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 press releases.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1075994
label
Vetoes - Presidential Statements
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1075994
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Vetoes - Presidential Statements
description
This file contains press releases.
citationUrl
collections
Vernon C. Loen and Charles Leppert Files
Vernon Loen's and Charles Leppert's General Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1075994
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-31
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-01-01
month
1
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
58917dc952c2c4a7
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 26, folder "Vetoes - Presidential Statements" of
the Loen and Leppert Files 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. Gerald Ford 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box 26 of the Loen and Leppert Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
[1976]
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning herewith without my approval
H.R. 12384, a bill "To authorize certain construction
at military installations and for other purposes. "
I regret that I must take this action because the
bill is generally acceptable, providing a comprehensive
construction program for fiscal year 1977 keyed to
recognized military requirements. One provision,
however, is highly objectionable, thus precluding my
approval of the measure.
Section 612 of the bill would prohibit certain base
closures or the reduction of civilian personnel at certain
military installations unless the proposed action is
reported to Congress and a period of nine months elapses
during which time the military department concerned would
be required to identify the full range of environmental
impacts of the proposed action, as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Subsequently, the final
decision to close or significantly reduce an installation
covered under the bill would have to be reported to the
Armed Services Committees of the Congress together with
a detailed justification for such decision. No action
could be taken to implement the decision until the
expiration of at least ninety days following submission
of the detailed justification to the appropriate committees.
The bill provides a limited Presidential waiver of the
requirements of section 612 for reasons of military
emergency or national security.
This provision is also unacceptable from the stand-
point of sound Government policy. It would substitute
an arbitrary time limit and set of requirements for the
current procedures whereby base closures and reductions
are effected, procedures which include compliance with
NEPA and adequately take into account all other relevant
2
considerations, and afford extensive opportunity for
public and congressional involvement. By imposing
unnecessary delays in base closures and reductions,
the bill's requirements would generate a budgetary
drain on the defense dollar which should be used to
strengthen our military capabilities.
Moreover, section 612 raises serious questions by
its attempt to limit my powers over military bases. The
President must be able, if the need arises, to change or
reduce the mission at any military installation if and
when that becomes necessary.
The Department of Defense has undertaken over 2,700
actions to reduce, realign, and close military installations
and activities since 1969. These actions have enabled us
to sustain the combat capability of our armed forces
while reducing annual Defense costs by more than $4 billion.
For realignment proposals already announced for study,
section 612 could increase fiscal year 1978 budgetary
requirements for defense by $150 million and require
retention, at least through fiscal year 1977, of approxi-
mately 11,300 military and civilian personnel positions
not needed for essential base activities.
The nation's taxpayers rightly expect the most
defense possible for their tax dollars. I am certain
Congress does not intend unnecessary or arbitrary increases
in the tax burden of the American people. Numerous congres-
sional reports on national defense demonstrate the desire
by the Congress to trim unnecessary defense spending and
personnel. I cannot approve legislation that would result
in waste and inefficiency at the expense of meeting our
essential military requirements.
Heall R. 7nd
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 2. 1976.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 30, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am withholding my approval from S. J. Res. 121, which would
increase the Federal support price for milk and require mandatery
quarterly adjustments, for the following reasons:
1. It would saddle taxpayers with additional spending at a time
when we are trying to cut the cost of government and curb
inflation.
2. It would stimulate excessive production of milk, discourage
consumption, force the Federal government to increase purchases
of dairy products under the milk support program and build up
huge and costly surpluses.
3. It would result in unnecessarily high consumer prices.
Under this bill, government outlays would be increased by $530 million,
including $180 million during the 1976-77 marketing year and $350 million
during the subsequent 1977-78 marketing year. In addition, consumers would
be required to pay an estimated $1.38 billion more at retail for dairy
products over the next two years.
If S. J. Res. 121 became law, the support level for milk would be set
at 85 percent of parity, with adjustments at the beginning of each quarter,
through March 31, 1978. This would result in substantial increases in the
support level over the next two marketing years without taking into account
either changing economic conditions or agricultural policies.
In disapproving similar legislation last January, I said: "To further
reduce the demand for milk and dairy products by the increased prices
provided in this legislation would be detrimental to the dairy industry.
A dairy farmer cannot be well served by Government action that prices his
product out of the market." This is still the case.
As far as this Administration is concerned, future changes in the
price support level will be based, as in the past, on a thorough review of
the entire dairy situation. Major economic factors, including the level
of milk production, recent and expected farm prices for milk, the farm cost
of producing milk, consumer prices and government price support purchases
and budget outlays, will be considered. Elimination of this thorough review
by mandating an inflexible support price would be inadvisable.
(OVER)
As you know, present legislation provides the Secretary of Agriculture
with sufficient flexibility to increase the level of milk price supports
between 75 and 90 percent of parity whenever the conditions indicate that
an increase is necessary and advisable. The two increases announced by the
Secretary of Agriculture last year--one in January and another in October--
should make it clear that this Administration intends to provide the price
assurance dairy farmers need.
In this regard, to ensure adequate milk price support levels, I have
directed the Secretary of Agriculture to review support prices quarterly,
starting April 1. If it appears necessary and advisable to make price
support adjustments to ensure the supply of milk, the Secretary of Agriculture
will do so.
In vetoing S. J. Res. 121, I urge the Congress to join me in this
effort to hold down Federal spending, milk surpluses and consumer prices.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 30, 1976
#
#
#
#
#
#
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JANUARY 30, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am withholding my approval from S. J. Res. 121, which would
increase the Federal support price for milk and require mandatery
quarterly adjustments, for the following reasons:
1. It would saddle taxpayers with additional spending at a time
when we are trying to cut the cost of government and curb
inflation.
2. It would stimulate excessive production of milk, discourage
consumption, force the Federal government to increase purchases
of dairy products under the milk support program and build up
huge and costly surpluses.
3. It would result in unnecessarily high consumer prices.
Under this bill, government outlays would be increased by $530 million,
including $180 million during the 1976-77 marketing year and $350 million
during the subsequent 1977-78 marketing year. In addition, consumers would
be required to pay an estimated $1.38 billion more at retail for dairy
products over the next two years.
If S. J. Res. 121 became law, the support level for milk would be set
at 85 percent of parity, with adjustments at the beginning of each quarter,
through March 31, 1978. This would result in substantial increases in the
support level over the next two marketing years without taking into account
either changing economic conditions or agricultural policies.
In disapproving similar legislation last January, I said: "To further
reduce the demand for milk and dairy products by the increased prices
provided in this legislation would be detrimental to the dairy industry.
A dairy farmer cannot be well served by Government action that prices his
product out of the market." This is still the case.
As far as this Administration is concerned, future changes in the
price support level will be based, as in the past, on a thorough review of
the entire dairy situation. Major economic factors, including the level
of milk production, recent and expected farm prices for milk, the farm cost
of producing milk, consumer prices and government price support purchases
and budget outlays, will be considered. Elimination of this thorough review
by mandating an inflexible support price would be inadvisable.
(OVER) FORD LIBRARY
As you know, present legislation provides the Secretary of Agriculture
with sufficient flexibility to increase the level of milk price supports
between 75 and 90 percent of parity whenever the conditions indicate that
an increase is necessary and advisable. The two increases announced by the
Secretary of Agriculture last year--one in January and another in October--
should make it clear that this Administration intends to provide the price
assurance dairy farmers need.
In this regard, to ensure adequate milk price support levels, I have
directed the Secretary of Agriculture to review support prices quarterly,
starting April 1. If it appears necessary and advisable to make price
support adjustments to ensure the supply of milk, the Secretary of Agriculture
will do so.
In vetoing S. J. Res. 121, I urge the Congress to join me in this
effort to hold down Federal spending, milk surpluses and consumer prices.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 30, 1976
#
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
February 13, 1976
UNTIL 12 NOON (EST)
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning without my approval H.R. 5247, the
Public Works Employment Act of 1975.
Supporters of this bill claim that it represents a
solution to the problem of unemployment. This is simply
untrue.
The truth is that this bill would do little to create
jobs for the unemployed. Moreover, the bill has so many
deficiencies and undesirable provisions that it would do
more harm than good. While it is represented as the
solution to our unemployment problems, in fact it is little
more than an election year pork barrel. Careful examination
reveals the serious deficiencies in H.R. 5247.
First, the cost of producing jobs under this bill
would be intolerably high, probably in excess of $25,000
per job.
Second, relatively few new jobs would be created. The
bill's sponsors estimate that H.R. 5247 would create 600,000
to 800,000 new jobs. Those claims are badly exaggerated.
Our estimates within the Administration indicate that at
most some 250,000 jobs would be created -- and that would
be over a period of several years. The peak impact would
come in late 1977 or 1978, and would come to no more than
100,000 to 120,000 new jobs. This would represent barely
a one tenth of one percent improvement in the unemployment
rate.
Third, this will create almost no new jobs in the
immediate future, when those jobs are needed. With peak
impact on jobs in late 1977 or early 1978, this legislation
will be adding stimulus to the economy at precisely the
wrong time: when the recovery will already be far advanced.
Fourth, Title II of the bill provides preferential
treatment to those units of government with the highest
taxes without any distinction between those jurisdictions
which have been efficient in holding down costs and those
that have not.
Fifth, under this legislation it would be almost
impossible to assure taxpayers that these dollars are being
responsibly and effectively spent.
more
2
Effective allocation of over $3 billion for public works
on a project-by-project basis would take many months or years.
The provision that project requests be approved automatically
unless the Commerce Department acts within 60 days will pre-
clude any useful review of the requests, and prevent a
rational allocation of funds.
Sixth, this bill would create a new urban renewal program
less than two years after the Congress replaced a nearly
identical program -- as well as other categorical grant
programs -- with a broader, more flexible Community Develop-
ment block grant program.
I recognize there is merit in the argument that some
areas of the country are suffering from exceptionally high
rates of unemployment and that the Federal Government should
provide assistance. My budgets for fiscal years 1976 and
1977 do, in fact, seek to provide such assistance.
Beyond my own budget recommendations, I believe that
in addressing the immediate needs of some of our cities
hardest hit by the recession, another measure already
introduced in the Congress, H.R. 11860, provides a far
more reasonable and constructive approach than the bill I
am vetoing.
H.R. 11860 targets funds on those areas with the
highest unemployment so that they may undertake high
priority activities at a fraction of the cost of H.R. 5247.
The funds would be distributed exclusively under an im-
partial formula as opposed to the pork barrel approach
represented by the bill I am returning today. Moreover,
H.R. 11860 builds upon the successful Community Development
Block Grant program. That program is in place and working
well, thus permitting H.R. 11860 to be administered without
the creation of a new bureaucracy. I would be glad to
consider this legislation more favorably should the Congress
formally act upon it as an alternative to H.R. 5247.
We must not allow our debate over H.R. 5247 to obscure
one fundamental point: the best and most effective way to
create new jobs is to pursue balanced economic policies
that encourage the growth of the private sector without
risking a new round of inflation. This is the core of my
economic policy, and I believe that the steady improvements
in the economy over the last half year on both the unemploy-
ment and inflation fronts bear witness to its essential
wisdom. I intend to continue this basic approach because
it is working.
My proposed economic policies are expected to foster
the creation of 2 to 2.5 million new private sector jobs
in 1976 and more than 2 million additional jobs in 1977.
These will be lasting, productive jobs, not temporary jobs
payrolled by the American taxpayer.
This is a policy of balance, realism, and common sense.
It is an honest policy which does not promise a quick fix.
more
3
My program includes:
-- Large and permanent tax reductions that will
leave more money where it can do the most good: in the hands
of the American people;
-- Tax incentives for the construction of new plants
and equipment in areas of high unemployment;
-- Tax incentives to encourage more low and middle
income Americans to invest in common stock;
-- More than $21 billion in outlays for important
public works such as energy facilities, wastewater treatment
plants, roads, and veterans' hospitals representing a
17 percent increase over the previous fiscal year;
-- Tax incentives for investment in residential
mortgages by financial institutions to stimulate capital
for home building.
I have proposed a Budget which addresses the difficult
task of restraining the pattern of excessive growth in
Federal spending. Basic to job creation in the private
sector is reducing the ever-increasing demands of the
Federal government for funds. Federal government borrowing
to support deficit spending reduces the amount of money
available for productive investment at a time when many experts
are predicting that we face a shortage of private capital in
the future. Less investment means fewer new jobs and less
production per worker.
Last month, under our balanced policies, seasonally
adjusted employment rose by 800,000. That total is almost
three times as large as the number of jobs that would be
produced by this legislation and the jobs those men and
women found will be far more lasting and productive than
would be created through another massive public works
effort.
I ask the Congress to act quickly on my tax and budget
proposals, which I believe will provide the jobs for the
unemployed that we all want.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 13, 1976.
####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 28, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITY COUNCIL
In accordance with the District of Columbia Self-
Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, I disapprove
Act 1-88, the District of Columbia Shop-Book Rule Act.
The Act would make documentary records of business
transactions admissible as evidence in any civil or criminal
judicial proceeding in the courts of the District of
Columbia. This "shop-book rule" is substantially identical
to the one adopted by the D.C. Superior Court which took
effect on June 30, 1975.
The issue is whether the City Council was acting within
its authority under the District of Columbia Self-Government
and Governmental Reorganization Act (Home Rule Act) in
passing a law affecting the judicial procedures of the D.C.
courts. The Federal interest is whether the intent of
Congress in delegating legislative authority to the Council
under the Home Rule Act has been appropriately carried out
in this instance.
I am advised by the Department of Justice that this
"shop-book rule" is clearly in the nature of a procedural
rule which could properly be encompassed within the rules
of civil procedure and that promulgation of the rule is
clearly within the express power of the District of Columbia
courts to adopt rules of civil procedure and, as such, is
beyond the power of the City Council.
Therefore, since the Council has exceeded its statutory
authority in enacting this bill, I am disapproving Act 1-88.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 27, 1976.
# #
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 28, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act (the Home Rule Act) provides that Acts
of the D.C. Council which have been vetoed by the Mayor and
overridden by a two-thirds vote of the Council shall be trans-
mitted to the President for his review. The President shall
then have thirty days in which to disapprove these Acts or
allow them to become law.
D.C. Enrolled Acts 1-87, relating to affirmative action
in D.C. government employment, and 1-88, relating to the
so-called Shop-Book Rule of evidence, are the first such acts
to be sent to the President for his review since the Home Rule
Act was enacted.
If home rule for the District is to have real meaning,
the integrity and responsibility of local government processes
must be respected. The Federal government should intervene
only where there is a clear and substantial Federal interest.
I have been advised by the Department of Justice that,
in enacting Act 1-88, the D.C. Council exceeded the authority
which the Congress had delegated to it under the Home Rule
Act; therefore, I disapproved it. I have chosen not to dis-
approve Act 1-87, however, because, while I have serious
reservations about the merits of the Act, I believe my dis-
approval of it would violate the sound precepts of home rule.
The Federal interest involved here is not clear and
substantial.
####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 6, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning without my approval, H.R. 9803, a
bill which would perpetuate rigid Federal child day care
standards for all the States and localities in the Nation,
with the cost to be paid by the Federal taxpayer.
I cannot approve legislation which runs directly
counter to a basic principle of government in which I
strongly believe --, the vesting of responsibility in State
and local government and the renoving of burdensome
Federal restrictions.
I am firmly committed to providing Federal assistance
to States for social services programs, including child
day care. But I am opposed to unwarranted Federal inter-
ference in States' administration of these programs.
The States should have the responsibility -- and the
right --- to establish and enforce their own quality day
care standards. My recently proposed Federal Assistance
for Community Services Act would adopt this principle,
and with it greater State flexibility in other aspects of
the use of social services funds available under Title XX
of the Social Security Act.
H.R. 9803 is the antithesis of my proposal. It would
make permanent highly controversial and costly day care
staff-to-children ratios. And it would deny the States
the flexibility to establish and enforce their own staff-
ing standards for federally assisted day care.
This bill would not make day care services more widely
available. It would only make them more costly to the
American taxpayer. It would demand the expenditure of $125
million over the next six months, and could lead to $250
million more each year thereafter.
H.R. 9803 would also specify that a portion of Federal
social services funds be available under Title XX of the
Social Security Act for a narrow, categorical purpose. In
the deliberations leading to enactment of Title XX, a
little over a year ago, the States and the voluntary
service organizations fought hard to win the right to
determine both the form and the content of services to
be provided according to their own priorities. This
bill would undermine the Title XX commitment to State
initiative by dictating not only how day care services
are to be provided, but also how they are to be financed
under Title XX.
It would introduce two additional Federal matching
rates for some day care costs that are higher than the
rates for other Title XX-supported services, thereby
further complicating the States' administration of social
services programs. My proposal would, on the other hand,
eliminate State matching requirements altogether.
more
(OVER)
2
Moreover, H.R. 9303 would create an unfair situation
in which some child day care centers would operate under a
different set of standards than other centers within the
same State. Those day care centers in which fewer than 20
percent of those served are eligible under Title XX could
be exempt from Federal day care standards. This provision
would have the probable effect in some instances of reducing
the availability of day care services by encouraging day
care centers to reduce the proportion of children in their
care who are eligible under Title XX in order to meet the
"quota" set by H.R. 9803. In those centers not choosing to
take advantage of this loophole, the effect could well be
to increase day care costs to families who use these centers
on a fee-paying basis. In effect, they would be helping to
subsidize the high costs imposed on day care providers
serving Title XX-eligible children.
There is considerable debate as to the appropriateness
or efficacy of the Federal day care standards imposed by
H.R. 9803. In fact, the bill recognizes many of these
questions by postponing their enforcement for the third time,
in this case to July 1 of this year. Fewer than one in
four of the States have chosen to follow these standards
closely in the administration of their day care programs.
The Congress itself has required by law that the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare conduct an
18-month study ending in 1977, to evaluate their
appropriateness.
Rather than pursue the unwise course charted in this
bill, I urge that the Congress extend, until October 1,
1976, the moratorium on imposition of Federal day care
staffing standards that it voted last October. This would
give the Congress ample time to enact my proposed Federal
Assistance for Community Services Act, under which States
would establish and enforce their own day care staffing
standards and fashion their social services programs in
ways they believe will best meet the needs of their
citizens.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 6, 1976
#####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 12, 1976
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT
UPON HIS VETO
OF THE HATCH ACT AMENDMENTS
THE OVAL OFFICE
1:48 P.M. EST
I am returning to Congress today without my signature
a bill thatwould lift the ban against partisan political
activity by Federal civil servants. For almost 40 years
under the Hatch Act civil servants have been allowed an
active role in the Democratic process. They can vote, they
can attend rallies and conventions, they can contribute
to the candidates of their choice.
However, the Hatch Act has also prohibited
civil servants from engaging in other far more partisan
activities, such as political campaigns. The prohibition
against the partisan politics in the Civil Service was
written into the law for two very sound and worthwhile
reasons: to assure the American people that their affairs
were being conducted with an eye on the public interest,
not a partisan interest, and to protect civil servants
themselves from undue political coercion.
I believe that the concerns that have been valid
for the last four decades are still valid today. The
public business of our Government must be conducted without
the taint of partisan politics. I am, therefore, returning
this bill to the Congress without my approval.
END (AT 1:49 P.M. EST)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 12, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am today returning, without my approval, H.R. 8617,
a bill that would essentially repeal the Federal law
commonly known as the Hatch Act, which prohibits Federal
employees from taking an active part in partisan politics.
The public expects that government service will be
provided in a neutral, nonpartisan fashion. This bill
would produce an opposite result.
Thomas Jefferson foresaw the dangers of Federal
employees electioneering, and some of the explicit Hatch
Act rules were first applied in 1907 by President Theodore
Roosevelt. In 1939, as an outgrowth of concern over politi-
cal coercion of Federal employees, the Hatch Act itself was
enacted.
The amendments which this bill make to the Hatch Act
would deny the lessons of history.
If, as contemplated by H.R. 8617, the prohibitions
against political campaigning were removed, we would be
endangering the entire concept of employee independence
and freedom from coercion which has been largely success-
ful in preventing undue political influence in Government
programs or personnel management. If this bill were to
become law, I believe pressures could be brought to bear
on Federal employees in extremely subtle ways beyond the
reach of any anti-coercion statute so that they would
inevitably feel compelled to engage in partisan political
activity. This would be bad for the employee, bad for the
government, and bad for the public.
Proponents of this bill argue that the Hatch Act limits
the rights of Federal employees. The Hatch Act does in fact
restrict the right of employees to fully engage in partisan
politics. It was intended, for good reason, to do precisely
that. Most people, including most Federal employees, not
only understand the reasons for these restrictions, but
support them.
However, present law does not bar all political activity
on the part of Federal employees. They may register and vote
in any election, express opinions on political issues or
candidates, be members of and make contributions to political
parties, and attend political rallies and conventions, and
engage in a variety of other political activities. What
they may not -- and, in my view, should not -- do is attempt
to be partisan political activists and impartial Government
employees at the same time.
more
2
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 in affirming the validity
of the Hatch Act, noted that it represented
"a judgment made by this country over the last
century that it is in the best interest of the
country, indeed essential, that federal service
should depend upon meritorious performance rather
than political service, and that the political
influence of federal employees on others and on
the electoral process should be limited."
The Hatch Act is intended to strike a delicate balance
between fair and effective government and the First Amendment
rights of individual employees. It has been successful, in
my opinion, in striking that balance.
H.R. 8617 is bad law in other respects. The bill's
provisions for the exercise of a Congressional right of
disapproval of executive agency regulations are Constitu-
tionally objectionable. In addition, it would shift the
responsibility for adjudicating Hatch Act violations from
the Civil Service Commission to a new Board composed of
Federal employees. No convincing evidence exists to
justify this shift. However, the fundamental objection
to this bill is that politicizing the Civil Service is
intolerable.
I, therefore, must veto the measure.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
APRIL 12, 1976
#####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 7, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am returning, without my approval, S. 2662, a bill
that would seriously obstruct the exercise of the President's
constitutional responsibilities for the conduct of foreign
affairs. In addition to raising fundamental constitutional
problems, this bill includes a number of unwise restrictions
that would seriously inhibit my ability to implement a
coherent and consistent foreign policy:
By imposing an arbitrary arms sale ceiling, it
limits our ability to respond to the legitimate
defense needs of our friends and obstructs U.S.
industry from competing fairly with foreign
suppliers.
By requiring compliance by recipient countries
with visa practices or human rights standards set
by our Congress as a condition for continued U.S.
assistance, the bill ignores the many other complex
factors which should govern our relationships with
those countries; and it impairs our ability to deal
by more appropriate means with objectionable
practices of other nations.
By removing my restrictions on trade with North
and South Vietnam, S. 2662 undercuts any incentive
the North Vietnamese may have to provide an
accounting for our MIAs.
By mandating a termination of grant military
assistance and military assistance advisory groups
after fiscal year 1977 unless specifically authorized
by Congress, the bill vitiates two important tools
which enable us to respond to the needs of many
countries and maintain vital controls over military
sales programs.
The bill also contains several provisions which violate
the constitutional separation of executive and legislative
powers. By a concurrent resolution passed by a majority of
both Houses, programs authorized by the Congress can be later
reviewed, further restricted, or even terminated. Such frus-
tration of the ability of the Executive to make operational
decisions violates the President's constitutional authority
to conduct our relations with other nations.
While I encourage increased Congressional involvement in
the formulation of foreign policy, the pattern of unprecedented
restrictions contained in this bill requires that I reject such
Congressional encroachment on the Executive Branch's constitu-
tional authority to implement that policy.
more
2
Constitutional Objections
With regard to the Constitutional issues posed by S.2662,
this bill contains an array of objectionable requirements
whereby virtually all significant arms transfer decisions
would be subjected on a case-by-case basis to a period of
delay for Congressional review and possible disapproval by
concurrent resolution of the Congress. These provisions are
incompatible with the express provision in the Constitution
that a resolution having the force and effect of law must be
presented to the President and, if disapproved, repassed by
a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the House of
Representatives. They extend to the Congress the power to
prohibit specific transactions authorized by law without
changing the law -- and without following the constitutional
process such a change would require. Moreover, they would
involve the Congress directly in the performance of Executive
functions in disregard of the fundamental principle of sepa-
ration of powers. Congress can, by duly adopted legislation,
authorize or prohibit such actions as the execution of
contracts or the issuance of export licenses, but Congress
cannot itself participate in the Executive functions of
deciding whether to enter into a lawful contract or issue
a lawful license, either directly or through the disapproval
procedures contemplated in this bill.
The erosion of the basic distinction between legislative
and Executive functions which would result from the enactment
of S. 2662, displays itself in an increasing volume of similar
legislation which this Congress has passed or is considering.
Such legislation would pose a serious threat to our system of
government, and would forge impermissible shackles on the
President's ability to carry out the laws and conduct the
foreign relations of the United States. The President cannot
function effectively in domestic matters, and speak for the
nation authoritatively in foreign affairs, if his decisions
under authority previously conferred can be reversed by a
bare majority of the Congress. Also, the attempt of Congress
to become a virtual co-administrator in operational decisions
would seriously distract it from its proper legislative role.
Inefficiency, delay, and uncertainty in the management of our
nation's foreign affairs would eventually follow.
Apart from these basic constitutional deficiencies
which appear in six sections of the bill, S. 2662 is faulty
legislation, containing numerous unwise restrictions.
Annual Ceiling on Arms Sales
A further objectionable feature of S. 2662 is an annual
ceiling of $9.0 billion on the total of government sales and
commercial exports of military equipment and services. In
our search to negotiate mutual restraints in the prolifera-
tion of conventional weapons, this self--imposed ceiling would
be an impediment to our efforts to obtain the cooperation of
other arms-supplying nations. Such an arbitrary ceiling
would also require individual transactions to be evaluated,
not on their own merits, but on the basis of their relation-
ship to the volume of other, unrelated transactions. This
provision would establish an arbitrary, overall limitation
as a substitute for case-by-case analyses and decisions based
on foreign policy priorities and the legitimate security
needs of our allies and friends.
more
3
Discrimination and Human Rights
This bill also contains well-intended but misguided
provisions to require the termination of military coopera-
tion with countries which engage in practices that dis-
criminate against United States citizens or practices
constituting a consistent pattern of gross human rights
violations. This Administration is fully committed to a
policy of not only actively opposing but also seeking
the elimination of discrimination by foreign governments
against United States citizens on the basis of their race,
religion, national origin or sex, just as the Administration
is fully supportive of internationally recognized human rights
as a standard for all nations to respect. The use of the
proposed sanctions against sovereign nations is, however, an
awkward and ineffective device for the promotion of those policies
These provisions of the bill represent further attempts to ignore
important and complex policy considerations by requiring
simple legalistic tests to measure the conduct of sovereign
foreign governments. If Congress finds such conduct deficient,
specific actions by the United States to terminate or limit
our cooperation with the government concerned would be man-
dated. By making any single factor the effective determinant
of relationships which must take into account other considera-
tions, such provisions would add a new element of uncertainty
to our security assistance programs and would cast doubt upon
the reliability of the United States in its dealings with
other countries. Moreover, such restrictions would most
likely be counterproductive as a means for eliminating
discriminatory practices and promoting human rights. The
likely result would be a selective disassociation of the
United States from governments unpopular with the Congress,
thereby diminishing our ability to advance the cause of
human rights through diplomatic means.
Trade with Vietnam
The bill would suspend for 180 days the President's
authority to control certain trade with North and South
Vietnam, thereby removing a vital bargaining instrument
for the settlement of a number of differences between the
United States and these countries. I have the deepest
sympathy for the intent of this provision, which is to
obtain an accounting for Americans missing in action in
Vietnam. However, the enactment of this legislation would
not provide any real assurances that the Vietnamese would
now fulfill their long-standing obligation to provide such
an accounting. Indeed, the establishment of a direct
linkage between trade and accounting for those missing in
action might well only perpetuate Vietnamese demands for
greater and greater concessions.
This Administration is prepared to be responsive to
Vietnamese action on the question of Americans missing in
action. Nevertheless, the delicate process of negotiations
with the Vietnamese cannot be replaced by a legislative
mandate that would open up trade for a specified number of
days and then terminate that trade as a way to achieve our
diplomatic objectives. This mandate represents an unacceptable
attempt by Congress to manage the diplomatic relations of the
United States.
more
4
Termination of Grant Military Assistance and
Advisory Groups
The legislation would terminate grant military assis-
tance and military assistance advisory groups after fiscal
year 1977 except where specifically authorized by Congress,
thus creating a presumption against such programs and
missions. Such a step would have a severe impact on our
relations with other nations whose security and well-being
are important to our own national interests. In the case of
grant assistance, it would limit our flexibility to assist
countries whose national security is important to us but which
are not themselves able to bear the full cost of their own
defense. In the case of advisory groups, termination of
missions by legislative fiat would impair close and long-
standing military relationships with important allies.
Moreover, such termination is inconsistent with increasing
Congressional demands for the kind of information about and
control over arms sales which these groups now provide.
Such provisions would insert Congress deeply into the
details of specific country programs, a role which Congress
has neither the information nor the organizational structure
to play.
*****
I particularly regret that, notwithstanding the spirit
of genuine cooperation between the Legislative and Executive
Branches that has characterized the deliberations on this
legislation, we have been unable to overcome the major
policy differences that exist.
In disapproving this bill, I act as any President would,
and must, to retain the ability to function as the foreign
policy leader and spokesman of the Nation. In world affairs
today, America can have only one foreign policy. Moreover,
that foreign policy must be certain, clear and consistent.
Foreign governments must know that they can treat with the
President on foreign policy matters, and that when he speaks
within his authority, they can rely upon his words.
Accordingly, I must veto the bill.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 7, 1976.
#####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 2, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning herewith without my approval
H.R. 12384, a bill "To authorize certain construction
at military installations and for other purposes. il
I regret that I must take this action because the
bill is generally acceptable, providing a comprehensive
construction program for fiscal year 1977 keyed to
recognized military requirements. One provision,
however, is highly objectionable, thus precluding my
approval of the measure.
Section 612 of the bill would prohibit certain base
closures or the reduction of civilian personnel at certain
military installations unless the proposed action is
reported to Congress and a period of nine months elapses
during which time the military department concerned would
be required to identify the full range of environmental
impacts of the proposed action. as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Subsequently, the final
decision to close or significantly reduce an installation
covered under the bill would have to be reported to the
Armed Services Committees of the Congress together with
a detailed justification for such decision. No action
could be taken to implement the decision until the
expiration of at least ninety days following submission
of the detailed justification to the appropriate committees.
The bill provides a limited Presidential waiver of the
requirements of section 612 for reasons of military
emergency or national security.
This provision is also unacceptable from the stand-
point of sound Government policy. It would substitute
an arbitrary time limit and set of requirements for the
current procedures whereby base closures and reductions
are effected, procedures which include compliance with
NEPA and adequately take into account all other relevant
considerations, and afford extensive opportunity for
public and congressional involvement. By imposing
unnecessary delays in base closures and reductions
the bill's requirements would generate a budgetary
drain on the defense dollar which should be used to
strengthen our military capabilities.
Moreover, section 612 raises serious questions by
its attempt to limit my powers over military bases. The
President must be able, if the need arises, to change or
reduce the mission at any military installation if and
when that becomes necessary.
more
2
The Department of Defense has undertaken over 2,700
actions to reduce, realign, and close military installations
and activities since 1969. These actions have enabled us
to sustain the combat capability of our armed forces
while reducing annual Defense costs by more than $4 billion.
For realignment proposals already announced for study,
section 612 could increase fiscal year 1978 budgetary
requirements for defense by $150 million and require
retention, at least through fiscal year 1977. of approxi-
mately 11,300 military and civilian personnel positions
not needed for essential base activities.
The nation's taxpayers rightly expect the most
defense possible for their tax dollars. I am certain
Congress does not intend unnecessary or arbitrary increases
in the tax burden of the American people. Numerous congres
sional reports on national defense demonstrate the desire
by the Congress to trim unnecessary defense spending and
personnel. I cannot approve legislation that would result
in waste and inefficiency at the expense of meeting our
essential military requirements.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July ?, 1976
#
#
#
#
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 3, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am returning to the Congress today without my approval
S. 391, the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1975.
This bill addresses two essential issues: the form of
Federal assistance for communities affected by development
of Federally-owned minerals, and the way that Federal pro
cedures for the leasing of coal should be modernized.
On the first of these issues, I am in total agreement
with the Congress that the Federal Government should provide
assistance, and I concur in the form of assistance adopted
by the Congress in S. 391. Specifically, I pledge my
support for increasing the State share of Federal leasing
revenues from 37-1/2 percent to 50 percent.
Last January I proposed to the Congress the Federal
Energy Impact Assistance Act to meet the same assistance
problem, but in a different way. My proposal called for a
program of grants. loans and loan guarantees for communities
in both coastal and inland States affected by development
of Federal energy resources such as gas, oil and coal.
The Congress has agreed with me that impact assistance
in the form I proposed should be provided for coastal States,
and I hope to be able to sign appropriate legislation in
the near future.
However, in the case of States affected by S. 391 most
of which are inland, the Congress by overwhelming majority
has voted to expand the more traditional sharing of Federal
leasing revenues, raising the State share of those revenues
by one third. If S. 391 were limited to that provision, I
would sign it.
Unfortunately, however S. 391 is also littered with
many other provisions which would insert so many rigidities,
complications, and burdensome regulations into Federal
leasing procedures that it would inhibit coal production
on Federal lands, probably raise prices for consumers, and
ultimately delay our achievement of energy independence.
I object in particular to the way that S. 391 restricts
the flexibility of the Secretary of the Interior in setting
the terms of individual leases so that a variety of
conditions --- physical environmental and economic can
be taken into account. S. 391 would require a minimum
royalty of 12-1/2 percent, more than is necessary in all
cases. S. 391 would also defer bonus payments payments
by the lessee to the Government usually made at the front
end of the lease on 50 percent of the acreage, an
more
2
unnecessarily stringent provision. This bill would also
require production within 10 years, with no additional
flexibility. Furthermore it would require approval of
operating and reclamation plans within three years of
lease issuance. While such terms may be appropriate in
many lease transactions or perhaps most of them such
rigid requirements will nevertheless serve to setback efforts
to accelerate coal production.
Other provisions of S. 391 will unduly delay the
development of our coal reserves by setting up new adminis-
trative roadblocks. In particular, S. 391 requires detailed
anti-trust review of all leases, no matter how small; it
requires four sets of public hearings where one or two would
suffice, and it authorizes States to delay the process where
National forests a Federal responsibility *** are concerned.
Still other provisions of the bill are simply unnecessary.
For instance, one provision requires comprehensive Federal
exploration of coal resources. This provision is not needed
because the Secretary of the Interior already has - and is
prepared to exercise -- the authority to require prospective
bidders to furnish the Department with all of their explora
tion data so that the Secretary, in dealing with them, will
do so knowing as much about the coal resources covered as
the prospective lessees.
For all of these reasons, I believe that S. 391 would
have an adverse impact on our domestic coal production. On
the other hand, I agree with the sponsors of this legislation
that there are sound reasons for providing in Federal law
not simply in Federal regulations a new Federal coal policy
that will assure a fair and effective mechanism for future
leasing.
Accordingly I ask the Congress to work with me in
developing legislation that would meet the objections I
have outlined and would also increase the State share of
Federal leasing revenues.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 3. 1976.
####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 6, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am today returning without my approval, S. 3201,
the Public Works Employment Act of 1976.
This bill would require $3.95 billion in Federal
spending above and beyond what is necessary. It sends
a clear signal to the American people that four months
before a national election, the Congress is enacting
empty promises and giveaway programs. I will not take
the country down that path. Time and time again, we have
found where it leads: to larger deficits, higher taxes,
higher inflation and ultimately higher unemployment.
We must stand firm I know the temptation, but I
urge Members of Congress to reconsider their positions
and join with me now in keeping our economy on the road
to healthy, sustained growth.
It was almost five months ago that the Senate sustained
my veto of a similar bill, H.R. 5247, and the reasons
compelling that veto are equally persuasive now with
respect to S. 3201. Bad policy is bad whether the in-
flation price tag is $4 billion or $6 billion.
Proponents of S. 3201 argue that it is urgently
needed to provide new jobs. I yield to no one in concern
over the effects of unemployment and in the desire that
there be enough jobs for every American who is seeking
work. To emphasize the point, let me remind the Congress
that the economic policies of this Administration are
designed to create 2 - 2.5 million jobs in 1976 and an
additional 2 million jobs in 1977. By contrast,
Administration economists estimate that this bill, S. 3201,
will create at most 160,000 jobs over the coming years ---
less than 5% of what my own policies will accomplish.
Moreover, the jobs created by S. 3201 would reduce national
unemployment by less than one-tenth of one percent in
any year. The actual projection is that the effect would
be .06 percent, at a cost of $4 billion. Thus, the heart
of the debate over this bill is not over who cares the
most ---- we all care a great deal ** ** but over the best
way to reach our goal.
When I vetoed H.R. 5247 last February, I pointed out
that it was unwise to stimulate even further an economy
which was showing signs of a strong and steady recovery.
Since that time the record speaks for itself. The present
7.5 percent unemployment rate is a full one percent lower
than the average unemployment rate of 8.5 percent last
year. More importantly, almost three and a half million
more Americans now have jobs than was the case in March
of last year. We have accomplished this while at the same
time reducing inflation which plunged the country into the
severe recession of 1975.
more
2
S. 3201 would authorize almost $4 billion in additional
Federal spending -- $2 billion for public works, $1.25
billion for countercyclical aid to state and local govern-
ments, and $700 million for EPA waste water treatment
grants.
Beyond the intolerable addition to the budget, S. 3201
has several serious deficiencies. First, relatively few new
jobs would be created. The bill's sponsors estimate that
S. 3201 would create 325,000 new jobs but, as pointed out
above, our estimates indicate that at most some 160 000
work years of employment would be created and that would
be over a period of several years. The peak impact would
come in late 1977 or 1978 and would add no more than
50,000 to 60,000 new jobs in any year.
Second, S. 3201 would create few new jobs in the
immediate future. With peak impact on jobs in late 1977
or early 1978, this legislation would add further stimulus
to the economy at precisely the wrong time: when the
economy is already far into the recovery.
Third, the cost of producing jobs under this bill
would be intolerably high. probably in excess of $25,000
per job.
Fourth, this bill would be inflationary since it
would increase Federal spending and consequently the
budget deficit by as much as $1.5 billion in 1977 alone.
It would increase demands on the economy and on the bor-
rowing needs of the government when those demands are
least desirable. Basic to job creation in the private
sector is reducing the ever increasing demands of the
Federal government for funds. Federal government borrowing
to support deficit spending reduces the amount of money
available for productive investment at a time when many
experts are predicting that we face a shortage of private
capital in the future. Less private investment means
fewer jobs and less production per worker. Paradoxically,
a bill designed as a job creation measure may, in the
long run, place just the opposite pressures on the economy.
I recognize there is merit in the argument that some
areas of the country are suffering from exceptionally high
rates of unemployment and that the Federal government should
provide assistance. My budgets for fiscal years 1976 and
1977 do, in fact, seek to provide such assistance.
Beyond my own budget recommendations I believe that in
addressing the immediate needs of some of our cities hardest
hit by the recession, another measure before the Congress,
H.R. 11860 sponsored by Congressman Garry Brown and
S. 2986 sponsored by Senator Bob Griffin provides a far
more reasonable and constructive approach than the bill
I am vetoing.
H.R. 11860 would target funds on those areas with the
highest unemployment so that they may undertake high priority
activities at a fraction of the cost of S. 3201. The funds
would be distributed exclusively under an impartial formula
as opposed to the pork barrel approach represented by
the public works portions of the bill I am returning
more
3
today. Moreover, H.R. 11860 builds upon the successful
Community Development Block Grant program. That program
is in place and working well, thus permitting H.R. 11860
to be administered without the creation of a new bureaucracy.
I would be glad to accept this legislation should the
Congress formally act upon it as an alternative to S. 3201.
The best and most effective way to create new jobs is
to pursue balanced economic policies that encourage the
growth of the private sector without risking a new round
of inflation. This is the core of my economic policy, and
I believe that the steady improvements in the economy over
the last half year on both the unemployment and inflation
fronts bear witness to its essential wisdom. I intend
to continue this basic approach because it is working.
My proposed economic policies are expected to produce
lasting, productive jobs, not temporary jobs paid for by the
American taxpayer.
This is a policy of balance realism and common sense.
It is a sound policy which provides long term benefits and
does not promise more than it can deliver,
My program includes:
-- Large and permanent tax reductions that will leave
more money where it can do the most good: in the hands of
the American people
Incentives for the construction of new plants and
equipment in areas of high unemployment
-- More than $21 billion in outlays in the fiscal year
beginning October 1 for important public works such as
energy facilities, waste water treatment plants, roads,
and veterans' hospitals representing a 17 percent increase
over the previous fiscal year.
And a five and three quarter year package of
general revenue sharing funds for state and local governments.
I ask Congress to act quickly on my tax and budget
proposals, which I believe will provide the jobs for the
unemployed that we all want.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 6, 1976.
####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 7, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
FILE
THE WHITE HOUSE
HR 12567
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12567, a
bill to authorize appropriations for the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 and the Act of March 3,
1901, for fiscal years 1977 and 1978, and for other
purposes.
I am disapproving H.R. 12567 because it contains a
provision that would seriously obstruct the exercise of
the President's constitutional responsibilities over
Executive branch operations. Section 2 of the enrolled
bill provides that Congress may, by concurrent resolution,
veto' a plan to commit funds for construction of the
National Academy for Fire Prevention and Control. This
provision extends to the Congress the power to prohibit
specific transactions authorized by law, without changing
the law and without following the constitutional process
such a change would require. Moreover, it involves the
Congress directly in the performance of Executive functions
in disregard of the fundamental principle of separation of
powers.
Provisions of this type have been appearing in an
increasing number of bills which this Congress has passed
or is considering. Most are intended to enhance the power
of the Congress over the detailed execution of the laws at
the expense of the President's authority. I have consistently
opposed legislation containing these provisions, and will
continue to oppose actions that constitute a legislative
encroachment on the Executive branch.
I urge the Congress to reconsider H.R. 12567 and to
pass a bill I can accept so that it will be possible for
the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration to
proceed with its important work.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
JULY 7, 1976
####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 7, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12567, a
bill to authorize appropriations for the Federal Fire
Prevention and Control Act of 1974 and the Act of March 3,
1901, for fiscal years 1977 and 1978, and for other
purposes.
I am disapproving H.R. 12567 because it contains a
provision that would seriously obstruct the exercise of
the President's constitutional responsibilities over
Executive branch operations. Section 2 of the enrolled
bill provides that Congress may, by concurrent resolution,
veto' a plan to commit funds for construction of the
National Academy for Fire Prevention and Control. This
provision extends to the Congress the power to prohibit
specific transactions authorized by law, without changing
the law and without following the constitutional process
such a change would require. Moreover, it involves the
Congress directly in the performance of Executive functions
in disregard of the fundamental principle of separation of
powers.
Provisions of this type have been appearing in an
increasing number of bills which this Congress has passed
or is considering. Most are intended to enhance the power
of the Congress over the detailed execution of the laws at
the expense of the President's authority. I have consistently
opposed legislation containing these provisions, and will
continue to oppose actions that constitute a legislative
encroachment on the Executive branch.
I urge the Congress to reconsider H.R. 12567 and to
pass a bill I can accept so that it will be possible for
the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration to
proceed with its important work.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
JULY 7, 1976
####
FOR INMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 14, 1975
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
Today I have signed into law legislation authorizing
Fiscal Year 1977 appropriations of $32.5 billion for
Procurement and for Research and Development programs
for the Department of Defense. While this authorization
provides for many Defense activities essential for our
national security, the bill still nas a number of
deficiencies.
It is noteworthy that this is the first Defense
authorization bill in many years to be passed by the
Congress in time to become law before the start of the
fiscal year. I commend the Congress for their expeditious
action which, by helping us to maintain the continuity of
Defense management activities, assists us in our efforts
to improve Defense management practices.
My FY 1977 total budget request for national defense
is $115 billion -- as it must be, given the adverse trends
which have developed as a result of Congressional cuts in
U.S. military expenditures. The Congress must cooperate
if we are to be able to successfully arrest these trends
in order to assure our own security and, in a real sense,
peace and stability in the world.
In important respects, however, Congress has not
faced up to the challenge. First, Congress has not
approved a number of essential Defense programs. Second,
Congress has added funds to the FY 1977 Budget for programs
which are not needed in FY 1977. Finally, Congress has
not yet acted upon certain of my legislative proposals
which are necessary to permit the Defense Department
to restrain manpower cost growth, reduce waste and
inefficiency and to achieve economies. These three areas
require remedial action by the Congress.
Programs Not Approved
Shipbuilding. Congress has failed to authorize $1.7
billion requested for new ship programs that are needed to
strengthen our maritime capabilities and assure freedom of
the seas. In particular, they have denied funds for the
lead ships for two essential production programs -- the
nuclear strike cruiser and the conventionally-powered AEGIS
destroyer - and for four.modern frigates. The FY 1977 program
was proposed as the first step of a sustained effort to assure
that the United States, along with its allies, can maintain
maritime defense, deterrence, and freedom of the seas. I
plan to resubmit budget requests for FY 1977 to cover these
essential shipbuilding programs.
Other Programs. Congress has also failed to authorize
nearly $900 million requested for other Defense procurement
and research and development programs. As with the shipbuilding
program, I will resubmit the requests needed to meet our
minimum national security requirements.
more
QURALD FORD VIBRARY
2
Programs Not Needed in FY 1977
At the same time that the Congress disapproved several
programs which are vital for our national security, they
added over $1 billion to the original budget request for
items for which I did not request funds in FY 1977. For
example, Congress added:
A fourth attack submarine ($357 million) for
which funds cannot be used in FY 1977 owing to
shipyard capacity limitations.
Conversion of the cruiser LONG BEECH ($371 million)
which can be readily postponed.
Six Navy A-6E attack aircraft ($66 million), which
are not a high priority, particularly at the
uneconomical production rate of six per year
proposed by the Congress.
Repair and modernization of the cruiser BELKNAP
($213 million) damaged in a collision, for which
funds should have been authorized prior to FY 1977.
I propose that Congress delete the funds for these
programs in FY 1977, and authorize funds for repair of the
BELKNAP in the current Transition Quarter. If the Congress
does not act favorably on this request, then funds have to be
added on top of the FY 1977 Defense budget, in order to avoid
forcing out essential Defense activities.
Defense Management Economies
Finally, Congress has not enacted certain legislative
proposals necessary to permit the Department of Defense to
restrain manpower cost growth and to achieve other essential
economies.
As estimated last January, the potential savings in Defense
made possible by my proposals total over $3 billion in FY 1977
and $23 billion over the five-year period FY 1977-1981. About
half of these savings can be achieved through administrative
action by the President, and are being implemented. The
remaining initiatives, however, require action by the Congress.
When submitting the budget request last January, I ex-
plained that if the Congress did not pass the needed legislation,
it would be necessary to increase the budget request later in
the year. I am pleased that some of the manpower initiatives
falling within the jurisdiction of the two Armed Services
Committees -- which produced this authorization bill -- were
well received. The Post Office and Civil Service Committees,
however, have been reluctant to act on the critical legislation
needed to save over $400 million in FY 1977 and over $6 billion
over the five-year period FY 1977-1981. Specific proposals
within their jurisdiction include: (1) reform of the Wage
Board System which, through its current system for calculating
pay raises, now overpays blue collar civilian employees;
(2) elimination of the excessive 1% kicker in retired pay
adjustments for civilians; and (3) elimination of dual com-
pensation for reservists who are also Federal employees.
more
BERRAD FORD LIBRARY
3
Furthermore, the Armed Services Committees have yet to
enact legislation permitting the sale in FY 1977 of nearly
$750 million worth of commodities no longer needed in the
strategic stockpile; the receipts from these sales would be
an offset in the National Defense Budget, and without them the
budget ceiling for Defense expenditures must be increased
accordingly.
There has been a lot of talk about cutting waste in
Defense spending. Without action by the Congress these
economies cannot be achieved. Here is the opportunity to act.
These remaining actions to provide for greater efficiencies
in the Defense budget should be approved. Because Congress
apparently is indifferent to them, however, I have decided
reluctantly to forward budget requests to cover the needed
amounts. Failure by Congress either to enact legislation
permitting the economy measures, or to provide the additional
funds necessary would mean a severely unbalanced Defense
program, which would be unacceptable.
I am determined that the U.S. National Security be fully
adequate. It is up to the Congress to act promptly to provide
tne necessary funds.
# # # #
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 21, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I deeply regret today that the Senate has overridden my veto of the
Public Works Bill.
Both the Senate and I share a keen desire to expand job opportunities for
all Americans, but I continue to believe that the wisest, most productive
means of reaching that goal is through a steadily growing private sector --
not through temporary jobs that are run by the government, increase the
national debt, and create new inflationary pressures.
The House can rectify the Senate action on Thursday and should, in the best
interest of the Nation, sustain my veto.
#
#
#
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 3, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am returning today without my signature S. 2447,
which would exempt Members of Congress from certain
local income taxes. This bill provides that a Member of
Congress need not pay the income tax levied by a state or
municipality in which the Member lives for the purpose of
attending Congress.
Since Virginia and District of Columbia laws already
exempt from payment of their income taxes Members living in
such jurisdictions only while attending Congress, S. 2447
would serve principally to prevent Maryland from levying
such taxes on Members of Congress. However, it is one thing
for a taxing jurisdiction voluntarily to exempt Members of
Congress from its income tax laws and quite another for
Congress to mandate a Federal exemption on a state income
tax system. I believe such Federal interference is
particularly objectionable where, as is the case in
Maryland, a portion of the income tax is collected on
behalf of counties to pay for local public services
which all residents use and enjoy. It should also be
noted that this bill would in effect freeze the exemptions
now provided by Virginia and the District of Columbia, and
they would then be powerless to change their tax laws in
this regard.
Since this bill benefits a narrow and special class of
persons it violates, in my view, the basic concept of equity
and fairness by creating a special tax exemption for Members
of Congress while other citizens who are required to take up
temporary residence in the Washington area --- or elsewhere --
do not enjoy a similar privilege.
Finally, those who assert that there is a Constitutional
infirmity in applying a state income tax to Members while
attending Congress may present the issue to the courts for
resolution.
As the end of this session of Congress approaches, the
American people would be better served if Congress would
direct its attention to the important laws that should be
passed this year to cut taxes and spending; to expand
catastrophic health care programs to limit court ordered
school busing, to attack crime and drugs, and to address
many other important matters of concern to the American
people --- rather than by enacting legislation such as
S. 2447.
For these reasons, I am returning S. 2447 and asking
Congress to reconsider this bill.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 3, 1976.
#
#
#
#
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August. 14, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 12944, a
bill To extend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, as amended, for six months. If the only
purpose of the bill were that set forth in its caption I
would have no reservations about 1t.
The bill would, however, also make a serious substantive
change in the law. It would subject rules and regulations
issued under authority of the Act to a 60-day review period
during which either House of Congress may disapprove the
rule or regulation by simple resolution.
As I have indicated on previous occasions, I believe
that provisions for review of regulations and other action
by resolutions of one house or concurrent resolution are
unconstitutional. They are contrary to the general principle
of separation of power whereby Congress enacts laws but
the President and the agencies of government execute them.
Furthermore, they violate Article I, section 7 which requires
that resolutions having the force of law be sent to the
President for his signature or veto. There is no provision
in the Constitution for the procedure contemplated by this
bill.
Congress has been considering bills of this kind in
increasing number. At my direction, the Attorney General
moved recently to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of a comparable section of the Federal
election law. I hope that Congress will reconsider
H.R. 12944 and pass a bill which omits this provision.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 13, 1976
GERALD R. FORD
#####
FORD is LIBRARY 938870
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 13, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 8800, the
"Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development and
Demonstration Act of 1976.
This bill would establish a five-year, $160 million
research, development and demonstration project within
the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA)
to promote the development of an electric vehicle that
could function as a practical alternative to the gasoline-
powered automobile. One of the major objectives of the
project would be the development and purchase by the
Federal government of some 7,500 demonstration electric
vehicles. Such development would cover some of the areas
private industry stands ready to pursue.
It is well documented that technological breakthroughs
in battery research are necessary before the electric ve-
hicle can become a viable option. It is simply premature
and wasteful for the Federal government to engage in a
massive demonstration program -- such as that intended by
the bill -- before the required improvements in batteries
for such vehicles are developed.
ERDA already has adequate authority under the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 and the Federal Non-nuclear
Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 to conduct an
appropriate electric vehicle development program. Under
my fiscal year 1977 budget, ERDA will focus on the research
areas that inhibit the development of practical electric
vehicles, for wide-spread use by the motoring public.
Included is an emphasis on advanced battery technology.
Even assuming proper technological advances, the
development of a completely new automobile for large-
scale production is a monumental task requiring extensive
investment of money and years of development. While the
Government can play an important role in exploring par-
ticular phases of electric vehicle feasibility -- especially
in the critical area of battery research -- it must be
recognized that private industry already has substantial
experience and interest in the development of practical
electric vehicle transportation. I am not prepared to
commit the Federal government to this type of a massive
spending program which I believe private industry is best
able to undertake.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 13, 1976.
#
#
#
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 24, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 5465, a
bill which would provide special retirement benefits to
certain non-Indian employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS) who are adversely
affected by Indian preference requirements.
I strongly support the objective of having Indians
administer the Federal programs directly affecting them.
I am familiar with and understand the concern of non-Indian
employees of these agencies about their long-term career
prospects because of Indian preference. But H.R. 5465 is
the wrong way to deal with this problem.
This bill is designed to increase employment opportunities
for Indians by providing special compensation to non-Indian
employees in BIA and IHS who retire early. It seeks to
accomplish this purpose by authorizing payment of extraordinary
retirement benefits under certain conditions to non-Indian
employees of these agencies who retire before 1986 -- benefits
more liberal than those available to any other group of
Federal employees under the civil service retirement system.
I believe that this approach will result in inequities and
added costs that far exceed the problem it is attempting to
solve -- a problem which is already being addressed through
administrative actions by the agencies involved.
H.R. 5465 would provide windfall retirement benefits to
a relatively small number of the non-Indian employees of
these agencies. The Indian employees and other non-Indian
employees in these same agencies would not receive these
benefits. The eligible employees are not in danger of
losing their jobs. Because they may face a limited outlook
for promotion, the bill would pay these employees costly
annuities even though they had completed substantially
less than a full career. Payments could be made at age 50
after only 20 years of Federal service, of which as little
as 11 years need be Indian-agency service. Their annuities
would be equivalent to the benefits it would take the
average Federal employee until age 60 and 27 years of service
to earn.
This would seriously distort and misuse the retirement
system to solve a problem of personnel management for which
there are far more appropriate administrative solutions.
The Departments of the Interior and Health, Education, and
Welfare have established special placement programs to help
non-Indian employees who desire other jobs. I am asking the
more
2
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission to make certain that
those placement efforts are rigorously pursued with all
agencies of the Federal Government.
Further, these Departments assure me that many non-Indian
employees continue to have ample opportunity for full careers
with Indian agencies if they so desire. Accordingly, H.R. 5465
represents an excessive, although well-motivated, reaction to
the situation. Indian preference does pose a problem in these
agencies, but it can and should be redressed without resort
to costly retirement benefits.
I am not prepared, therefore, to accept the discriminatory
and costly approach of H.R. 5465.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 24, 1976
####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 29, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
Just before adjourning for the final weeks of the
election campaign, the Congress has sent me H.R. 14232, the
Departments of Labor, and Health, Education, and Welfare
appropriations for fiscal year 1977 which begins October 1.
This last and second largest of the major Federal appro-
priation bills to be considered by this Congress is a
perfect example of the triumph of election-year
politics over fiscal restraint and responsibility to the
hard-pressed American taxpayer.
Contained in this bill are appropriations for numerous
essential domestic programs which have worthy purposes. My
budget for these purposes totaled $52.5 billion, $700 million
more than this year. Since 1970 expenditures for these pro-
grams have increased at a rate 75% greater than the rate of
growth in the overall Federal Budget. Therefore, my 1977
proposals included substantial reforms in the major areas
covered by these appropriations designed to improve their
efficiency and reduce the growth of Federal bureaucracy and
red tape.
The majority in control of this Congress has ignored
my reform proposals and added nearly $4 billion in additional
spending onto these programs.
The partisan political purpose of this bill is patently
clear. It is to present me with the choice of vetoing these
inflationary increases and appearing heedless of the human
needs which these Federal programs were intended to meet, or
to sign the measure and demonstrate inconsistency with my
previous anti-inflationary vetoes on behalf of the American
taxpayer.
It is to present me with the dilemma of offending the
voting groups who benefit by these government programs, or
offending those primarily concerned with certain restrictions
embodied in the bill.
I am sympathetic to the purposes of most of these
programs. I agree with the restriction on the use of
Federal funds for abortion. My objection to this legisla-
tion is based purely and simply on the issue of fiscal
integrity.
I believe the American people are wiser than the Congress
thinks. They know that compassion on the part of the Federal
Government involves more than taking additional cash from
their paychecks. They know that inflationary spending and
larger deficits must be paid for not only by all Federal
taxpayers but by every citizen, including the poor, the
unemployed, the retired persons on fixed incomes, through
the inevitable reduction in the purchasing power of their
dollars.
I believe strongly in compassionate concern for those
who cannot help themselves, but I have compassion for the
taxpayer, too. My sense of compassion also savs that we
more
shouldn't ask the taxpayers to spend their money for a tangled
mess of programs that the Congress itself has shown all too
often to be wasteful and inefficient -- programs which all
too often fail to really help those in need.
The Congress says it cares about cutting inflation and
controlling Federal spending.
The Congress says it wants to stop fraud and abuse in
Federal programs.
The Congress says it wants to end duplication and overlap
in Federal activities.
But when you examine this bill carefully you discover that
what the Congress says has very little to do with what the
Congress does.
If the Congress really cared about cutting inflation and
controlling Federal spending, would it send me a bill that
is $4 billion over my $52.5 billion request?
If the Congress really wanted to stop fraud and abuse in
Federal programs like Medicaid, would it appropriate more
money this year than it did last year without any reform?
If the Congress really wanted to end duplication and
overlap in Federal activities, would it continue all of
these narrow programs this year -- at higher funding levels
than last year?
If the Congress really wanted to cut the deficit and
ease the burden on the taxpayer, would it ignore serious
reform proposals?
The resounding answer to all of these questions is no.
Our longtime ally, Great Britain, has now reached a
critical point in its illustrious history. The British
people must now make some very painful decisions on
government spending. As Prime Minister Callaghan courageously
said just yesterday, "Britain for too long has lived on borrowed
time, borrowed money and borrowed ideas. We will fail if we
think we can buy our way out of our present difficulties by
printing confetti money and by paying ourselves more than we
earn.
"
I cannot ask American taxpayers to accept unwarranted
spending increases without a commitment to serious reform.
I do not believe the people want more bureaucratic business
as usual. I believe the people want the reforms I have
proposed which would target the dollars on those in real
need while reducing Federal interference in our daily lives
and returning more decision-making freedom to State and local
levels where it belongs.
I therefore return without my approval H.R. 14323, and
urge the Congress to enact immediately my budget proposals
and to adopt my program reforms.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 29, 1976.
# # #
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 24, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 13655, the
"Automotive Transport Research and Development Act of 1976."
This bill would establish a five-year research and
development program within the Energy Research and Development
Administration (ERDA) leading to the development of advanced
automobile propulsion systems, advanced automobile subsystems,
and integrated test vehicles to promote the development of
advanced alternatives to existing automobiles. The major
objective of the program would be the development and con-
struction of integrated test vehicles which would incorporate
advanced automobile engines into complete vehicles conforming
to Federal requirements for safety, emissions, damageability,
and fuel economy. Such development would unnecessarily
duplicate existing authorities and extend into areas private
industry is best equipped to pursue.
Both ERDA and the Department of Transportation (DOT),
the two Federal agencies which would be most directly affected
by this program, already have sufficient authority to accomplish
the objectives of this bill. Under the authority of the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the Federal Non-nuclear
Energy Research and Development Act of 1974, ERDA's Highway
Vehicle Systems Program is presently proceeding with the
development of new automobile engine systems to the point
where several prototype systems can be demonstrated in
vehicles on the road. Under my fiscal year 1977 budget,
ERDA will continue to emphasize the development of such
advanced engines designed to meet higher levels of fuel
economy and lower emissions.
Ongoing DOT programs under the authority of the Department
of Transportation Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1966, and the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost Savings Act are currently sponsoring advanced automobile
research that, except for advanced automobile engines, will
achieve the purposes of this bill. Detailed design develop-
ment for two versions of a Research Safety Vehicle should be
completed before the end of this year. Under my fiscal year
1977 budget, DOT will have sufficient funds for its advanced
automobile research and development activities.
The Federal government, through ERDA and DOT, can play
an important role in exploring the research areas that must
be developed before advanced automobiles are produced
which meet the Nation's conservation goals -- especially in
the critical area of new engine research. However, it must
be recognized that private industry has substantial expertise
and interest in the development and production of advanced
automobiles. The appropriate Federal role in this area should
be confined to research and development only, and not extend
into borderline commercial areas which private industry is
best able to perform.
more
This highly complex technological program, moreover,
would eventually require a massive spending program not
reflected in the bill's $100 million start-up authorizations
for the first two years of the program. This bill would
unnecessarily expand research and development programs now
underway, and would provide no commensurate benefit for the
taxpayers who must pay for this program. I am therefore
returning the bill without my approval.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 24, 1976.
# # # #
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 12, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I have withheld my approval from S. 3790, a private
bill which would authorize a civil service survivor annuity
retroactive to September 28, 1972, to Mrs. Camilla A. Hester
as the widow of the late John A. Hester.
While I am sympathetic to Mrs. Hester's circumstances,
S. 3790 unfortunately contains two precedent-setting
provisions which I consider very undesirable, not only for
future private relief legislation, but also for ordinary
claims under the Civil Service Retirement System.
The first would require the Civil Service Commission
to pay interest at 6 percent per annum retroactive to 1972
on the survivor's benefit which would be authorized by
S. 3790. The second would require the Treasury to pay
Mrs. Hester $5,000 as compensation for her successful effort
to be awarded the benefit. Neither of these provisions are
appropriate, in my judgment, in bringing Mrs. Hester
equitable relief.
For these reasons I am unable to approve S. 3790.
I have signed other private relief legislation during the
94th Congress designed to rectify the inequitable circum-
stances arising from the "length of marriage" requirement
in the civil service retirement law. However, these bills
did not contain the objectionable provisions contained in
S. 3790. I would be pleased, however, to consider legislation
for Mrs. Hester that would provide appropriate relief without
the objectionable features discussed above.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
# # # #
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 14, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
E have withheld my approval from H.R. 4654, a bill
"For the relief of Day's Sportswear, Incorporated."
H.R. 4654 appears to relate to the same claim as
presented in B. A. McKenzie and Co., Inc. V. United States
United States Customs Court #74-6-01520. Another known
similar claim on behalf of another importer is pending in
the case of George S. Bush and Co., Inc. V. United States
United States Customs Court #73-9-02693.
The United States Government is presently defending
these two cases and the United States Customs Court is
expected to rule. Briefly, the litigation involves the
applicability of certain customs duties.
I believe that the courts should be permitted to rule
in these cases in due course. I am also concerned that my
approval of H.R. 4654 could inappropriately predispose the
court's ruling. Further, H.R. 4654 would constitute
preferred treatment of one importer against others having
similar claims against the Government.
Finally, I believe that private relief legislation is
appropriate only after all other avenues of available
administrative and legal recourse have been pursued.
For these reasons, I have withheld my approval from
H.R. 4654.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 13, 1976
#
#
#
#
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 18, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I have withheld my approval from H.R. 10073, "An Act to
provide for the mandatory inspection of domesticated rabbits
slaughtered for human food, and for other purposes."
This bill would make applicable to domesticated rabbits,
with minor exceptions, the provisions of the Poultry Products
Inspection Act. It would require the Secretary of Agriculture
to implement a mandatory inspection program for all domesticated
rabbit meat sold in commerce, with certain exemptions related
to type and volume of operations.
It should be noted that the Food and Drug Administration
now inspects rabbit meat to ensure that it complies with Federal
pure food laws. Thus, there is no health protection reason for
requiring mandatory Agriculture Department inspection of rabbit
meat.
The effect of this Act would be to substitute a mandatory
taxpayer-financed Agriculture Department inspection program for
a voluntary one that is now provided under another law and paid
for by the processors and consumers of rabbit meat. Since the
voluntary program already provides a means for certifying whole-
someness to those consumers who demand such protection for this
specialty food and are willing to pay for the protection, I do
not believe that a mandatory program is wise public policy.
In addition, it is estimated that the cost to the taxpayer
of government inspection provided by this Act could be more
than ten cents per pound.
The limited benefit to be derived by a relative few con-
sumers of rabbit meat cannot be justified in terms of the cost
to the taxpayer. I am therefore not approving H.R. 10073.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 17, 1976.
######
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 20, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I am withholding my approval from S. 2081, the
"Agricultural Resources Conservation Act of 1976."
S. 2081 would have required the Federal Government --
the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of
Agriculture -- to appraise the land, water and related
resources of the Nation, and to develop a plan and administer
a program for the use of private and non-Federal lands.
I have several objections to S. 2081. The bill would
set the stage for the creation of a large and costly bureau-
cracy to "cooperate" with State and local governments and
private landowners in an attempt to insure land use in
compliance with the master plan. Too often Federal
"cooperation" -- when accompanied by vast amounts of Federal
dollars and a large bureaucracy -- becomes Federal "direction."
I am not opposed to providing technical assistance to
those who need it. The Federal Government, including the Soil
Conservation Service, already does a great deal in the manage-
ment and protection of our natural resources. My 1977 budget
proposal called for outlays in excess of $11 billion for these
programs. Included in that amount is over $400 million for the
very program administered by the Soil Conservation Service
to which this bill is directed.
In addition, the bill would subject the President's
statement of policy -- a document that would be used in
framing Executive Branch budget requests for this program --
to a 60-day review period during which either House of Congress
may disapprove the statement of policy by simple resolution.
This would be contrary to the general principle of separation
of power whereby Congress enacts laws but the President and
the agencies of government execute them. Furthermore, it
would violate Article I, section 7 which requires that
resolutions having the force of law be sent to the President
for his signature or veto.
In summary, S. 2081 would violate the principles of
fiscal responsibility, minimum Federal regulation, separation
of powers, and constitutional government, and accordingly,
I withhold my approval.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 19, 1976.
#####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 22, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I am withholding my approval from S. 3553, the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, for technical reasons.
In its haste to adjourn, the Congress passed identical
Senate and House bills on this subject. At the time the
Senate passed the House bill, H.R. 11315, it attempted to
vacate its earlier passage of S. 3553 but was unable to do
so because it had left the Senate's jurisdiction. The House,
unaware that the Senate had passed the House bill, also passed
the Senate bill.
In view of the Senate's action in attempting to vacate
its passage of S. 3553, there is doubt that S. 3553 has been
properly enrolled, and therefore I am separately approving
H.R. 11315 and must withhold my approval from S. 3553.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 21, 1976
####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 22, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I am withholding my approval of S. 1437, the Federal
Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1976.
This legislation has a laudable goal -- to clarify
and rationalize the legal instruments through which the
Federal Government acquires property and services and
furnishes assistance to State and local governments and
other recipients. The bill would establish three cate-
gories of legal instruments which Federal agencies would
be required to use: procurement contracts, grant agreements,
and cooperative agreements. These categories would be de-
fined according to their different purposes.
S. 1437 would also require the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget to undertake a study which would
(1) "develop a better understanding of alternative means
of implementing Federal assistance programs and
(2)
determine the feasibility of developing a compre-
hensive system of guidance for Federal assistance programs."
The Office of Management and Budget completed a study,
almost a year ago, of the definitions of "grant", "contract"
and "cooperative agreement." That study, which has been
reviewed by other Federal agencies, public interest groups,
and other interested associations and groups, confirmed
support for the objectives of this legislation but led to
serious questions as to whether at this point legislation
is necessary or desirable.
No matter how careful the drafting, a bill which re-
quires thousands of transactions to be placed into one of
three categories will probably result, in many cases, in
limiting the flexibility of Federal agencies in administering
their programs and creating a large number of technical
difficulties for them. Federally supported basic research
programs would be particularly difficult to classify in
terms of the definitions in this bill.
The Office of Management and Budget is continuing to
work in this area with the cooperation of other Federal
agencies. It plans to issue policy guidance to Federal
agencies that would more clearly distinguish between procure-
ment and assistance transactions and to better define patterns
of assistance relationships between Federal agencies and
funding recipients.
In addition, OMB has been developing more comprehensive
guidance for assistance programs, as indicated by the recent
circulars issued by the agency establishing uniform adminis-
trative requirements for hospitals, universities, and non-
profit grantees. I am directing OMB to continue to emphasize
such activities.
more
2
Subsequent modifications and refinements can be made in
these directives when further operating experience and evalua-
tion suggest they are needed. Such an evolving set of
activities in the Executive branch, a step-by-step process
which learns from experience, is preferable to another lengthy
study as required by this bill.
In view of the extremely complex and changing nature of
Federal assistance programs, I believe that Congress should
not legislate categories of Federal assistance relationships,
but leave the number and nature of such classifications to
the Executive branch to determine and implement. If experience
from the studies and evaluations now underway demonstrates
that legislation is required, that experience would also
provide a better foundation for formulating legislation
than we have now.
Accordingly, I must withhold my approval of S. 1437.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 22, 1976
#####