moratorium. You said you saw no objection to a peaceful
demonstration by Americans.
SENATOR SCOTT: I am glad there are only two.
Q
Yet, you also seemed to me to be saying that
this kind of thing gives aid and comfort to the enemy in
terms of making the enemy think that this country is divided
and not following the President. How can you support the
peaceful demonstration and also say the other?
MORE
- 5 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I can support a peaceful demonstration
and urge, one, that it be peaceful; urge, two, that it
be constructive; urge, three, that it be responsive; urge,
four, that those who do it be very careful that in so doing
they are giving aid and comfort to the country's negotiators
and not aid and comfort to anyone else. I think it is a
proper request.
Q
Do you think this demonstration tomorrow meets
your criteria as a legitimate demonstration?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have no way of knowing what tomorrow
will bring forth. That is one of the excitements of my job and
one of the burdens of it.
I would assume the way it is being organized that
there is every honest intention for it to be a peaceful
demonstration on the part of the organizers.
I am equally certain that there are disruptive
forces in America who will try to exploit it. I hope
they are not successful.
Ω Senator, I am a little puzzled by your decision
not to let us know how you are going to vote on the
Haynsworth thing at this time. Does that indicate that you
want to still hear more facts, that you are not convinced that
he is as clean
-
SENATOR SCOTT: It simply indicates that, as a
Senator, I have long refused to indicate my vote on matters
of the highest interest. We will have a much greater amount
of publicity if I keep you guessing.
Q
Senator, is there any chance that that vote
might not come before the end of this session?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have not heard that seriously
postulated. I think it is likely to come well before the
end of the session.
0
Senator, as the Republican Leadership in the
Senate, since you don't want to make your plans public on
Judge Haynsworth, can you tell us whether or not you have
indicated to the other Republican Senators what your plans
are?
MORE
- 6 -
SENATOR SCOTT: I have not indicated to other
Republican Senators what may happen with their votes or with
mine other than to attempt to secure an estimate on how the
votes are going.
Some are for it, some are against it, and some are
uncommitted. I am not prepared to tell you what the count is,
because it is incomplete. Until I have that, I am not
prepared to say.
Q
Have you told the President how you will vote?
SENATOR SCOTT: I have discussed the matter with
the President. Beyond that, I, again, am not prepared to say.
Q
Do you anticipate the President's message this
week on inflation will contain any new initiatives or rather
would be a re-statement on what he has done so far and how it
is working?
SENATOR SCOTT: Which message?
Q
The White House said yesterday the President
will have a message on inflation.
SENATOR SCOTT: I think Jerry could answer that
better.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: It is my understanding that there
will not be a message, as such. But there will be a full and
complete discussion at the White House with the individuals in
the Congress who have charge of legislation involving the
anti-inflation fight.
This will come sometime this week. It will be
a resume of where we are, what we have to do, and an indication
of the fact that we have turned the corner in the battle against
inflation by the responsible fiscal and monetary policies of
this Administration.
But as far as I know, it will not be a message, as
such.
MR. ZIEGLER: The President didn't cover this in specific
terms this morning in the general discussion of inflation.
But there is a plan for the President to possibly have an
address on inflation this week.
Q
Senator, will the Haynsworth nomination be
hurt in the Senate by Sunday's less than unaminous
endorsement of him by the ABA's committee in New York?
SENATOR SCOTT: Will it be hurt?
0
Will it be hurt?
SENATOR SCOTT: The Senate is the forum for debate.
Undoubtedly, people will raise that point and others will
argue that the American Bar Association has reaffirmed its
earlier position.
MORE
- 7 -
I can't anticipate what Senators will say. I
can only tell you what the President's position is, and that
is firmly and unequivocably in support of the nomination,
and that I expect it to be confirmed.
Q Has the President reviewed the factual situation,
or the charges, back and forth, or did somebody on the staff
review it with the leaders?
SENATOR SCOTT: Mr. Mollenhoff made a presentation
this morning and there was general discussion.
Q
Do you know, and if you do, will you tell us
who asked the Bar Association to take another look at
Judge Haynsworth?
SENATOR SCOTT: I can clarify one thing: I am
not the person who did.
The answer is I have heard only by rumor who
made the request, and I am not really qualified to simply
give you the benefit of the rumor.
I think I know. But I know it was not myself. I
saw Mr. Segal on the day in question and spoke to him
regarding two Pennsylvania Judgeships. I spoke rather
urgently. I am sorry to say he doesn't agree with me.
2 Congressman Ford, I think you said that the
President would indicate that we have turned the corner
on inflation.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: That is correct.
Q
Is that his view or is it yours?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: That is the President's view;
that the policies that we have been following under this
Administration have taken the first big step in turning the
corner on inflation.
I think you will find, not tomorrow, maybe not for
a month or two, some very substantive benefits from this
effective battle against inflation.
We are optimistic that we can look forward in
the near future to effects that will be helpful as far as the
consumer is concerned without any rise of any significance in
unemployment.
Q
Congressman, was it your intention to describe
the President as the Joe Namath of American politics?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No. I was using only that
as an illustration. I could pick any one of other first-
class quarterbacks in both pro football and in college football.
Archie Manning down in Mississippi is a pretty good
one. But I don't think Archie Manning would win many football
games if he was out there all by himself.
MORE
- 8 -
I think you have to have one quarterback. We have
a good one. I think he is going to win this battle against
Hanoi, and achieve and be successful in accomplishing
peace in America.
Q
Congressman, the coach sends in a player
now and then, doesn't he?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: He does. But some of these people
who are making suggestions, I don't think, would qualify
as very high-class coaches.
So I think we ought to stick with a quarterback
who is making some successful accomplishments, a 20-percent
reduction in the combat forces of the U.S. military
personnel in Vietnam; a 12-percent reduction in overall
U.S. military personnel in Vietnam. That is making head-
way in achieving peace and disengaging the United States.
You know, most of these grandstand quarterbacks
never play a ball game. But they have got lots of advice.
They wouldn't know how to play the ball game if they were
on the field.
The American people selected one quarterback. He is
doing a good job. I just don't think we ought to have a whole
football field of quarterbacks out there in this crucial battle
that involves the lives and future of a good many young
Americans.
SENATOR SCOTT: I am still going to keep my lights
on tomorrow. I may be the only person in the whole country, but
I am doing it.
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I am joining you.
Q Congressman Ford, in addition to criticizing
the committee-passed bill on postal matters, what positive
suggestions do you have for changing it?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: I think we will rely on two
things:
As I said, the President has a committee now working
on comparability and other pay problems in the Federal
Civil Service and postal service.
This group, we hope, will come up with some
constructive programs to make sure that Federal employees are
adequately compensated, have adequate opportunities for
promotion, et cetera.
Secondly, if we did get the President's postal
reform legislation through the Congress, it means that about
850,000 postal employees will have a better opportunity for
better working conditions, better pay, better incentives,
et cetera.
But the fact that the Congress apparently at this
moment is sitting on and not moving ahead with the
President's postal reform legislation is harmful to the best
interests of the 850,000-some postal employees in
the Federal service.
MORE
- 9 -
Q
Has that been reported out of
committee, just for background?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: No. Last week, they had a crucial
vote whether to take up the President's postal reform
legislation, or whether to take Chairman Dulski's bill.
And on a 13-to-13 vote, they agreed to put in the background
temporarily the President's postal reform bill and to
consider the Dulski bill. But I would like to make this
observation:
Q
That is the one you are aiming at, the Dulski
bill?
CONGRESSMAN FORD: Let me give you a little fill on
what I think is going to be the progress of this.
I suspect now the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service will report out the Dulski bill, which is not
really meaningful postal reform.
I presume they will get a rule. Then the crucial
test will come in the House of Representatives. If we are
unable to substitute the President's postal reform bill,
which has some real reform in it, then the committee
as a whole will offer a motion to recommit and get a role
call so the people will have a chance to know whether you are
going to have this superficial reform or meaningful reform.
I think the public will insist in the final
analysis on meaningful reform.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 11:05 A.M. EDT)
HOUSE ACTION, PERIOD OCTOBER 7 THROUGH OCTOBER 13
Tuesday, October 7, 1969
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AUTHORIZATION
RULE (OPEN)
By voice vote, the House adopted H.Res.475, providing one hour
of debate.
PASSAGE
By a record vote of 384 yeas to 5 nays, the House passed H.R. 10878,
to authorize appropriations for activities of the National Science
Foundation.
CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT
The House cleared for the President H.R.9825, to amend subchapter
III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States Code, relating to
civil service retirement, by concurring to the Senate amendment
thereto.
Wednesday, October 8, 1969
PUBLIC WORKS AND ATOMIC ENERGY APPROPRIATIONS
PASSAGE
By a record vote of 396 yeas to 3 nays, the House passed H.R. 14159,
Public Works and Atomic Energy Appropriations Act for FY 1970.
Prior to passage, the previous question was ordered (Mr. Dingell)
by a record vote of 215 yeas to 187 nays.
Also prior to passage, the Minshall amendment that would have
increased funding for construction grants for waste treatment
works by $400 million, was rejected by a teller vote of 146 yeas
to 148 nays.
RECOMMIT
The motion by Mr. Bow to recommit the bill to the Committee on
Appropriations was rejected by a voice vote.
BERALD LIBRARY FORD
- 2 -
Thursday, October 9, 1969
RAILROAD EMPLOYEES HOURS OF SERVICE
RULE (OPEN)
The House adopted H.Res.536 by a voice vote, to provide one hour
of debate.
PASSAGE
By a record vote of 370 yeas, the House passed H.R.8449, to amend
the act entitled, "An act to promote the safety of employees
and travelers upon railroads by limiting the hours of service
of employees thereon," approved March 4, 1907.
Prior to passage, the House agreed by a voice vote to the
Preyer amendment that provides for exemption from the pro-
visions of this act for railroads which employ not more
than 15 employees; exception can be granted by the Secretary
of Transportation.
EDUCATIONAL TV AND RADIO
RULE (OPEN)
The House adopted H.Res.526 by a voice vote, to provide for one
hour of debate.
PASSAGE
By a record vote of 279 yeas to 21 nays, with one voting "present",
the House passed H.R.7737, to amend the Communications Act of
1934 by extending the provisions thereof relating to grants for
construction of educational television or radio broadcasting
facilities and the provisions relating to support of the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
RECOMMIT
By a record vote of 131 yeas to 190 nays, the House rejected a
motion by Mr. Brown of Ohio to recommit the bill to the Committee
on Interstate and Foreign Commerce with instructions to report
it back with a $10 million cut in funding for the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting.
FORD LIBRARY &
- 3 -
AGRICULTURAL APPROPRIATIONS
The House disagreed to the amendments of the Senate to H.R. 11612,
Department of Agriculture and related agencies appropriations
for FY 1970, and agreed to a conference asked by the Senate.
Representatives Whitten, Natcher, Hull, Shipley, Evans of Colorado,
Mahon, Langen, Michel, Edwards of Alabama and Bow were appointed
as conferees.
A motion was made by Mr. Conte to instruct managers on the part
of the House to insist on the $20,000 subsidy payment limitation.
Subsequently, on a motion by Mr. Whitten, the House agreed to
table the Conte motion regarding instructing House managers,
by a record vote of 181 yeas to 177 nays.
Monday, October 13, 1969
District Day (No Bills)
Columbus Day (No Legislative Business)
Tuesday, October 14, 1969 and Balance of Week
H.R.13000
Federal Salary Comparability Act of 1969 (Open Rule - Two
Hours of Debate)
H.R.14127
To carry out the recommendations of the Joint Commission
on the Coinage (Open Rule - Two Hours of Debate)
H.R.4293
Export Control Act Extension (Open Rule - One Hour of Debate)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 14, 1969
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TEXT OF THE LETTER FROM THE
PRESIDENT TO GERALD R. FORD
Dear Jerry:
I must frankly advise that our critically important national effort to contain
inflation is bound to be seriously undercut if the federal employee pay bill
now before the House were to become law.
In its present form H. R. 13000 would add approximately $4. 3 billion a year
to federal expenditures. It would balloon expenditures in the remainder of
this fiscal year by $1. 5 billion.
Spending increases of this magnitude cannot avoid nullifying many of the
steps we have recently taken to stabilize the economy.
Less than three months ago, the Congress reflected the nation's determina-
tion to control inflation by imposing an expenditure ceiling on the current
fiscal year. I gave a commitment at that time to restrict expenditures for
this fiscal year to $192. 9 billion. In keeping with this limitation I am
cutting federal expenditures for this year by an additional $3. 5 billion.
But if H. R. 13000 should become law, additional deep cuts in federal
services would have to be made.
The increase which the Post Office Department alone must absorb, for
example, would require cut-backs in a variety of services. They would
include the elimination of Saturday deliveries and window service for
rural, city and suburban areas alike.
Since our total expenditures must be limited, a new round of heavy pay
increases for federal employees would be in effect a mandate to reduce,
abruptly, the number of federal employees.
The national interest clearly requires reconsideration of H.R. 13000 because
of its inflationary impact. Furthermore, it would grant disproportionate
benefits to postal employees. These increases should be reexamined in
light of another major legislative proposal now before Congress. Improve-
ments in the condition of the postal worker are long overdue, but they
ought to be secured through total reform of the present outmoded, inefficient
and costly postal system.
The postal reform I have urged provides for the setting of wage levels for
postal employees through collective bargaining. Any major increase in
postal worker benefits should be secured through this process, or as
part of legislation establishing a government-owned postal corporation
which will have the means of operating, ultimately, on a self-sustaining
basis.
I solicit your personal leadership in urging the House to recognize that,
however appealing H. R. 13000 may appear politically at this moment,
the consequences of its enactment would surely generate strong resent-
ments throughout the public far outweighing presently anticipated political
gains.
/s/ Richard Nixon
###
FORD LIBRAR