Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to Dwight Eisenhower.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525458
label
Ford Newsletter, January-February 1960
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525458
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Newsletter, January-February 1960
description
This file contains material relating to Dwight Eisenhower.
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Newsletters
subjects
Soviet Union
Civil rights
Federal aid to education
Federal budget
Legislation
National security
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525458
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1960-02-29
month
2
year
1960
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1960-01-01
month
1
year
1960
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
ae8c0622d8a366e6
ocrText
This document scanned from Box D2 of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
January 13, 1960
I am pleased to greet you with this, the first issue of the "Washington Review" for
1960 and for the second session of the 86th Congress. Since my last report in September
a sizable number of names have been added to our mailing list, and I especially want
to welcome our new readers. It is my purpose in this weekly "Review" to comment on
significant legislative items and to analyze certain current policies and practices of
the Federal Government. We invite correspondence from readers and from all our consti-
tuents in the belief that the exchange of views is always mutually beneficial.
Our 28-stop tour of Kent and Ottawa Counties from September 22nd to November 17th
brought over a thousand folks to the Mobile Office for a visit or a hand-shake. Our
discussions on this tour, which was the fifth, seemed to demonstrate a greater degree
of satisfaction and a smaller number of personal problems than we had witnessed on any
of the previous tours.
I returned to Washington on November 20th and, except for a speaking engagement
and committee trip to the West Coast in December, stayed close to home until Christmas.
During the week before New Year's Betty and I took Mike and Jack to Boyne Mountain for
some Michigan skiing. The little ones, Steve and Susan, remained at home where they
continue to keep most of the household in a state of confusion with their Christmas toys.
Santa was most thoughtful at our home. We are extremely grateful for the many kind
remembrances at Christmas time. -
CONGRESS CONVENES: Congress opened its session last Wednesday noon in an atmos-
phere considerably relaxed by the announcement of the settlement of the labor-management
dispute in the steel industry. Many had feared that further legislation would become
necessary to resolve this situation. With that eventuality removed, the major develop-
ment of the opening day revolved about a civil rights bill. This issue is scheduled
for debate in the Senate shortly, while a specific bill (H. R. 8601) containing five
of the seven civil rights proposals of President Eisenhower is presently with the House
Committee on Rules. We cannot predict at this time what will take place on this issue.
Tax revision has had a prominent place in the news this fall as the Committee on
Ways and Means continued its hearings. These hearings were designed to evaluate our
present tax policies, to determine how to plug unjustifiable loopholes in the tax law,
and how to eliminate obvious inequities in the tax system, but at the same time to
provide an adequate revenue for the Federal Treasury. No easy task to be sure.
Chairman Mills of the Committee has warned that we should expect no tax reduction in the
near future.
Federal Aid to Education will again be pushed during this session. The Metcalf
Bill (H. R. 22), approved by the Committee on Education and Labor last June, calls for
a new expenditure of over $1 billion annually by the taxpayers for school construction
and teachers' salaries. The money will be distributed to the states without regard
to their need or to the degree to which they have sincerely tried to meet their own
obligations. I have consistently supported federal assistance for those states and
school districts which have demonstrated a willingness to tax themselves heavily for
educational purposes but lack the economic base to provide adequate schools. I can
see no justification for further burdening Michigan taxpayers to build schools and pay
teachers in New York, California, and such states which have adequate resources of
their own. Of course, any new federal spending program must be analyzed in reference
to the present and future status of the U. S. Treasury.
I believe one area in which a greater effort is needed is in our space program.
Both the Administration and the Congress must share in the responsibility for our
present position. In the past two years the Congress has failed to provide all the
funds requested by the President for our work in astronautics. In the last two sessions
Congress has cut $81 million from the President's Budget for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. But the Administration, likewise, has not been as vigorous
as it should have been in pushing NASA's program and has failed in some instances to
provide a needed "back-up" or reserve in money and "Hardware" for insuring that the
United States would move forward rapidly in this new area. I expect to see improvement
in 1960 with the President's announcement that the "space budget" will be doubled in
the next fiscal year.
STATE OF THE UNION: President Eisenhower's State of the Union Message of 1960 was
the finest that I have heard. In it he could describe the state of the union as the
finest and best in the past decade. He could predict a safe and prosperous future.
For those dedicated to a sound economy, it was "good news" that this year's
budget will be balanced and that we may expect a $4 billion surplus in 1961. But the
dedicated "spenders" were unhappy. On the day of the message, the Administration was
publically labelled as "cheapskate" and portrayed as concerned only with the cash
register while the "ship of state" floundered on the rocks.
The struggle to maintain a stable economy, to preserve the value of the dollar,
and to prevent runaway inflation will continue during this session. Your Congressman will
do all he can to protect the pocketbook of every citizen and to preserve the fiscal
integrity of the U. S. Government.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
January 20, 1960
"The impression in some quarters that the Soviet Union has overtaken or even out-
distanced the United States in military power is simply not supported by the facts."
In light of the wailing by certain politicians that the United States has become a
second-rate power, this statement of Secretary of Defense Thomas Gates is highly
significant. The Secretary went on to say that "It is the conclusion of those who
have analyzed this matter that even a surprise attack by all the missiles the Soviets
could muster would not suffice to destroy enough of our retaliatory strike forces to
enable him to make a rational decision to attack."
After hearing the testimony of Secretary Gates, which was supported by that of
Gen. Nathan Twining, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I can say, as I have said
before, that our defenses are strong and our national security is well protected.
There's no question that the Soviets lead us in development of very large rocket
engines. But, again to quote Secretary Gates, "The thrust of our (U.S.) present missiles
is fully adequate for defense requirements of today." Our over-all defense and deterent
program does not depend upon our long-range missile capability alone, but upon a whole
family of weapons. When we examine the weapon family in its entirety and our defense
program in its over-all aspects, we must conclude that we are militarily able to achieve
our two primary objectives: deterring a general war, and preventing or winning any
local or limited conflict.
It seems to me that in any discussion of our national security policy it is well
to heed the warning of Secretary Gates when he said, "We must be ever cautious not to
underestimate the military strength of possible opponents, but it does not contribute
to our national security to overestimate their military strength. It can be dangerous
to our national security and our position in the world to allow a false impression to
gain ground that the United States is second to the Soviet Union." We are NOT second,
and I can assure you that both the Congress and the President are going to make sure
we do not become second now or in the future.
Secretary Gates and Gen. Twining testified before our Subcommittee on Appropriations
for the Department of Defense. We also heard Mr. Allen Dulles, head of the Central
Intelligence Agency, give his evaluation of the latest developments throughout the world
which have a bearing on our national security. It is based upon such facts as these
authorities present that the Subcommittee analyzes and evaluates the President's
$41 billion Defense Department budget designed to keep America strong.
Because in any session of Congress the appropriation bills are essential legislation,
the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives has already begun intensive
work. The Congress, representing the taxpayers, must approve the expenditures of federal
revenue. This is done by means of appropriation bills initially recommended by the House
Committee on Appropriations (30 Democrats; 20 Republicans in this Congress) which holds
extensive hearings to require the administrators to justify their proposed expenditures.
INTEREST RATES ON TREASURY ISSUES: In a special message last week, President
Eisenhower again requested the Congress to remove the interest limitation (4½ per cent)
on long-term (5 years or more) Treasury bonds. Because of this limitation on the
interest which Uncle Sam can pay on long-term bonds, he simply can't sell his bonds.
Investors can get better rates of return from other sources and consequently don't buy
Treasury bonds. As a result, the Treasury must borrow its money on short-terms (less
than five years) by the use of Treasury bills, certificates, or notes on which there is
no Congressional limit on interest rates.
On January 12 the Treasury borrowed $11/2 billion by the use of one-year Treasury bills
and had to pay 5.07% interest in order to get the money. Secretary Anderson is
certain he could sell long-term bonds for less than 5 per cent but not for 4½ per cent.
Because the Treasury can't borrow on long terms, it must enter the short-term market
and compete for money with Mr. Smith who is buying a car or Mrs. Jones who is getting a
new washing machine. This competition from Uncle Sam forces up the interest rate for
Mr. Smith and Mrs. Jones. If the Congress would permit the Treasury to pay "the going
rate" for long-term bonds, the U. S. would save money on interest charges, and all the
Smiths and Joneses would be free to borrow for short terms without government competition.
This could result in lower interest charges for John Q. Public on short-term loans.
President Eisenhower has again requested this relief in private and federal borrowing
which the Democratic-controlled Congress refused to grant last year. Competent debt-
management, sound economics, and common sense demand that affirmative action be taken
this year.
FARM SURPLUSES ON HAND: As a stockholder in the Federal Government, you owned $8.6
billion worth of surplus agricultural products at the end of the last fiscal year
(June 30, 1959). Over $2.4 billion were in commodities under loan, while $6.2 billion
was the value in goods held in storage for the goverrment. Storage costs alone last year
amount to $481,659,000 or $1.3 million per day.
It is significant to note that of the total, the six commodities declared "basic"
by the Congress (wheat, corn, cotton, tobacco, rice, and peanuts) accounted for $7.3
billion of the goods on hand. The storage costs for these "basics" was $358.6 million
or about $1 million a day. Yet it is a fact that these so-called "basics" bring in
only about 20 per cent of the total farm income.
It continues to be increasingly evident that the present farm price-support program
does not work, is excessively costly, and benefits primarily a few large producers.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
January 27, 1960
BALANCED BUDGET AND FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY. The President has submitted a budget
for the fiscal year 1961 calling for $79.8 billion in expenditures and receipts of
$84 billion with an anticipated surplus of $4.2 billion.
We are getting used to figures of that magnitude as the American economy grows
and our population increases approximately 3 million persons each year. Yet the interest
charges in this budget alone exceed the total Federal Budget expenditures in 1940, only
twenty years ago. In that year Uncle Sam spent a total of $9 billion; next year he will
pay $9.6 billion in interest alone. Interest payments of this sizable amount are the
penalty of deficit financing in the 1930's, the 1940's, and to some extent in the last
decade.
The interest charges on the national debt have become the second highest single
expenditure of the federal government. While 54c of your tax dollar goes for insuring
the national security, 11c goes to pay the interest on the debt. This fact, combined
with the fact that today the national debt stands at $292 billion, must be included
in any discussion of a Treasury surplus. President Eisenhower understood this when
he said in his State-of-the-Union Message, "Personally, I do not feel that any amount
can be properly called a surplus as long as the Nation is in debt; I prefer to think
of such an item as a reduction of our children's inherited mortgage."
This generation has seen the "national mortgage" rise from $16 billion in 1930
to $292 billion today. We can hardly be proud of any policy which would increase or
continue this burden for transmission to children and grandchildren. One would not
expect proposals to "hold the line" on Federal spending or to remove some of the debt
burden to be subject to serious criticism.
Yet a leading Washington newspaper could only bemoan the President's budget as
"consecrated to the attainment of a budget surplus." It found that the Administration's
"narrow view of Federal economic responsibilities and of the Nation's priority needs"
to have been "unabashedly acknowledged" in the Budget Message. Editorially it went
on to say "as for spending, the President's expenditure estimates hardly constitute
an affirmation of faith in the nation's capacities."
Apparently this editor would spend more, tax more, meet everyone's "needs,"
realistic or imaginary--but by no means reduce the debt, cut expenditures, or consider
the taxpayer. Your Congressman agrees with the President's views on economy in
government and the need for a reduction in our federal debt. However, Ike and those
who support his views on fiscal responsibility are vigorously opposed by those who
have no concern for you, the taxpayer, the person who foots the bill. The so-called
"liberals" are often nothing more than liberal with someone else's money. This also
points up the fact that it does make a difference who is elected to public office.
There is a difference among men and political parties on such fundamental issues as
Federal spending and taxation.
I believe the President has presented a budget which will meet the needs of the
country. I am most familiar with the Defense Department budget and am confident that
the proposed expenditure of $41 billion will provide us with a strong and versatile
defense.
A SAFETY MEASURE: Interest has been renewed, especially in the Lansing-Jackson
area, in your Congressman's bill (H.R. 1005) to require reflectors or luminous material
on the sides of railroad cars so they can be more readily seen at night. Last month
two youths were killed when one night their automobile struck a tank car on a freight
train crossing a road near Webberville. Many who are familiar with the accident believe
that it might have been avoided if the cars of the train were properly marked.
This legislation was originally introduced following a similar accident near
Marne some years ago. The Interstate Commerce Commission recommends passage of the
bill which specifically directs the ICC to require reflectors or luminous material on
railroad cars. The Department of Commerce has said it will accept the recommendation
of the ICC. The bill is with the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce
which to date has taken no affirmative action on the proposal. We will continue to
press for favorable consideration during this session.
CHEMICALS AND FOOD: Recently we have received considerable correspondence on
the question of food additives. Last summer the Congress passed the Delaney Amendment
which prohibits the sale of any food item in which cancer-producing residue is found.
It was under this Act that Secretary Fleming made his announcement on certain cran-
berries and later on certain poultry products. This action by the Secretary created
problems and raised questions. We have heard from both producers and consumers, with
emphasis varying accordingly.
The recent statement of Secretary of Agriculture Benson that "our food supply in
the United States is the safest, cleanest, and most wholesome in the world" is therefore
of significance. The Secretary reported further that his Department intends "to
continue and intensify its efforts to insure that American consumers get the foods they
need and want and that these foods continue to meet the highest standard of nutri-
tional quality and wholesomeness."
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
February 3, 1960
The legislative mill turned slowly, barely moving last week, but political sparks
continued to fly in both the House and Senate. The leadership scheduled no legislation
for House action, but "national security' and "civil rights" provided the fuel for
political oratory.
The charges that the United States has altered its method of evaluating "intelli-
gence" data about the enemy have left many citizens confused, as charges and counter-
charges were hurled back and forth. The confirmation of Thomas Gates as Secretary of
Defense was held up temporarily while politicians discussed the meaning of the
"capability" and "intention" of the Soviet Union as based on facts obtained and analyzed
by our defense officials.
Let me emphasize, first of all, that our national defense program is set up solely
to provide for our national security. In establishing that program one of the basic
elements considered is the potential power of the enemy. The more we learn about the
enemy's activities and his plans, the more accurately we can judge his intentions. As
we find out more about him, we are better able to forecast his intentions, and to
get a more realistic picture of his capabilities.
Initially, however, our intelligence experts estimate "capability." We may know,
for example, of a certain Soviet factory which is capable of producing 10 aircraft of
"X" design per month. At the outset we must assume that 10 "X" aircraft are being
produced or will be produced. But as our "intelligence" becomes more accurate, we
learn that this factory is actually producing only 5 aircraft per month. We then have
a clearer picture of the enemy's "intention." Now, if we learn further that the
production schedule in this factory calls for a gradual reduction in "X" aircraft
production, we are able to refine our analysis of the opponent's "intention." This
illustrates what Allen Dulles, CIA Chief, meant when he said, "First, we assess the
Soviet capabilities in each of these fields (military hardware of all types) and then
as the evidence accumulates and as a pattern begins to emerge, we reach our estimate
as to the likely construction program."
During the past year we have obtained more information about actual facts on
Soviet military production so that we now can judge Ear more accurately their obvious
intentions in missile, aircraft, or submarine construction. We do not have to be content
with an estimation of their capabilities. The collection and analysis of this
"intelligence" by highly competent experts goes on continually. The results are used
in formulating our military plans which are in constant revision to meet changing world
conditions. As a member of a congressional committee close to the Department of Defense,
I can say that I have complete confidence in the U. S. military program. We can meet
any emergency, large or small, now or in the future.
CIVIL RIGHTS: Democratic members of the House filled 46 pages of last Wednesday's
"Congressional Record" to explain their predicament over the Civil Rights Bill. The
bill, H. R. 8601, containing a number of President Eisenhower's proposals for civil-
rights legislation, has been approved by the House Committee on Education and Labor.
The bill is presently with the Committee on Rules which acts as a "traffic officer"
to direct the flow of legislation to the floor of the House for consideration and a vote.
This Committee, composed of 8 Democrats and 4 Republicans, has refused to send H. R. 8601
to the floor. It can do so by a majority vote. Because the Democrats control the
House of Representatives by a count of 280 to 152, they control the Committee on Rules,
and rightly should under our American system.
Because their "traffic cop" (the Committee on Rules) has stopped the Civil Rights
Bill, certain Democrats have offered a petition to remove him long enough to get H. R.
8601 past his corner and onto the floor of the House. They must have 219 names on
the petition and notwithstanding their overwhelming majority, they can't get the names
from their own party.
If this bill gets to the floor, I will vote for it, as will an overwhelming number
of Republicans. Republicans have reserved the right to sign the discharge petition.
They have reserved this right because there are other parliamentary methods for bringing
up the legislation and they do not want to interfere with the normal method of getting
bills to the floor unless that becomes absolutely necessary.
Rules of the House provide that on two days each month the Speaker (leader of the
majority party) can use his discretion to recognize members for the purpose of suspending
the rules and bringing up legislation without waiting for the Rules Committee. This
enables the majority leaders to by-pass their own "traffic cop." They don't need a
discharge petition to suspend him.
Another procedure known as "Calendar Wednesday" provides a means whereby the
majority can bring legislation directly from the Judiciary Committee to the House floor.
The majority leadership refuses to try this method as a way to get around their Committee
on Rules.
If it becomes evident that the Democratic leadership is going to make the Civil
Rights Bill a purely political issue, I may sign this discharge petition as I did a
similar one in 1957. However, I would much prefer to see this desirable legislation
enacted through the normal legislative procedures.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
February 10, 1960
The first roll-call votes of this session occurred last Tuesday when three bills
were passed "under suspension of the rules." This procedure, which requires a 2/3 vote
for passage, prohibits amendments from the floor, and limits debate, by-passes the
Committee on Rules.
By a vote of 278 to 116 the House approved a bill to remove for two years the 2½
percent duty on imported natural amorphous graphite, a mineral used for foundry facings,
and in the manufacture of pencils and paints, dry-cell batteries, lubricants, and brush
stock for electric motors. Only one percent of this product used in the United States
is produced here; 99 percent is imported from Mexico, Canada, Ceylon, and Norway. It is
one of the materials listed as strategic and critical for stockpiling purposes by the
Federal Government. I saw no good reason to oppose this measure which was recommended
by all interested executive departments of the government.
The question of whether the Panamanian Flag should fly in the Canal Zone was in-
volved in House Concurrent Resolution 459, also approved last Tuesday. A concurrent
resolution is not presented to the President for signature and does not have the effect
of law. When approved by both the House and Senate (one body "concurring" in the state-
ment of the other), it expresses the opinion or recommendation of the Congress on a
given issue.
There is some indication that as a result of anti-United States sentiment in
Panama, our government is considering a proposal authorizing the use of the Panamanian
Flag in the Canal Zone. This would alter a 57-year policy and would give visible evidence
to whatever "titular sovereignty" the Republic of Panama may have over the Canal Zone.
The House of Representatives feels, and I agree, that this is no time to yield to
any "mob demands" in Panama and voted 381 to 12 in support of the Resolution, the effect
of which is to recommend that only the U. S Flag fly in the Canal Zone.
The third roll call last Tuesday was on another concurrent resolution, H. Con.Res.
465. This was to express the indignation of the Congress at the wave of desecration of
places of worship in many parts of the world, including our own country. It calls upon
governments and all people to help prevent the recurrence of such events. The resolution
was adopted 392 to 0.
DISPOSAL OF FARM SURPLUS: A recent item on agricultural surpluses prompted a reader
to ask, "Why not give away the commodities?" During the fiscal year 1959, the Department t
of Agriculture disposed of $2.6 billion worth of surplus commodities (cost value).
This was about equally divided between exports abroad and distribution domestically.
Here at home the goods go to needy individuals, to various institutions, and to the
school-lunch program. A total of $179 million represented outright donations, The
remainder was sold or used in barter.
In 1958, the Department disposed of $3.4 billion worth of surplus and in 1957
the amount was $4.2 billion. The smaller amount in 1959 was due to a reduction in the
surplus of dairy products.
The disposition of surplus goes on constantly. Last week the Department announced
purchase of 92.8 million pounds of flour (about 2.1 million bushels of wheat) and 4.5
pounds of cornmeal (1.3 million bushels of corn) for sale and donation at home and
abroad. Most of this will be donated to United States private welfare organizations
for feeding needy people abroad. Sales of wheat to Uruguay ($6 million) and to the
United Arab Republic ($1.5 million) were also announced.
DECENCY IN MOVIES, BOOKS, MAGAZINES: The concern of the Congress with degrading
and objectionable material in movies, books, and magazines, is highlighted by the
hearings presently being conducted by the House Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service. Last year the House approved H. R. 7379 to strengthen the law against the
mailing of obscene material. But it is evident that the effects of obscenity on our
youth are not limited to material going through the mail. The Committee is now
examining the problem that exists with relation to obscene or suggestive motion
pictures, magazines, and books. It is not thinking of governmental censorship but is
concerned with the need for improving the self-policing programs which have been es-
tablished by the industries involved.
The Committee has requested the cooperation of these industries to reverse the
evident trend toward lowered moral principles and the overdramatization of sex and crime.
It has advocated anleffective self-regulation of all movies so that they meet an
acceptable moral and social standard. This work of the Committee deserves the endorse-
ment of every member of Congress and of all our citizens. I can assure you that I will
give wholehearted support to any constructive recommendations of the Committee.
YEARBOOKS AND OTHER AVAILABLE MATERIAL: Unfortunately, our entire supply of the
1959 Yearbook of Agriculture on Food is exhausted. We do have a limited number of
the following yearbooks which are available for the asking: 1958 on "Land;" 1957 on
"Soil; 1955 on Water; 1954 on Marketing; 1953 on "Plant Diseases;" 1950-51 on
"Crops in Peace and War.
Bulletins on 'Infant Care mand "Family Fare" (cook book) are available. We also
have an excellent 36-page pamphlet answering 171 questions on "American Government"
which will be sent on request.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
February 17, 1960
"Two years ago it was estimated that 50 percent of our Foreign Service officers
had no useful knowledge of any foreign language; today tests indicate that this 50
percent figure has been reduced to 15 percent." So reports Harold Hoskins, Director of
the Foreign Service Institute of our Department of State. The Institute, which was
organized in 1947, offers general as well as language training to personnel in the
Foreign Service and in other Federal agencies dealing with foreign affairs.
All officers newly entering the Foreign Service are enrolled in the Basic Officer
Course. At mid-career level, 7 to 12 years in the Service, approximately 35 percent
of the 3,500 officers in the Foreign Service receive training. Full-time instruction
in Washington is given in 26 languages while 49 languages are being taught, mainly
part-time, at 170 posts overseas. The Department of State is working toward the goal
of having every Foreign Service Officer attain a "professional" use level in at least
one foreign language. That progress is being made was verified at the recent signing
of the U. S. - - Japanese Treaty. Seven of the ten Japanese-speaking U. S. Foreign
Service officers participating were graduates of the Foreign Service Institute.
Mr. Hoskins points out that a best seller, "The Ugly American" is what it purports
to be, "a book of fiction." "Naturally," he says, "it contains a good bit of truth,
but the main point is that the book is out of perspective
In addition many of the
facts and figures used by the authors, even if they were ever true, are now entirely
out of date."
DEFENSE AND SECURITY: Representative George Mahon (Democrat of Texas), Chairman
of our Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, is a responsible expert on national security
in whom I have the utmost confidence. Recently he said, "I don't know of anyone who
thinks the U. S. is inferior to Russia at this time in over-all strength " Asked
about the effect of the controversy among politicians and military officials on our
defense effort he replied, "I think it confuses the American public. For example, the
Army
feels very strongly that we ought to have several hundred million additional
dollars
for the Nike-Zeus
The Chief of Staff of the Air Force argues for more
money for air-borne alert and for an all-out B-70 bomber program
The Navy bemoans
the fact that the Navy is constantly shrinking in size. We have to consider all the
vested interests and all the ideas, and as a result, apply our best judgment to the
FORD
situation. 11 That is the responsibility, first of all, of the Secretary of Defense and
LIBRARY
of the President as Commander-in-Chief.
FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION: The Congressional situation on federal aid to education
grows more complicated and confusing. The Metcalf Bill (H. R. 22) recommended last
year by the House Committee on Education and Labor appears to be tied down in the Rules
Committee which technically could report it to the House any time. However, our best
authority indicates that the Rules Committee will not send the bill to the floor this
year.
The Senate on February 4th approved S. 8, a bill resembling H. R. 22. The Senate
bill has been referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor. This Committee,
however, is now considering H. R. 10128, a school-construction bill differing from both
H.R. 22 and S. 8.
The Metcalf Bill (H. R. 22) would allot to the states over $1 billion a year for
four years to be used for school construction or teachers' salaries. During the last
two years the amount a state would receive could be reduced if that state failed to meet
the national average "school effort." During the first two years it would get the
Federal funds regardless of its own effort, or lack of effort. This bill permits the
state to determine what part, if any, of its Federal aid should go for school construction
and what part for teachers' salaries. No state is required to show a need for assistance
for either purpose, nor is any state required to put up matching funds.
The Senate bill, S. 8, authorizes a federal contribution of $20 per child of school
age or about $916.8 million a year for two years. This could be spent for school
construction or teachers' salaries. Federal funds would be allotted on a variable
matching basis so that low-income states would get $2 in federal funds for $1 in local
money while the high-income states would receive $1 for each $2 of local funds. States
are supposed to allocate funds to their school districts on a basis of need.
While H. R. 10128 has not been reported and is therefore subject to change, it is
a school-construction bill without provision for federal aid for teachers' salaries.
At this writing, the bill would authorize $325 million a year for three years at about
$6 school-age child. States would not be required to match federal funds the first
two years but would have to go 50-50 the last year.
It is quite apparent that "politics" has taken charge of "aid-to-education"
legislation. I have stated repeatedly that some federal- aid may be justified for
school construction in those areas which have demonstrated a genuine interest in
education but lack the wealth to provide adequate school facilities. To promise more
at this time is neither realistic nor defensible.
Your Washington Review
KENT
Congressman
OTTAWA
5
JERRY FORD
February 24, 1960
The House Committee on Rules has given the green light to the Civil Rights bill
by providing 15 hours of general debate and opening up the bill for amendments. It is
understood that one amendment to be offered will provide for court appointment of voting
referees in certain instances.
The bill, H. R. 8601, is the one which has been the subject of the "discharge
petition" because the Committee on Rules had held it up since August 20, 1959 when it
was favorably reported by the Committee on the Judiciary.
Title I of the bill makes it a Federal offense to willfully use force or threat
of force to obstruct or impede court orders for school desegregation purposes. This
provision is deemed necessary to clarify the power of the Federal Government in handling
situations such as developed in Little Rock in 1957.
Title II would make it a Federal felony to flee across state boundaries to avoid
prosecution for willful damaging or destroying by fire or explosive any public or
private building. The deliberate bombing of any building is an heinous offense against
public order. This provision will authorize the forces of the Federal Government to be
marshalled against those who perpetrate these crimes and flee to another state.
In order to more effectively protect the right of all qualified citizens to vote,
Title III of the bill requires that all voting records involving Federal office must be
preserved for at least two years. The bill does not change the legal voting requirements
of any state but is aimed at protecting the right to vote regardless of color.
The bill also authorizes Federal financial assistance for public education of
children of military personnel who live in areas where established schools may be
closed. The closing of some secondary schools in Norfolk, Virginia involved about
2,500 school-age children, the parents of whom were on active duty with the Armed
Forces in the area. It is estimated that this legislation could possibly affect the
education of some 70,000 children of military personnel situated in states where the
closing of schools is a possibility. In addition, this "civil rights" bill extends
the life of the Civil Rights Commission for two additional years.
FEDERAL REGISTRARS OR VOTING REFEREES: An amendment will be offered to the bill
to provide for court-appointed U. S. voting referees in certain instances where it is
determined that a person is deprived of the right to vote on account of race or color.
FORD
Under the "referee system" a person or group of persons contending that they have been
deprived of the lawful right to vote because of a "pattern or practice" of denying this
right on account of race or color may appeal to the Federal district court. If the
court finds this "pattern or practice" to actually exist, it may issue a decree listing
the names of those it finds entitled to vote under State law. Any official who denies
these persons the right to vote may be held for contempt of court.
To assist in the enforcement of its decree the court may appoint "referees" who
will issue certificates to eligible voters and who may observe the casting and counting
of the votes to insure that these individuals vote and that their vote is counted.
An earlier proposal to establish "Federal Registrars" is losing support. Under
this plan, nine or more persons in a given voting registration district who were quali-
fied to vote under State law could petition the President if they were denied the right
to register solely because of their race or color. If investigation proved the con-
tention to be true, the President would appoint a Federal registrar to receive
registrations. Any election official denying a person so registered the right to vote
for a Federal official would be subject to criminal penalties.
POSTAL PAY RAISE: Our mail has been heavy lately with letters urging support of
Rep. Morrison's bill (H. R. 9883) to increase the compensation for postal and other
Federal employees. This bill revises the pay schedule in terms of dollars. If enacted
into law, it will result in pay increases ranging from 12 to 23 percent. Many indivi-
duals will receive boosts in excess of 20 percent. For example, the salary of a letter
carrier now earning $5,240 a year would be increased to $6,410 and a rural carrier
currently making $4,251 would go to $5,155. These are both 22 percent increases.
It is estimated that the Morrison bill will cost the Post Office Department an
additional $600 million a year. The Department is anticipating a deficit for next year
of $554 million without any general wage increase. To adopt the Morrison bill, without
increasing postal rates, will mean an annual deficit of over $1 billion for the Post
Office Department.
On January 1, 1958 postal workers received an average pay boost of 10%, of which
2½ percent is due to expire January 1, 1961. The Congress is expected to make this
permanent, however, On March 1, 1955 postal salaries were raised an average of 8 percent.
Since 1955 the cost of living according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has gone up
7.3 percent; since 1958 the living costs have increased 1.6 percent.
The House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service has scheduled no hearings on
H. R. 9883, but the entire subject of pay boosts for all Federal employees is expected
to come up when the extension of the temporary 2½ percent increase is considered.