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.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525636
label
Grand Rapids Lions Club, December 28, 1949
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525636
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Grand Rapids Lions Club, December 28, 1949
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
Education
Federal aid
Legislation
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525636
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1949-12-31
month
12
year
1949
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1949-12-01
month
12
year
1949
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
10fc567e06e455cc
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D13, folder "Grand Rapids Lions Club,
December 28, 1949" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at
the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
speech by Rep. D.R. Ford Jo.
H.R. Lions Club - Dec. 28, 1949
With the second session of the 81st Congress less than a week away, perhaps
we should spend a few minutes checking the congressional scoreboard to see what
legislation is on the aggenda in both the Senate and House. The first session
of the 81st Congress, which lasted 9½ months and was the longest peacetime session
since 1922, approved a total of 440 public acts and 353 private laws. Despite the
length of the past session and the vast number of bills enacted into law, there
still remains a number of proposals which have had no action at all or which have
been approved by either the Senate or the House with no action by the other. The
proponents of the various unfinished legislative proposals, since Congress adjounn-
ed October 19th, have been arming their forces for an all out onslaught in the
months ahead.
The Senate is scheduled the first day, January 3rd, for action on the oleo-
margárine tax repeal bill. This measure has already been approved by the House.
On January 20, the Senate will consider the conference report on a bill legalizing
certain basing point practices. This proposal, which seeks to legálize non
collusive freight absorption was initially approved by both the House and Senate
and in its final form OK'd by the House, will probably run into talkathon
difficulty in the Senate because of several collateral matters that have been
dragged into the dispute by the opponents of the measure. It goes without saying
that Western Michigan industry and labor need the assistance of new legislation
on this complex problem.
The Senate expects, on January 25th, to reconsider the House proposal for
the liberalization of Displaced Person legislation. This muchly disputed 1948
Presidential Campaign issue will undoubtedly be resolved favorably by increasing
the total to be admitted to the United States from 205,000 to 339,000. Those
of you who have had any contact with D.P.'s in this area know, that with very
few exceptions, we have benefited by providing new opportunities for those who
have fought for years the scourge of communism, nazism and the like.
Another House approved bill, HR 6000, awaits Senate action. This proposal which
seeks to expand the coverage and the benefits of social security will be given top
priority in the months ahead. It is hoped by many that sêveral of the hotly disputed
and possibly financially unsound provisions of HR 6000 will be amended in the Senate.
The Congress as a whole must appropriate the necessary funds to operate the
federal government during the next fiscal year. You are all familar with the
fact that the federal government went in the red 18 billion for the year ending
June 30, 1949 and that the deficit for this fiscal year will undoubtedly be 5.5
billion. Most economy minded members of the Congress are gravely concerned with
the prospect of a 260 billion dollar debt by next July 1st. Although the House
may have appropriated too much in the bills initiated last session, the House
was far more economy-minded than the Senate or the President. As Al Smith would
say, "Let's look at the record." There are 11 regular annual appropriation bills.
In 9 instances out of 11 the House version was less than the comparable proposal
in the Senate. In 10 cases out of 11 the House bill was less than the amount sought
by the President. Only on the question of funds for the Army, Navy and Airforce was
the House more generous than bothothe President and the Senate. With world affairs
still critically in the balance, particularly with the threat of Communist aggress-
ion in China and the Far East for all intents and purposes a reality, the reluctance
on the part of the House to be "penny wise and pound foolish" is understandable.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Digitized from Box D13 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
An over all comparison indicates that the House itself approved money bills
totalling $2,121,898,969 less than that recommended by the Bureau of the Budget
for the President and $518,935,283 less than the amount approved by the Senate.
In this coming session the Congress and the President must strive relentlessly
for further economies and if the past is indicative of the future the House
will lead such a campaign.
One encouraging nation-wide trend is the apparent mounting enthusiasm
for the Hoover Commission recommendations. The Hoover Commission was conceived
in a bi-partisan atmosphere, the recommendations were prepared and submitted
by the Commission which had 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans; and the effectuation
if the proposals can only be possible through the combined efforts of both
major political parties. One of the real and substantial acháévements of the
coming session should be the adoption of the Hoover Commission recommendations
en toto in order to save the promised 4 billion dollars annually without a
reduction of services rendered.
The Congress will wrestle anew with foreign assistance legislation. There
will be a reduction in funds, in fact there must be, but it would be unwise to
discontinue E.C.A. and related plans at the half-way point when substantial
results are evident and in prospect. The termination date for E.C.A. is 1952.
Our friends overseas should know that is the deadline. In the meantime Western
Europe must be integrated economically and militarily so that by 1952 they can
be on their feet and off the backs of the American taxpayers. The President
wants action on his controversial Point IV foreign aid plan. The latter program
will be given searching scrutâny. In its presently proposed form and with the
federal budget already taxed to the maximum, this innovation will undoubtedly
run into trouble.
Civil Rights legislation will get attention from both the Senate and the
House. An Anti-poll tax bill was approved by the House last session. The
Senate will probably consider the matter, but whether or not affirmative action
is taken, the constant pressure on the federal level has resulted in corrective
action by 8 states within recent years. This state-by-state progress is desirable
but unless the recalcitrants awaken to the need for the abolition of unfair and
discriminatory voting restrictions, the Congress will act as it should.
F.E.P.C. will be on the Congressional aggenda. In the Senate this may spark
a bitter controversy and result in the initial test on the new cloture rule. In
the House the issue will be fought on its merits without the filibuster comouflage.
The Senate in this past session approved the Thomas federal-aid-to-education
bill. The legislation was subseguently considered by a sub-committee of the House
Committee on Education and Labor. The Sub-committee proposal, 1.e. the Barden
bill, resulted in a bitter, deep seated controversy as to whether or not federal
funds could be used in parochial as well as public schools. This particular phase
of the federal aid to education issue road-blocked all consideration of the problem
by the House as a whole last session.
Many teachers, ranking educators and others have been sincerely interested in
federal aid to education because of the inequality of educational opportunity
FORD
throughout the United States. In some of our wealthier states there are better
GERALD
school facilities and better trained teachers while in other geographical areas
In this country there are insufficient school buildings and inadequately trained
teachers. This variation results mainly because in some regions, particularly
in the southern states, there is not enough taxable property locally to support an
adequate school system.
The Senate bill goes too far in attempting to meet the problem. Instead
of limiting federal aid to those areas which are economically poor, Senator
Thomas' proposal would distribute some federal funds to every state ewen though
those states like New York, California and others can well afford to support
adequately their own educational systems. The Thomas bill if it were a true
equalization measure would have better prospects in the House.
One of the most effective arguments against federal-aid-to-education is the
danger of federal bureaucratic control over local educational systems. It
would be a backward step if our local school systems should become enmeshed in
the inevitable red tape and inefficiency that prevails in the countless Washing-
ton bureaus, boards and commissions.
I am convinced because of several recent disputes that the federal govern-
ment through its top bureaucrate can not and will not spend money in the educat-
ional field on the local level without attempting to dictate policy and proced-
ures for the local school officials. For example, the Veterans Administration
has been feuding for the last nine or more months with local Michigan school
administratérs and boards of education as to the method of determining costs
for the operation of Veterans Institutes in this state, In effect the VA is
arbitrarily telling those who run our local schools that they, the Washington
bureaucrats, are better able to determine costs etc. for the operation of a
school system. The result is simply this, the Veterans Institutes in Grand
Rapids and elsewhere in Michigan will have to be run as dictated by Washington
or else no federal funds will be available. This controversy has been and
will be harmful to our sound Veterans Institute program in Michigan. This
specific dispute might well be a forerunner to disputes of a similar nature if
and when federal aid to education becomes law. Perhaps some in our own educat-
ional institutions in Grand Rapids, Helland and Grand Haven who formerly favored
federal aid but who have been battling the VA's unreasonable position in this
regard now appreciate the fundamental and inherent danger of accepting federal
funds.
Within the last month I have become acquainted with an acute problem
affecting Michigan State College and other land grant colleges throughout the
United States. General Gray, head of the Veterans Administration and the
General Accounting Office are this time jointly responsible for arbitraby
federal administrative action.
As you probably know land grant colleges were established by an Act of
Congress in 1862, the Morrill Act. Michigan State College, then the Michigan
Agricultural College, was designated by the Michigan legislature to be the land-
grant college for this state. Subsequently, the publie lands granted by the
Congress to endow the institution were sold, and a principal sum in excess of
1 million deposited with the state treasurer as an endowment fund. From that
fund Michigan State College continues to receive interest at 7%.
Subsequently, the second Morrill Act, the Nelson amendment to the Morrill
GERALD R. FORD
Act, and the Barkhead-Jones Act provided additional annual grants for each land
grant college. State's annual grant in this respect totals $129,880 annually.
Now, three and one-half years after Michigan State had its first contract
with the Veterans Administration covering compensation received for the
training of veterans under the G.I. bill, the V.A. arbitra rily rules that
Morrill-Nelson endowment funds should be deducted from payments made by the
VA to Michigan State College, and to other land grant colleges.
As President John Hannah of Michigan State College has said, "The whold
situation is preposterous. Etc."
It appears that the only remedy in this situation is corrective action
by the Congress and it is my intention to prepare and introduce the necessary
bill to accomplish the desired objective. The lesson to be learned however,
is not that Congress can over-rule Administrative decisions by changes in
substantive law, but rather that whenever a local community or non federal
governmental agency accepts federal funds there is the inevitable Washington
bureaucrat ready to give orders and ensnarl the whole situation in befuddling
red tape.
These two examples of arbitrary and capricious VA action should be a warning
to our school administrators and others that if federal aid to education is
approved there will be new problems never before encountered, difficulties that
could only be the brain child of a Washington bureaucrat. I don't want the
education policies of Grand Rapids determined by a hierarchy in Washington. If
federal funds for general education mean a compounding of the two examples given
then each state, community or school district would be better off to handle
its own educational problem.
The coming session will be conducted in a pre-campaign atmosphere with
the 1950 Congressional races just over the horizon. I only hope that partisan-
ship and campaign strategy will not result in an unsound and unwise legislative
program.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
With the second session of the 81st Congress less than a week away, perhaps
we should spend a few minutes checking the congressional scoreboard to see what
legislation is on the aggenda in both the Senate and House. The first session
of the 81st Congress, which lasted 9½ months and was the longest peacetime session
since 1922, approved a total of 440 public acts and 353 private laws. Despite the
length of the past session and the vast number of bills enacted into law, there
still remains a number of proposals which have had no action at all or which have
been approved by either the Senate or the House with no action by the other. The
proponents of the various unfinished legislative proposals, since Congress adjourn-
ed October 19th, have been arming their forces for an all out onslaught in the
months ahead.
The Senate is scheduled the first day, January 3rd, for action on the oleo-
margårine tax repeal bill. This measure has already been approved by the House.
On January 20, the Senate will consider the conference report on a bill legalising
certain basing point practices. This proposal, which seeks to legálize non
collusive freight absorption was initially approved by both the House and Senate
and in its final form OK'd by the House, will probably run into talkathon
difficulty in the Senate because of several collateral matters that have been
dragged into the dispute by the opponents of the measure. It goes without saying
that Western Michigan industry and labor need the assistance of new legislation
on this complex problem,
The Senate expects, on January 25th, to reconsider the House proposal for
the liberalisation of Displaced Person legislation. This muchly disputed 1948
Presidential Campaign issue will undoubtedly be resolved favorably by increasing
the total to be admitted to the United States from 205,000 to 339,000. Those
of you who have had any contact with D.P.' in this area know, that with very
few exceptions, we have benefited by providing new opportunities for those who
have fought for years the scourge of communism, nazism and the like.
Another House approved bill, HR 6000, awaits Senate action. This proposal which
seeks to expand the coverage and the benefits of social security will be given top
priority in the months ahead. It is hoped by many. that several of the hotly disputed
and possibly financially unsound provisions of HR 6000 will be amended in the Senate.
The Congress as a whole must appropriate the necessary funds to operate the
federal government during the next fiscal year. You are all familar with the
fact that the federal government went in the red 18 billion for the year ending
June 30, 1949 and that the deficit for this fiscal year will undoubtedly be 5.5
billion. Most economy minded members of the Congress are gravely concerned with
the prospect of a 260 billion dollar debt by next July 1st. Although the House
may have appropriated too much in the bills initiated last session, the House
was far more economy-minded than the Senate or the President. As Al Smith would
say, "Let's look at the record." There are 11 regular annual appropriation bills.
In 9 instances out of 11 the House version was less than the comparable proposal
in the Senate. In 10 cases out of 11 the House bill was less than the amount sought
by the President. Only on the question of funds for the Army, Navy and Airforce was
the House more generous than bothethe President and the Senate. With world affairs
still critically in the balance, particularly with the threat of Communist aggress-
ion in China and the Far East for all intents and purposes a reality, the reluctance
on the part of the House to be "penny wise and pound foolish" is understandable.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
An over all comparison indicates that the House itself approved money bills
totalling $2,121,898,969 less than that recommended by the Bureau of the Budget
for the President and $518,935,283 less than the amount approved by the Senate.
In this coming session the Congress and the President must strive relentlessly
for further economies and if the past is indicative of the future the House
will lead such a campaign.
One encouraging nation-wide trend is the apparent mounting enthusiasm
for the Hoover Commission recommendations. The Hoover Commission was conceived
in a bi-partisan atmosphere, the recommendations were prepared and submitted
by the Commission which had 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans; and the effectuation
if the proposals can only be possible through the combined efforts of both
major political parties. One of the real and substantial acháèvements of the
coming session should be the adoption of the Hoover Commission recommendations
en toto in order to save the promised 4 billion dollars annually without a
reduction of services rendered.
The Congress will wrestle anew with foreign assistance legislation. There
will be a reduction in funds, in fact there must be, but it would be unwise to
discontinue E.C.A. and related plans at the half-way point when substantial
results are evident and in prospect. The termination date for E.C.A. is 1952.
Our friends overseas should know that is the deadline. In the meantime Western
Europe must be integrated economically and militarily so that by 1952 they can
be on their feet and off the backs of the American taxpayers. The President
wants action on his controversial Point IV foreign aid plan. The latter program
will be given searching scrutâny. In its presently proposed form and with the
federal budget already taxed to the maximum, this innovation will undoubtedly
run into trouble.
Civil Rights legislation will get attention from both the Senate and the
House. An Anti-poll tax bill was approved by the House last session. The
Senate will probably consider the matter, but whether or not affirmative action
is taken, the constant pressure on the federal level has resulted in corrective
action by 8 states within recent years. This state-by-state progress is desirable
but unless the recalcitrants awaken to the need for the abolition of unfair and
discriminatory voting restrictions, the Congress will act as it should.
F.E.P.C. will be on the Congressional aggenda. In the Senate this may spark
a bitter controversy and result in the initial test on the new cloture rule. In
the House the issue will be fought on its merits without the filibuster comouflage.
The Senate in this past session approved the Thomas federal-aid-to-education
bill. The legislation was subseguently considered by a sub-committee of the House
Committee on Education and Labor. The Sub-committee proposal, i.e. the Barden
bill, resulted in a bitter, deep seated controversy as to whether or not federal
funds could be used in parochial as well as public schools. This particular phase
of the federal aid to education issue road-blocked all consideration of the problem
by the House as a whole last session.
Many teachers, ranking educators and others have been sincerely interested in
FORD
federal aid to education because of the inequality of educational opportunity
is
throughout the United States. In some of our wealthier states there are better
GERALD
School facilities and better trained teachers while in other geographical areas
In this country there are insufficient school buildings and inadequately trained
teachers. This variation results mainly because in some regions, particularly
in the southern states, there is not enough taxable property locally to support an
adequate school system.
The Senate bill goes too far in attempting to meet the problem. Instead
of limiting federal aid to those areas which are economically poor, Senator
Thomas' proposal would distribute some federal funds to every state ewen though
those states like New York, California and others can well afford to support
adequately their own educational systems. The Thomas bill if it were a true
equalization measure would have better prospects in the House.
One of the most effective arguments against federal-aid-to-edusation is the
danger of federal bureaucratic control over local educational systems. It
would be a backward step if our local school systems should become enmeshed in
the inevitable red tape and inefficiency that prevails in the countless Washing-
ton bureaus, boards and commissions.
I am convinced because of several recent disputes that the federal govern-
ment through its top bureaucrats can not and will not spend money in the educat-
ional field on the local level without attempting to dictate policy and proced-
ures for the local school officials. For example, the Veterans Administration
has been feuding for the last nine or more months with local Michigan school
administratérs and boards of education as to the method of determining costs
for the operation of Veterans Institutes in this state. In effect the VA is
arbitrarily telling those who run our local schools that they, the Washington
bureaucrats, are better able to determine costs etc. for the operation of a
school system. The result is simply this, the Veterans Institutes in Grand
Rapids and elsewhere in Michigan will have to be run as dictated by Washington
or else no federal funds will be available. This controversy has been and
will be harmful to our sound Veterans Institute program in Michigan. This
specific dispute might well be a forerunner to disputes of a similar nature if
and when federal aid to education becomes law. Perhaps some in our own educat-
ional institutions in Grand Rapids, Holland and Grand Haven who formerly favored
federal aid but who have been battling the VA's unreasonable position in this
regard now appreciate the fundamental and inherent danger of accepting federal
funds.
Within the last month I have become acquainted with an acute problem
affecting Michigan State College and other land grant colleges throughout the
United States. General Gray, head of the Veterans Administration and the
General Accounting Office are this time jointly responsible for arbitraży
federal administrative action.
As you probably know land grant colleges were established by an Act of
Congress in 1862, the Merrill Act. Michigan State College, then the Michigan
Agricultural College, was designated by the Michigan legislature to be the land-
grant college for this state. Subsequently, the public lands granted by the
Congress to endow the institution were sold, and a principal sum in excess of
1 million deposited with the state treasurer as an endowment fund. From that
fund Michigan State College continues to receive interest at 7%.
Subsequently, the second Morrill Act, the Nelson amendment to the Morrill
i
FORDACE
and the Barkhead-Jones Act provided additional annual grants for each land
GERALD
grant college. State's annual grant in this respect totals $129,880 annually.
PRARY
Now, three and one-half years after Michigan State had its first contract
with the Veterans Administration covering compensation received for the
training of veterans under the G.I. bill, the V.A. arbitra rily rules that
Morrill-Nelson endowment funds should be deducted from payments made by the
VA to Michigan State College, and to other land grant colleges.
As President John Hannah of Michigan State College has said, "The whold
situation is preposterous. Etc."
It appears that the only remedy in this situation is corrective action
by the Congress and it is my intention to prepare and introduce the necessary
bill to accomplish the desired objective. The lesson to be learned however,
is not that Congress can over-rule Administrative decisions by changes in
substantive law, but rather that whenever a local community or non federal
governmental agency accepts federal funds there is the inevitable Washington
bureaucrat ready to give orders and ensnarl the whole situation in befuddling
red tape.
These two examples of arbitrary and capricious VA action should be a warning
to our school administrators and others that if #ederal aid to education is
approved there will be new problems never before encountered, difficulties that
could only be the brain child of a Washington bureaucrat. I don't want the
education policies of Grand Rapids determined by a hierarchy in Washington. If
federal funds for general education mean a compounding of the two examples given
then each state, community or school district would be better off to handle
its own educational problem.
The coming session will be conducted in a pre-campaign atmosphere with
the 1950 Congressional races just over the horizon. I only hope that partisan-
ship and campaign strategy will not result in an unsound and unwise legislative
program.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD