Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page
doc
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory. For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.

Scholar Source Context

Document identity
localId
4525584
label
Ford Press Releases - Transportation, 1969-1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525584
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Transportation, 1969-1973
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Legislation
Local transit
Railroads
Roads
Ships
Supersonic transport planes
Transportation
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525584
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-05-31
month
5
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1969-08-01
month
8
year
1969
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e756d9190cd25e0f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D9, folder "Ford Press Releases - Transportation, 1969-1973" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Office Copy NEWS CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER RELEASE --FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON-- August 7, 1969 Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., to be placed in the Congressional Record of Thursday, August 7, 1969, immediately following the President's Message on Public Transportation. Mr. Speaker: Today nearly 80 percent of all Americans live in cities. By the year 2000 it will be 90 percent. In the next 30 years our population will increase by more than 100 million and almost all of it will be in our cities. Imagine, if you will, an urban population twice what it is today. Urban dwellers depend almost exclusively on the automobile to meet trans- portation needs. There are now more than 80 million cars in use in the United States. An estimated 160 million will be on the roads in 2000. As automobile use has grown, public transportation has declined in both quality and availability. This heavy reliance on the automobile for urban transpor- tation has greatly disadvantaged the poor. While nearly all families with incomes in excess of $10,000 have a car -- and those who don't, rent one as needed -- less than half of those with poverty-level incomes own an automobile. Most new jobs are opening in suburban or rural industrial areas, locations made feasible in most cases by construction of the Federally-financed Interstate Highway System. If an unemployed person has no car of his own and cannot work out a car pool arrangement, he cannot get the good job unless there is public transpor- tation. If he is lucky enough to have public transportation, it is usually low quality, increasingly expensive, very often so indirect that a 20-mile ride takes an hour and a half and several transfers. If urban residents are to have a real choice in how they move about, and whether they move at all, an estimated $20 billion is going to have to be spent on public transportation in the next 12 years. Our cities, alone, cannot carry this burden. State and local public debt now exceeds $100 billion. Over the next 10 years it may well exceed $250 billion. Federal funding for public transportation must be substantial and available on an assured basis. Funding must be sufficient to help finance major urban transportation projects and to provide aid for medium and small cities. (more) Digitized from Box D9 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library -2- The need is great and time works relentlessly against us. This is ample reason to back the public transportation legislation proposed by President Nixon. With his Message on Public Transportation, President Nixon has laid down a blueprint for action --- action not only by the Federal Government but by the States and local units of government. For the legislation he proposes would not simply improve existing facilities and provide for new facilities and more research. It would also supply urgently needed financial support to the states and local bodies for the advance acquisition of property rights-of-way. The President's proposals would start the country moving to solve its public transportation problems. This 12-year program proposed by Mr. Nixon would amount to $10 billion in Federal funds, actually a meager sum when compared with our space effort, our war effort and our highway effort. The time has passed for us to study and re-study our public transportation problems. It is time to act -- now. I ask that this legislation be given speedy approval. We must back up this program with our votes. There is hardly a state in the Nation that does not have a complaint about transportation. In fact, you now have to go into remote parts of our country to escape from congestion, smog and the masses of people trying to get from their homes to work and back home again. Now is the time to show the great mass of Americans that we know and recognize their dilemma and that we are determined to do something about it. # # # CONGRESSMAN NEWS GERALD R. FORD HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER RELEASE --FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON-- August 7, 1969 Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., to be placed in the Congressional Record of Thursday, August 7, 1969, immediately following the President's Message on Public Transportation. Mr. Speaker: Today nearly 80 percent of all Americans live in cities. By the year 2000 it will be 90 percent. In the next 30 years our population will increase by more than 100 million and almost all of it will be in our cities. Imagine, if you will, an urban population twice what it is today. Urban dwellers depend almost exclusively on the automobile to meet trans- portation needs. There are now more than 80 million cars in use in the United States. An estimated 160 million will be on the roads in 2000. As automobile use has grown, public transportation has declined in both quality and availability. This heavy reliance on the automobile for urban transpor- tation has greatly disadvantaged the poor. While nearly all families with incomes in excess of $10,000 have a car -- and those who don't, rent one as needed --- less than half of those with poverty-level incomes own an automobile. Most new jobs are opening in suburban or rural industrial areas, locations made feasible in most cases by construction of the Federally-financed Interstate Highway System. If an unemployed person has no car of his own and cannot work out a car pool arrangement, he cannot get the good job unless there is public transpor- tation. If he is lucky enough to have public transportation, it is usually low quality, increasingly expensive, very often so indirect that a 20-mile ride takes an hour and a half and several transfers. If urban residents are to have a real choice in how they move about, and whether they move at all, an estimated $20 billion is going to have to be spent on public transportation in the next 12 years. Our cities, alone, cannot carry this burden. State and local public debt now exceeds $100 billion. Over the next 10 years it may well exceed $250 billion. Federal funding for public transportation must be substantial and available on an assured basis. Funding must be sufficient to help finance major urban transportation projects and to provide aid for medium and small cities. (more) -2- The need is great and time works relentlessly against us. This is ample reason to back the public transportation legislation proposed by President Nixon. With his Message on Public Transportation, President Nixon has laid down a blueprint for action action not only by the Federal Government but by the States and local units of government. For the legislation he proposes would not simply improve existing facilities and provide for new facilities and more research. It would also supply urgently needed financial support to the states and local bodies for the advance acquisition of property rights-of-way. The President's proposals would start the country moving to solve its public transportation problems. This 12-year program proposed by Mr. Nixon would amount to $10 billion in Federal funds, actually a meager sum when compared with our space effort, our war effort and our highway effort. The time has passed for us to study and re-study our public transportation problems. It is time to act -- now. I ask that this legislation be given speedy approval. We must back up this program with our votes. There is hardly a state in the Nation that does not have a complaint about transportation. In fact, you now have to go into remote parts of our country to escape from congestion, smog and the masses of people trying to get from their homes to work and back home again. Now is the time to show the great mass of Americans that we know and recognize their dilemma and that we are determined to do something about it. # # # NEWS CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER RELEASE --FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-- October 23, 1969 For the first time since the Eisenhower years, America has a positive program to again bring this Nation into the front rank of seafaring countries. That is the significance of the merchant ship building program which President Nixon has outlined in the message he sent to the Congress today. This is a program which gives American shipyards the incentive to modernize and expand. Unlike the previous Administration, President Nixon is not throwing our shipbuilding business into foreign shipyards. Instead he is offering American shipbuilders -- industry and labor -- a challenge and an opportunity. Under the Nixon maritime program, American shipbuilders have the opportunity to invest $4 billion in modernizing their yards over the next 10 years so they can become truly competitive with other shipyards throughout the world in techniques, facilities, and production. If American shipbuilders accept the challenge and avail themselves of the opportunity, the program outlined by President Nixon will succeed. But it must be remembered that the Nixon program is predicated on a responsible response from industry and labor. The Federal Government cannot carry this program forward alone, because it is not just another subsidy program. It is a program under which the Federal Government is providing the leadership and incentive for a great surge forward in America's maritime fortunes. This is a program of deeds and not words -- a multi-year shipbuilding program to make longrange planning possible, a trebling of Federal mortgage insurance from $1 billion to $3 billion, payment of construction differential subsidies directly to shipbuilders instead of through ship owners, extension of subsidy payments to bulk carriers. I think the Nixon maritime program will revitalize the American merchant marine and revive our shipbuilding industry. If industry and labor respond, we can once more make our merchant fleet a source of pride for every American. ### Office Copy NEWS CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- October 23, 1969 For the first time since the Eisenhower years, America has a positive program to again bring this Nation into the front rank of seafaring countries. That is the significance of the merchant ship building program which President Nixon has outlined in the message he sent to the Congress today. This is a program which gives American shipyards the incentive to modernize and expand. Unlike the previous Administration, President Nixon is not throwing our shipbuilding business into foreign shipyards. Instead he is offering American shipbuilders -- industry and labor -- a challenge and an opportunity. Under the Nixon maritime program, American shipbuilders have the opportunity to invest $4 billion in modernizing their yards over the next 10 years SO they can become truly competitive with other shipyards throughout the world in techniques, facilities, and production. If American shipbuilders accept the challenge and avail themselves of the opportunity, the program outlined by President Nixon will succeed. But it must be remembered that the Nixon program is predicated on a responsible response from industry and labor. The Federal Government cannot carry this program forward alone, because it is not just another subsidy program. It is a program under which the Federal Government is providing the leadership and incentive for a great surge forward in America's maritime fortunes. This is a program of deeds and not words -- a multi-year shipbuilding program to make longrange planning possible, a trebling of Federal mortgage insurance from $1 billion to $3 billion, payment of construction differential subsidies directly to shipbuilders instead of through ship owners, extension of subsidy payments to bulk carriers. I think the Nixon maritime program will revitalize the American merchant marine and revive our shipbuilding industry. If industry and labor respond, we can once more make our merchant fleet a source of pride for every American. ### Full Distribution a Office copy 5/19/91 NEWS CONGRESSMAN GERALD R. FORD HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER RELEASE --FOR RELEASE AFTER THE SENATE VOTE ON THE SST-- Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives. I continue to believe that calling quits to the United States program for two experimental prototype SSTs is a mistake. In the long run, it will prove contrary to the best interests of this country. But the mistake was not made today by the Senate. The mistake was made last March when both the House and the Senate, by slim majorities, voted to cancel the project without tangible results as it neared completion. Last week the House of Representatives, considering serious unemployment in the aviation industry, a decline in the dollar's international strength, and continuing SST development by the French, British and Soviets, tried to correct its March mistake. The House acted on the basis of the best information available and, I believe responsibly. Certainly events have shown this was not any attempt to bail out the Boeing Company. It was an attempt to serve the long-range interests of the United States, to retain the world-wide competitive advantage which American-built commercial aircraft have enjoyed since the dawn of aviation, and to conserve the heavy investment the taxpayers already had made in this experimental program. Subsequently, for reasons not yet fully clear, high officials of the companies concerned have made statements suggesting that they are no longer interested in carrying out the original terms. One must remember that the Congress abruptly repudiated these terms last March. Under such circumstances the Senate has acted understandably, if not wisely. It is unrealistic not to assume the House will concur. At some date in the future we will have to face this issue again and the cost of resolving it will then be far greater, in my judgment. The United States may now lose its long-standing pre-eminence in commercial aviation forever because of Congress' mistake last March compounded by the shortsighted refusal of the contractors to make minimal sacrifices and take minor risks today. ### CONGRESSMAN NEWS GERALD R. FORD HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER RELEASE [5/19/71] --FOR RELEASE AFTER THE SENATE VOTE ON THE SST-- Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives. I continue to believe that calling quits to the United States program for two experimental prototype SSTs is a mistake. In the long run, it will prove contrary to the best interests of this country. But the mistake was not made today by the Senate. The mistake was made last March when both the House and the Senate, by slim majorities, voted to cancel the project without tangible results as it neared completion. Last week the House of Representatives, considering serious unemployment in the aviation industry, a decline in the dollar's international strength, and continuing SST development by the French, British and Soviets, tried to correct its March mistake. The House acted on the basis of the best information available and, I believe responsibly. Certainly events have shown this was not any attempt to bail out the Boeing Company. It was an attempt to serve the long-range interests of the United States, to retain the world-wide competitive advantage which American-built commercial aircraft have enjoyed since the dawn of aviation, and to conserve the heavy investment the taxpayers already had made in this experimental program. Subsequently, for reasons not yet fully clear, high officials of the companies concerned have made statements suggesting that they are no longer interested in carrying out the original terms. One must remember that the Congress abruptly repudiated these terms last March. Under such circumstances the Senate has acted understandably, if not wisely. It is unrealistic not to assume the House will concur. At some date in the future we will have to face this issue again and the cost of resolving it will then be far greater, in my judgment. The United States may now lose its long-standing pre-eminence in commercial aviation forever because of Congress' mistake last March compounded by the shortsighted refusal of the contractors to make minimal sacrifices and take minor risks today. # # # office U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN 1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING TELEPHONE 225-6168 10 93rd Congress April 16, 1973 First Session Statement No. 6 HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON S. 502 THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED The House Republican Policy Committee urges the passage of S. 502, the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1973, as reported by the House Committee on Public Works, provided the anti-impoundment provision of the bill is removed. S. 502, as amended, broadens the federal highway program to meet current local as well as national needs. It authorizes substantially increased funding for urban areas; it permits local determination whether to use Trust Fund monies for highway construction or general revenues for mass transit capital investment. A major highway safety effort is also proposed. S. 502, as reported, provides comprehensive and problem-solving highway and mass transportation programs. It conforms the Federal-aid highway effort with current policies of environmental protection, energy conservation, highway safety, urban assistance and decentralized decision making during the planning and development of public works programs. The House Republican Policy Committee urges the passage of S. 502, as reported, subject to the deletion of Section 302, which prohibits the impoundment of mass transit funds. The injection of a controversial pro- hibition of Presidential authority to limit unnecessary expenditures is mischievious and unwise. 11111 nonn U. S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE OF REPRESENTATIVES REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN 1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING TELEPHONE 225-6168 10 93rd Congress April 16, 1973 First Session Statement No. 6 HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON S. 502 THE FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED The House Republican Policy Committee urges the passage of S. 502, the Federal-aid Highway Act of 1973, as reported by the House Committee on Public Works, provided the anti-impoundment provision of the bill is removed. S. 502, as amended, broadens the federal highway program to meet current local as well as national needs. It authorizes substantially increased funding for urban areas; it permits local determination whether to use Trust Fund monies for highway construction or general revenues for mass transit capital investment. A major highway safety effort is also proposed. S. 502, as reported, provides comprehensive and problem-solving highway and mass transportation programs. It conforms the Federal-aid highway effort with current policies of environmental protection, energy conservation, highway safety, urban assistance and decentralized decision making during the planning and development of public works programs. The House Republican Policy Committee urges the passage of S. 502, as reported, subject to the deletion of Section 302, which prohibits the impoundment of mass transit funds. The injection of a controversial pro- hibition of Presidential authority to limit unnecessary expenditures is mischievious and unwise. Fifth District Media O OFFICE COPY CONGRESSMAN NEWS GERALD R. FORD HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER RELEASE FOR RELEASE AT 12 NOON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 1973 Congressman Gerald R. Ford today pointed out he already has a bill pending in the Congress to require that railroad freight cars be equipped with reflectors or luminous material so they can be readily seen at night. "I am informed," Ford said, "that a number of Ionia Area residents are circulating petitions asking that the sides of trains be marked with reflectors or fluorescent paint strips. I introduced a bill on April 3, 1973, that would do exactly that." In a followup to introduction of his bill, Ford on April 9 asked House Commerce Committee Chairman Harley Staggers to request reports on the reflector bill from all interested Federal departments and agencies. This is a necessary first step in seeking enactment of legislation. Ford said he has been trying to get railroad freight car reflector legislation passed since 1957 but has run into strong opposition in every administration. "I am pressing hard for this legislation," Ford said. "I have read the newspaper stories about the two recent fatal night-time accidents at railroad crossings in Ionia County. As people in the Ionia Area have pointed out, requiring reflectors or luminous material on freight cars would cost the railroads money but the absence of this safety feature may be costing drivers their lives." Ford said a report made on his bill in 1965 by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) is typical of the reaction of previous administrations to the legislation. The report stated: "The ICC cannot at this time make a finding that the net benefits to be derived from the use of these reflectors would be commensurate with the expenditure required for their installation and maintenance." ### afficilepy illll HIIIII. U. S. HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN 1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING TELEPHONE 225-6168 10 93rd Congress May 1, 1973 First Session Statement No. 8 HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 6452, THE URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1973 The House Republican Policy Committee recognizes the need for Federal assistance to mass transportation. However, H.R. 6452, the Urban Mass Trans- portation Assistance Act of 1973, as reported, is unacceptable as a means toward that end and should be defeated. H.R. 6452 authorizes expenditures and mandates administrative pro- cedures which are unnecessary, unrealistic and unwise. The bill proposes Federal operating subsidies for urban mass transit systems which would probably become an unending commitment of massive Federal funds. The bill requires cumbersome local supervision by transportation advisory councils. It further provides for an inflexible 80 percent Federal share of capital improvement costs. Grants for operating expenses would necessarily involve the Federal Government in the day to day operation of local mass transit systems. The bill would encourage the perpetuation of inefficient and obsolete systems. The mandated Federal share of mass transit capital improvement costs would restrict the ability of the Urban Mass Transit Administration to encourage better performance of applicants. If either 30 percent Federal (OVER) - 2 - funding or complete rejection of the application is required, equitable distribution of funds would be impossible. To require comprehensive review of virtually every policy or operational decision of a transit authority by a council composed of at least one or more members representing each political subdivision served, by councils possibly with hundreds of members, would be unwise. H.R. 6452, as reported, does increase contract authority for capital grants by $3 billion. Authorization of an identical amount is, however, already included in the House-passed Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (S. 502) and is, therefore, unnecessary. The House Republican Policy Committee opposes the passage of H.R. 6452, the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1973. U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN 1616 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING TELEPHONE 225-6168 10 93rd Congress May 1, 1973 First Session Statement No. 8 HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE STATEMENT ON H.R. 6452, THE URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1973 The House Republican Policy Committee recognizes the need for Federal assistance to mass transportation. However, H.R. 6452, the Urban Mass Trans- portation Assistance Act of 1973, as reported, is unacceptable as a means toward that end and should be defeated. H.R. 6452 authorizes expenditures and mandates administrative pro- cedures which are unnecessary, unrealistic and unwise. The bill proposes Federal operating subsidies for urban mass transit systems which would probably become an unending commitment of massive Federal funds. The bill requires cumbersome local supervision by transportation advisory councils. It further provides for an inflexible 30 percent Federal share of capital improvement costs. Grants for operating expenses would necessarily involve the Federal Government in the day to day operation of local mass transit systems. The bill would encourage the perpetuation of inefficient and obsolete systems. The mandated Federal share of mass transit capital improvement costs would restrict the ability of the Urban Mass Transit Administration to encourage better performance of applicants. If either 30 percent Federal (OVER) - 2 - funding or complete rejection of the application is required, equitable distribution of funds would be impossible. To require comprehensive review of virtually every policy or operational decision of a transit authority by a council composed of at least one or more members representing each political subdivision served, by councils possibly with hundreds of members, would be unwise. H.R. 6452, as reported, does increase contract authority for capital grants by $3 billion. Authorization of an identical amount is, however, already included in the House-passed Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (s. 502) and is, therefore, unnecessary. The House Republican Policy Committee opposes the passage of H.R. 6452, the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1973.