Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526347
label
NLI 26th Annual Convention, January 26, 1971
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526347
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
NLI 26th Annual Convention, January 26, 1971
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Cancer
Crime
Drug abuse
Federal budget
Government reorganization
Legislation
Revenue sharing
Welfare
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526347
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1971-01-31
month
1
year
1971
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1971-01-01
month
1
year
1971
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
fa8292e9f07c5e99
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D30, folder "NLI 26th Annual Convention,
January 26, 1971" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
1/26/27
New Directions
for the Seventies
Address of
Congress is that the minority party's candidate
Rep. Gerald R. Ford,
for Speaker has the privilege, and it is a privilege,
R-Mich., Republican
of introducing to the other members of the House
Leader, U.S. House
the winner of the Speakership contest. I had the
of Representatives,
privilege of doing that three times for former
NLI 26th Annual
Convention
Speaker McCormack, and I had the honor last
Thursday of doing it for our new Speaker, Carl
Albert of Oklahoma. In the course of my remarks,
I naturally praised Carl Albert, for whom I have
nothing but the highest respect and admiration.
But I thought it might be interesting to interject
a little humor. So in the statement of introduction
I said that I had checked the records of history,
and that, although we had had forty-eight other
Speakers in our history-from Massachusetts,
Illinois, Tennessee and other states-I found that
there had never before been a Speaker from Bug
Tussle, Oklahoma.
Then I indicated that one of my favorite musi-
cal comedies was "Oklahoma." I'm sure that is
Thank you very much, Armen. Distinguished
shared by many, many people in this audience.
guests, ladies and gentlemen. It's a great privilege
I remarked that as I was shaving the day of the
and very high honor to participate in this program.
Speakership contest, I was humming to myself
I might say, parenthetically, that one of the nice
one of the superb songs from "Oklahoma." The
things about attending meetings such as this is
words came out this way, "Oh, what a beautiful
meeting old friends and reminiscing about ac-
morning; oh, what a beautiful day; if I had forty
quaintanceships. Seeing Hank, here, brought back
more votes in my pocket; things would be going
many, many fine memories. I must admit we
my way."
agreed that the campaign in the Pacific in World
The mention of elections reminds me of another
War II was shortened considerably by our joint
election back in 1966. On that occasion, we, on
efforts.
our side of the aisle, did considerably better. We
As all of you know, a new Congress was elected
succeeded in electing fifty-nine new Republicans,
in November, and the new 92nd Congress con-
a net gain of forty-seven. Prior to the convening of
vened last Thursday. You may or may not know
the Congress in January of 1967, I thought it
that in the process of organizing the House of
would be a great idea if we could get all of the
Representatives we go through a ritual where the
newly elected Republicans and their wives together
minority party nominates its candidate for
with the leadership and our wives at a conference
Speaker, and the majority party nominates its
center just outside of Washington, D.C., called
candidate. Of course, the decision as to who will
Airlie House. There we could talk about parlia-
be Speaker is really made by the American people,
mentary problems and legislative matters. And in
months before. But this ceremony does take place.
the course of a two day get-together, we could
FORD
Also, one of the traditions on the opening day of
become better acquainted with one another.
continued on page 44
13
LIBRARY
Digitized from Box D30 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Chairman
Paul W. Seitz
Relinquishes
the Chair
President Koch, Reverend Stone, Distinguished
Members of the Congress, Guests from Industry and
Government, members and lovely ladies:
There's a story about the stone masons working
on the Washington Cathedral. A man, passing by,
who must have been a sociologist said to one
worker, "What are you doing on this building". He
answered, "laying stone". The next man, asked the
same question said, "working for four dollars an
hour". This must have happened a long time ago.
A third worker responded to the question: "I'm
/ I
building a cathedral".
:
I like to think that the members of our association
MAY STONE SAND, SCITZ
are like the third workman. We are helping to build
IND. / / FORT
highways for safe travel, public and industrial build-
THE
ings for the efficient operation of government, indus-
try and commerce, libraries, educational buildings,
churches and hospitals for the cultural enrichment
and welfare of all people. Our industry is the sole
source of the basic materials, the stone and mineral
aggregates, for all of the construction which marks
the progress of our nation. And we take that re-
sponsibility seriously.
This occasion is the most auspicious event of the
annual convention of the National Limestone Insti-
tute and we are happy to have so many distin-
guished guests. The year just ended has been a
busy one, and a very rewarding one for me, your
chairman. And I would like to pay special tribute to
our President Bob Koch whose talent for enlisting
cooperative effort and whose uncanny capacity for
accomplishment has made many good things hap-
pen for N.L.I. this past year.
14
or five years after they've been Congress and the other public agen- sharing program. The Rural En-
done. For example, we'll strongly cies in the field have helped to keep vironmental Assistance Program
emphasize cost-sharing for perma-
the program effective.
can play an important role in help-
nent vegetative cover, rather than
The basic reason for all of the ing farmers eliminate agricultural
annual cover crops.
changes in our cost-sharing pro- pollution.
Another standard for evaluating
gram, of course, is to keep it cur-
This kind of program thrust will
projects will be community benefit.
rent with the times
with the benefit not just farmers but all our
Over the years, in order to ac-
needs of the country. Any program
citizens.
complish particular conservation
that is not kept up to date endan-
Your industry, of course, will be
goals we have sometimes cost-
gers its support and its future.
supplying the agricultural lime that
shared practices that were profit-
The nation's concern today is
is absolutely necessary for much of
able to the farmer in and of them-
shifting from crop acres to green
this anti-pollution and conservation
selves. We probably will not be
acres. Our citizens today worry
work. In doing so, you are playing
able to do this in the future.
more about the silt that washes an important part in restoring what
These changes have already been
downstream than about the gully President Nixon has called the
taking place over the years, as
it came from. And we're concerned birthright of every American
many of you know. For instance,
today with new problems such as clean air, clean water and open
years ago we used to cost-share
chemical residues, over-fertilized spaces.
summer fallow
back when it
lakes and the waste products from
wasn't a widely-valued practice. As
huge "animal-factories."
it came to be accepted in summer-
We have recognized these chang-
fallow areas as simply good man-
ing problems. The Congress has
agement, we stopped cost-sharing it.
recognized them. To keep up with
In recent years the program these changes, we are changing
shifts have been more rapid. The the thrust of our conservation cost-
43
continued from page 13
We convened at Airlie House, and at the open-
one form or another. They were approved not only
ing luncheon, I was asked to say a few words.
because of the President's interest, but because
After spending 1965 and 1966 outnumbered 285
fighting crime has become a matter of major im-
to 140, I was delighted to see such a substantial
portance and the greatest urgency.
increase in numbers on our side of the aisle. As
We now have on the statute books, for example,
I looked out and saw these fifty-nine new Re-
a greatly expanded Safe Streets Act. Under this
publicans, attractive, articulate, and able, I gave
Act the Federal Government makes financial con-
the impression I was happily clucking over my
tributions to the State and Local Governments, so
new brood. The next morning I got up bright and
that the work of State and Local law enforcement
early, and went down to breakfast. As I walked
agencies can be improved. The level of aid in this
into the dining room, somebody handed me a copy
legislation, which was enacted in 1967, has been
of the New York Times. I quote literally from the
expanded by almost 300 per cent. In the first year
front page story on our Republican meeting, the
of its operation, some 67 million dollars was
lead article, first sentence which said, "Congress-
passed on to State and Local agencies for law en-
man Jerry Ford, House Republican Leader, was
forcement improvement. For fiscal 1972, the
happily clucking over his new broad." Well, I
President has recommended $698.4 million. In
thought it was amusing that a great newspaper
order to undertake massive and effective action
like the New York Times could make a simple
against organized crime, the Department of Justice
typographical error of that kind. But I passed it
needed new tools to meet the challenge of the
off by kidding the correspondent for the New York
most sophisticated criminal element in our so-
Times, and went on about my business. When my
ciety. Congress finally has passed that legislation.
wife, Betty, came down for a late cup of coffee
Now I'm confident we will begin to see meaningful
and a sweet roll, she walked into the dining room
results against this sinister element in our society.
and some friend of mine immediately showed her
We're all cognizant of the rising problem of
the front page story in the New York Times. I con-
drugs and narcotics. This is an area of law en-
clude by saying that I have yet to satisfactorily
forcement where we have responsibility divided
explain who that new broad is.
between the Local Level, the State and the Federal
Let me say that in my remarks here today I
Government. Federal legislation in this area, up
will present a short resume of what the last Con-
until last year, was somewhat outmoded. The
gress did, and, two, point out the relevance be-
President recommended, and the Congress finally
tween what a President recommends and what a
approved, a drug abuse control law. It has some
Congress does-the results that can be achieved.
strengthening provisions. It provides harsher
Then I will discuss some of the things that are
penalties for the professional pusher and peddler.
already on the Congressional agenda for 1971-72.
It provides greater flexibility in sentencing the
In the last Congress, which was controlled by
initial user, particularly the young. It emphasizes
one political party whereas the White House was
rehabilitation for those in that category. And it
controlled by the other, a careful analysis of the
takes out of the Department of Justice the re-
record indicates that in 1969 and 1970 the Con-
sponsibility for drug abuse education and re-
gress approved approximately 75 per cent of what
habilitation, as it should. It transfers these two
President Nixon recommended. That's an ex-
responsibilities to the Department of HEW. This
tremely high percentage. If you compare this
is good, strong legislation. And I think the Federal
with the record of previous Congresses in the last
Government's role as a consequence will be
decade, you find that the last Congress-despite
strengthened.
the fact that we had a divided government-re-
Now let me point out where you can see a
sponded in a meaningful way to the legislative
direct correlation between a President's recom-
proposals recommended by the President.
mendation, approved by the Congress, and the
On the other hand, some things were left un-
result. Last year, after a long, long hard fight, we
done, and one of the reasons I was late coming
passed showcase anti-crime legislation for the
to the luncheon this noon was that President
District of Columbia. It's tough, don't let me mis-
Nixon sent to the Congress today a message that
lead you. It has some strong provisions that were
I have in my hand. I won't give you the details,
fought by well-intentioned, but I think ill-advised,
but it recites thirty-six proposals submitted in the
individuals. That legislation has contributed sig-
last two years that were not acted upon. I'm confi-
nificantly, I think, to the announcement you may
dent that as we move ahead in this Congress, the
have seen in the newspaper this morning. In the
leftovers will in the main be approved by the new
District of Columbia in 1970, for the first time in
House and by the Senate.
a decade or more, the crime rate in the city went
One of the hallmarks of success of the last
down rather than up. What I'm saying is that
Congress was the eventual approval of a strong
there is a direct correlation between what a legis-
anti-crime package. In 1969 and 1970 the Presi-
lative body does and what can be accomplished
dent submitted a very broad based anti-crime
in our society. Here's concrete evidence. I'm the
program, some thirteen bills. After some delay,
last to say that this decrease in the crime rate is
all or most of those proposals were approved in
the exclusive result of this particular action by
44
the Congress. However, I can assure you that the
bill by an overwhelming margin. The version that
fact the Congress passed a tough anti-crime bill
we passed got caught in a legislative snarl in the
did have an impact on those who, over a period of
Senate in the dying days last year. I know it's a
ten years, have continuously and unceasingly vio-
controversial proposition, and I know that many
lated the rights of others in the District of Co-
good people have many questions about the so-
lumbia. I hope and trust that the other anti-crime
called workfare program. But let me ask you, in
legislation I have mentioned has a broad impact
all sincerity, this question. Is there a person in
nationwide, and will have the same results in your
this room who will stand up and defend the pres-
state and in mine.
ent welfare program? I've asked that question
Now, if I might, I'd like to return for a minute
in fifty states, and I have yet to find a person who
to the programs and problems that the new Con-
will defend the present welfare program, and for
gress faces. I'll never forget the first day I came
a good reason. It's getting ever more costly, and
to Congress, in January of 1949. I had been a
the costs which we see today are virutally double
renegade. I had committed what, in many areas
what they were a few years ago. According to
of politics, is an unforgivable sin. I had run
projections by the so-called experts, they will
against a ten-year incumbent in the Republican
double again.
primary. He was somewhat older than I, and I
So the present system is not only costly from
had just gotten out of the service. I probably had
the point of view of the taxpayer, but it has
more courage than brains, but nevertheless, I ran
another feature that is totally un-American. It
against this GOP incumbent and I won. So I came
tears families apart. Financially, it's better for
to Congress in a delegation from Michigan that
families to be divided under the present welfare
had many senior members. I was apprehensive.
system, and there is no incentive for a family to
I walked into the House Chamber and I sat down
extricate themselves from welfare. In fact, there's
by one of our most senior Republicans from Michi-
a deterrent. So, if these points are true, and I
gan, concerned about how I would be welcomed.
doubt if many people will argue to the contrary,
He was a wonderful, kindly gentleman, for whom
shouldn't we do something affirmatively about the
I had nothing but the greatest admiration. I said
welfare mess? Shouldn't we get rid of it? Shouldn't
"Good Morning." He turned to me and he said,
we devise a program that will provide an incentive
"Jerry, do you know the definition of a Congress-
for work, provide an incentive for a family to ex-
man?" I said "No." He said, "A Congressman is
tricate themselves from the welfare cycle-as the
the shortest distance between two ears." Well, I've
President's program does? Shouldn't we have,
survived a few of those cracks. But believe me,
within the structure of the law, an incentive for
the fact that a Congressman has to go back and
families to stay together, not to separate-as the
face the voters every two years is one of the
President's program does? And shouldn't we try
strengths of our Federal Government. I would be
to at least level out the cost of the program?
the last to vote for any change in the term of a
It is obvious we have to do something affirma-
Congressman. Sure, it would be more convenient
tively. Maybe there's a better answer than what
to run every four years rather than every two
the President has recommended, but I've seen no
years, but I am not concerned about what's con-
one propose it. So, let's be innovative, imaginative,
venient for me or 434 other Members of the
and try something that has a work incentive, that
House. If the term is changed from two to four
requires a person to work before he gets any as-
years, it cuts in half the opportunity the voters
sistance, if he's physically able to do so. Shouldn't
have to make a change in their government. It is
we try something that stabilizes the family rather
more important that the voters retain that right
than tearing it apart? I think the Congress will
than that someone be concerned about the con-
respond. I applaud not only what the House did
venience of 435 members of the House of Repre-
last year, but what I think the House and the
sentatives.
Senate will do in 1971 and 72.
Now we turn to a new Congress, with the
Another point in the President's message last
President in the second half of his four-year term.
night was the budget that the President is submit-
And the tone of what we'll be facing is best indi-
ting on Friday. I haven't seen it, so I'm not quali-
cated by what the President recommended in his
fied to talk about the details. But from everything
State of the Union message last Friday night. As
that I've heard, I can say, one, it provides for no
you know, he said he would not discuss foreign
new Federal taxes. Secondly, it is a budget that
policy on that occasion, but that he would make
will emphasize a continued effort to decrease the
a subsequent report to the Congress. Total em-
rate of increase in the cost of living. It is a budget
phasis was on our domestic problems and what he
that will perhaps shock some people. But I be-
felt he, as President, should ask the Congress to
lieve that when you look at the cyclical impact,
do-chart some new courses, new programs, in
where we are expanding our efforts to improve the
the next two years.
economy, we can expect a deficit larger than I
First on the list of six was a renewed call for
and many others believe in. But if we get full
welfare reform. You may recall the House of
employment, as is anticipated, then that deficit
Representatives last year passed a welfare reform
will be eliminated.
45
Let us talk about the third point in the Presi-
tion. It will help to relieve the problem of high
dent's message. I speak here of revenue sharing.
real estate taxes in the local communities. It will
This is an extremely controversial proposal. Some
obviate the need for the states to add to their tax
of my best friends in Congress, both Republicans
burden. And it will not add to the tax burden at
and Democrats, do not share the President's view.
the Federal level. I think there are substantial
I happen to believe in it. Revenue sharing is an
advantages to the program, apart from decision
idea whose time has come. I was reading the paper
making at the local level.
the other day, and I noticed that the newly elected
The fourth point in the President's program is
Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania has said his
of maximum importance. The new programs that
state is on the verge of bankruptcy. I have read
will be submitted to improve our environment
other papers throughout the country quoting one
have not been delineated because a message will
Mayor after another as saying that his community
be coming to the Congress with the specifics
is nearly bankrupt. This is understandable. The
within the next week or so. We had a briefing
States and local governing units have just about
yesterday at the White House, and I can say that
reached the breaking point on local and state
they're broad, they're new, and they are going to
taxes. Yet the demand for services continues. I'm
be firm. So the Federal government, to the degree
not saying that states and local governments now
that it is involved in terms of money, regulations,
should turn to the Federal Government on the
and research, will have a good environmental
basis that Uncle Sam has an unlimited reservoir
program.
of dollars. That's not true. But the fact is that the
Health, point number five, in the President's
Federal tax system is so structured that as the
State of the Union message, was highlighted by
Nation grows, and as we employ more and more
a Presidential request for an additional 100 mil-
people, Federal revenue grows rapidly. State and
lion dollars to expand the fight against cancer.
local governments don't have that growth factor
We have a number of wonderful National In-
in their tax structures. And so as the economy ex-
stitutes of Health; Arthritis, Mental Health,
pands there is a growth in Federal revenue from
Cancer, etc. They're superb organizations. They
4 to 8 billion dollars a year without any increase
do a great job, and we've been spending close to
in Federal tax rates. So it is the view of many ex-
a billion dollars a year in the whole group over
perts in this area that some of this money should
the last several years. But the families of many
be returned to the states and local governments.
have been touched by the tragedy of cancer. In
And so at the state and local level decisions can
Washington one of the great citizens of the com-
be made as to the priority of programs or projects
munity and of the country, Vince Lombardi, died
needed at that particular level.
in the last six months. This 100 million dollars is
Under the present system, the federal govern-
not insurance that cancer will be licked, but it
ment expends vast amounts of money for local
will be licked, but it will be about a 70 per cent
and state needs under categorical grant programs.
increase in federal research directed at finding
Categorical grants started 10 or 15 years ago in a
the answer. I'm confident that in this area, as in
very small way. I think the first year the amount
the area of polio, with adequate funds and suf-
of money Uncle Sam passed out to local and state
ficient technical people we will find an answer
governments was under half a billion dollars a
that will eliminate cancer as a scourge of our
year and there were less than 100 programs. But
society.
categorical programs have grown like Topsy. To-
The last presidential proposal, which is prob-
day the Federal Government passes out to state
ably the most controversial, is the restructuring of
and local governments about 30 billion dollars a
the Federal Government. We now have 11 cabinet
year in over 500 categorical grant programs. What
posts. The President's proposal is to go from 11
it means is that the federal establishment to a
to seven, and to shift many, many agencies into
substantial degree is making important decisions
four new cabinet departments. This is contro-
at the local level. I happen to think that local
versial. But let me just make this observation.
officials in San Diego know the problems of San
We've had two Hoover Commissions which recom-
Diego and its priorities infinitely better than some-
mended that departments be revised, that changes
one here in Washington. Certainly the priorities
be made. President Johnson appointed the so-
in Grand Rapids, Michigan, my home town, are
called Heinemann Commission which was sup-
dfferent from those in San Diego, and the local
posed to take a look at the structure of the Federal
elected officials ought to have some responsibilities
Government. The Heinemann Commission recom-
for determining those priorities.
mended reorganization of the Executive Branch
Under the President's program of revenue shar-
much along the lines proposed by the Ash Com-
ing, 5 billion dollars a year would be divided
mission, which President Nixon appointed. These
among the states and the local communities on
recommendations provide for substantial change
a formula based on population and the tax effort
in the organizational structure of our government.
of those states. It would grow over a period of
There are many who will be in opposition. I don't
years as the economy expanded and the tax take
know the attitude of this organization. But I say
increased. In my judgment, this is good legisla-
that it might be wise, before you make a decision,
46
to wait and see the specifics, because you might
vention in the City of Philadelphia. Some fifty-five
be far better off under the proposed set-up as an
delegates from twelve of the thirteen colonies met
organization, as individuals, than under the ex-
in the City of Philadelphia to put together a con-
isting. No government should be satisfied with
stitution for a new country. And after much de-
the status-quo. Governments never progress and
liberation and many compromises they finally
meet the needs of their people if they do business
concluded their labors with a governmental docu-
in the same way from time in memoriam. I say
ment which is the greatest in the history of man-
to you, be open minded until you've seen the
kind. As Ben Franklin walked out of Constitution
specifics. When you have, you might well be more
Hall, a by-stander asked him: "Mr. Franklin, what
pleased than with the present system.
have you given us, a monarchy or a republic?"
I close with these final observations. I know
And Franklin responded, "We have given you a
that many people believe government is an ogre
republic if you can keep it."
-that there is great dissatisfaction with our gov-
Your forefathers and mine have kept a republic
ernment at the local, state, and federal levels. But
for us for almost two centuries. They've passed
I happen to be an optimist. I believe our form of
on to us a better society and a better government.
government can be responsive to the new decade,
We should be thankful; we should be grateful,
and can be responsive to the needs of 204 million
blessed as we are with what we have.
people.
I say now it's our responsibility, yours and
When I speak like this, I often recall a state-
mine, and the responsibility of millions like us
ment that was attributed to Sir Winston Churchill.
throughout the country, to make sure that what
Churchill is reputed to have said: "Democracy is
we have inherited is passed on to those who follow
the worst form of government in the history of
and in better form than we received it from our
mankind, but it is better than any other that's
forefathers. I know we can. I know we will. Thank
ever been tried." Then there was an incident that
you very much.
occurred at the time of the Constitutional Con-
47 FORD LIBRARY
The response of your industry to Federal health
continued from page 20
and safety regulation has been good when the
coal mines for only about 5½ months-since Au-
standards have been called to the attention of par-
gust 1, 1970. The delay was caused by the rather
ticular operators. It is apparent, however, that
deliberate way in which the standards were devel-
some operators have not as yet read the standards
oped and promulgated. First, a comprehensive
carefully. Needless to say, they should do this, or
study was made of the hazards and accidents in
they will be caught unprepared for our inspec-
the industry, and then three advisory committees
tions.
comprised of representatives from labor and man-
Unlike the coal law, the Federal Metal and Non-
agement and from State and Federal agencies de-
metallic Mine Safety Act provides that the Secre-
veloped three sets of standards for underground
tary may enter into agreements with the States to
mines, open pit mines, and sand and gravel oper-
allow the States to enforce their own mine health
ations, respectively. These standards were then
and safety standards within their own boundaries.
proposed as rulemaking by the Secretary of the In-
In order to obtain such an agreement, however, a
terior and most of them were subsequently pro-
State must assure the Secretary that its standards
mulgated. Although they were proposed and pro-
and its enforcement of those standards will be
mulgated in several different issues of the Federal
substantially as effective as the Federal Govern-
Register at several different times, they all became
ment's. Under such an agreement, the Bureau of
effective on July 31, 1970.
Mines would still inspect the mines occasionally,
A few of the standards that were proposed but
but mainly for the purpose of monitoring and eval-
not promulgated have been given back to a new
uating the effectiveness of the State inspections.
advisory committee, recently appointed by the
Because we want the State Plan Agreements to
Secretary, for further review and recommenda-
work, we are being rather hard and strict in re-
tion. This new committee can also recommend
quiring the States to show that they have both the
new standards that were not considered by the
desire and the capability of enforcing effective
earlier committees.
standards before their plans are approved. At first,
As of today, we are presently inspecting noncoal
I believe, the States thought that in so doing we
mines against 960 mandatory and 775 advisory
were trying to avoid turning over this important
health and safety standards. In 5½ months, we
responsibility to them. I hope we have convinced
have made about 1,600 inspections of noncoal
them that our efforts are intended to help them
mines and cited about 8,300 violations of manda-
build the strong State enforcement capability that
tory standards.
is necessary to make their State Plan Agreement
We believe that we have sent copies of these
work. If a State should not do a good job, the agree-
standards to all noncoal mine operators. However,
ment would have to be terminated-and we do not
additional copies can be obtained from the Bureau
want that to happen.
of Mines here in Washington or from one of our
At the present time, we have entered into only
District offices located in Pittsburgh, Birmingham,
two State Plan Agreements-with Arizona and
Denver, Minneapolis, Dallas and San Francisco.
Colorado. We are working with some other States,
We presently have about 100 noncoal mine in-
and we are hopeful that some additional agree-
spectors and we are planning to build this force to
ments will be made soon.
a level of 250. A high proportion of our inspectors
So far I have talked only about inspection and
are engineers, and in many situations, they can
enforcement, which is the front line of defense
provide assistance as well as enforcement to mine
against worker disabilities in the mines. However,
operators. This year, we plan to inspect every un-
unless this defense is to become so great and per-
derground noncoal mine at least once and about
vasive as to be intolerable in our private enterprise
1,500 surface mines.
system, it must be supplemented and backed up
Our experience to date in enforcing the stand-
with effective education and training, research
ards has not been enough to allow a good evalua-
and development, and strong mine health and
tion of their effectiveness, but in general we have
safety management and supervision.
not encountered many problems. We have en-
There is not much the Bureau of Mines can do
countered some. For example, a standard which
to improve health and safety management and
prohibits gasoline from being taken underground
supervision in the mines except to point out, as I
is a problem in some underground limestone
have done earlier, how vital it is for mine manage-
mines using automobiles, trucks, and other equip-
ment to meet this responsibility on its own initia-
ment powered by gasoline engines. We are pres-
tive in order to protect its management preroga-
ently working on this problem with the affected
tives against further Federal regulation. We also
mine operators to determine whether the gasoline
provide health and safety training for supervisors
engines can be allowed to continue to be used in
as well as mine workers and for persons desiring
such mines under conditions that will provide no
to become mine workers. In addition to providing
less safety to the mine workers. There is sufficient
courses in first aid, safe working practices, and
flexibility in our regulations to allow variances
survival and rescue techniques, we are also trying
from the prescribed standards where the safety of
harder than ever before to motivate miners to be
the workers will be no less assured.
safe. It is not enough for a miner to know how to
48
Distribution none
M office Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AT THE NLI 26th ANNUAL CONVENTION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1971
Thank you very much, Armen. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
It's a great privilege and very high honor to participate in this program. I
might say, parenthetically, that one of the nice things about attending meetings
such as this is meeting old friends and reminiscing about acquaintanceships.
Seeing Hank, here, brought back many, many fine memories. I must admit we
agreed that the campaign in the Pacific in World War II was shortened considerably
by our joint efforts.
As all of you know, a new Congress was elected in November, and the new
92nd Congress convened last Thursday. You may or may not know that in the process
of organizing the House of Representatives we go through a ritual where the
minority party nominates its candidate for Speaker, and the majority Party
nominates its candidate. Of course, the decision as to who will be Speaker is
really made by the American people, months before. But this ceremony does take
place. Also, one of the traditions on the opening day of Congress is that the
minority party's candidate for Speaker has the privilege, and it is a privilege,
of introducing to the other members of the House the winner of the Speakership
contest. I had the privilege of doing that three times for former Speaker
McCormack, and I had the honor last Thursday of doing it for our new Speaker,
Carl Albert of Oklahoma. In the course of my remarks, I naturally praised Carl
Albert, for whom I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration. But I
thought it might be interesting to interject a little humor. So in the statement
of introduction I said that I had checked the records of history, and that,
although we had had forty-eight other Speakers in our history--from Massachusetts,
Illinois, Tennessee and other states--I found that there had never before been
a Speaker from Bug Tussle, Oklahoma.
Then I indicated that one of my favorite musical comedies was "Oklahoma."
I'm sure that is shared by many, many people in this audience. I remarked that
as I was shaving the day of the Speakership contest, I was humming to myself one
of the superb songs from "Oklahoma." The words came out this way, "Oh, what a
beautiful morning; oh, what a beautiful day; if I had forty more votes in my
pocket; things would be going my way."
The mention of elections reminds me of another election back in 1966. On
that occasion, we, on our side of the aisle, did considerably better. We succeeded
-2-
in electing fifty-nine new Republicans, a net gain of forty-seven. Prior to
the convening of the Congress in January of 1967, I thought it would be a great
idea if we could get all of the newly elected Republicans and their wives
together with the leadership and our wives at a conference center just outside
of Washington, D. C., called Airlie House. There we could talk about parliamentary
problems and legislative matters. And in the course of a two day get-together, we
could become better acquainted with one another.
We convened at Airlie House, and at the opening luncheon, I was asked to
say a few words. After spending 1965 and 1966 outnumbered 285 to 140, I was
delighted to see such a substantial increase in numbers on our side of the aisle.
As I looked out and saw these fifty-nine new Republicans, attractive, articulate,
and able, I gave the impression I was happily clucking over my new brood. The
next morning I got up bright and early, and went down to breakfast. As I walked
into the dining room, somebody handed me a copy of the New York Times. I quote
literally from the front page story on our Republican meeting, the lead article,
first sentence which said, "Congressman Jerry Ford, House Republican Leader, was
happily clucking over his new broad." Well, I thought it was amusing that a great
newspaper like the New York Times could make a simple typographical error of that
kind. But I passed it off by kidding the correspondent for the New York Times,
and went on about my business. When my wife, Betty, came down for a late cup
of coffee and a sweet roll, she walked into the dining room and some friend of
mine immediately showed her the front page story in the New York Times. I
conclude by saying that I have yet to satisfactorily explain who that new broad
is.
Let me say that in my remarks here today I will present a short resume of
what the last Congress did, and, two, point out the relevance between what a
President recommends and what a Congress does--the results that can be achieved.
Then I will discuss some of the things that are already on the Congressional
agenda for 1971-72.
In the last Congress, which was controlled by one political party whereas
the White House was controlled by the other, a careful analysis of the record
indicates that in 1969 and 1970 the Congress approved approximately 75 per cent
of what President Nixon recommended. That's an extremely high percentage. If
you compare this with the record of previous Congresses in the last decade, you
find that the last Congress-despite the fact that we had a divided government--
responded in a meaningful way to the legislative proposals recommended by the
President.
-3-
On the other hand, some things were left undone, and one of the reasons
I was late coming to the luncheon this noon was that President Nixon sent to the
Congress today a message that I have in my hand. I won't give you the details,
but it recites thirty-six proposals submitted in the last two years that were
not acted upon. I'm confident that as we move ahead in this Congress, the
left-overs will in the main be approved by the new House and by the Senate.
One of the hallmarks of success of the last Congress was the eventual
approval of a strong anti-crime package. In 1969 and 1970 the President
submitted a very broad based anti-crime program, some thirteen bills. After
some delay, all or most of those proposals were approved in one form or another.
They were approved not only because of the President's interest, but because
fighting crime has become a matter of major importance and the greatest urgency.
We now have on the statute books, for example, a greatly expanded Safe
Streets Act. Under this Act the Federal Government makes financial contributions
to the State and Local Governments, so that the work of State and Local law
enforcement agencies can be improved. The level of aid in this legislation, which
was enacted in 1967, has been expanded by almost 300 per cent. In the first year
of its operation, some 67 million dollars was passed on to State and Local
agencies for law enforcement improvement. For fiscal 1972, the President has
recommended $698.4 million. In order to undertake massive and effective action
against organized crime, the Department of Justice needed new tools to meet the
challenge of the most sophisticated criminal element in our society. Congress
finally has passed that legislation. Now I'm confident we will begin to see
meaningful results against this sinister element in our society.
We're all cognizant of the rising problem of drugs and narcotics. This
is an area of law enforcement where we have responsibility divided between the
Local Level, the State and the Federal Government. Federal legislation in this
area, up until last year, was somewhat outmoded. The President recommended, and
the Congress finally approved, a drug abuse control law. It has some strenghtening
provisions. It provides harsher penalties for the professional pusher and peddler.
It provides greater flexibility in sentencing the initial user, particularly the
young. It emphasizes rehabilitation for those in that category. And it takes out
of the Department of Justice the responsibility for drug abuse education and
rehabilitation, as it should. It transfers these two responsibilities to the
Department of HEW. This is good, strong legislation. And I think the Federal
Government's role as a consequence will be strengthened.
-4-
Now let me point out where you can see a direct correlation between a
President's recommendation, approved by the Congress, and the result. Last year,
after a long, long hard fight, we passed showcase anti-crime legislation for the
District of Columbia. It's tough, don't let me mislead you. It has some strong
provisions that were fought by well-intentioned,but I think ill-advised, individuals.
That legislation has contributed significantly, I think, to the announcement you may
have seen in the newspaper this morning. In the District of Columbia in 1970, for
the first time in a decade or more, the crime rate in the city went down rather
than up. What I'm saying is that there is a direct correlation between what a
legislative body does and what can be accomplished in our society. Here's concrete
evidence. I'm the last to say that this decrease in the crime rate is the
exclusive result of this particular action by the Congress. However, I can assure
you that the fact the Congress passed a tough anti-crime bill did have an impact
on those who, over a period of ten years, have continuously and unceasingly
violated the rights of others in the District of Columbia. I hope and trust that
the other anti-crime legislation I have mentioned has a broad impact nationwide,
and will have the same results in your state and in mine.
Now, if I might, I'd like to return for a minute to the programs and problems
that the new Congress faces. I'll never forget the first day I came to Congress,
in January of 1949. I had been a renegade. I had committed what, in many areas
of politics, is an unforgivable sin. I had run against a ten-year incumbent in
the Republican primary. He was somewhat older than I, and I had just gotten out
of the service. I probably had more courage than brains, but nevertheless, I ran
against this GOP incumbent and I won. So I came to Congress in a delegation from
Michigan that had many senior members. I was apprehensive. I walked into the
House Chamber and I sat down by one of our most senior Republicans from Michigan,
concerned about how I would be welcomed. He was a wonderful, kindly gentleman,
for whom I had nothing but the greatest admiration. I said "Good Morning." He
turned to me and he said, "Jerry, do you know the definition of a Congressman?"
I said, "No." He said, "A Congressman is the shortest distance between two ears."
Well, I've survived a few of those cracks. But believe me, the fact that a
congressman has to go back and face the voters every two years is one of the
strengths of our Federal Government. I would be the last to vote for any change
in the term of a congressman. Sure, it would be more convenient to run every four
years rather than every two years, but I am not concerned about what's convenient
for me or 434 other Members of the House. If the term is changed from two to four
-5-
years, it cuts in half the opportunity the voters have to make a change in their
government. It is more important that the voters retain that right than that
someone be concerned about the convenience of 435 members of the House of
Representatives.
Now we turn to a new Congress, with the President in the second half of
his four-year term. And the tone of what we'll be facing is best indicated by
what the President recommended in his State of the Union message last Friday
night. As you know, he said he would not discuss foreign policy on that occasion,
but that he would make a subsequent report to the Congress. Total emphasis was
on our domestic problems and what he felt he, as President, should ask the
Congress to do--chart some new courses, new programs, in the next two years.
First on the list of six was a renewed call for welfare reform. You may
recall the House of Representatives last year passed a welfare reform bill by an
overwhelming margin. The version that we passed got caught in a legislative snarl
in the Senate in the dying days last year. I know it's a controversial proposition,
and I know that many good people have many questions about the so-called workfare
program. But let me ask you, in all sincerity, this question. Is there a person
in this room who will stand up and defend the present welfare program? I've asked
that question in fifty states, and I have yet to find a person who will defend the
present welfare program, and for a good reason. It's getting ever more costly,
and the costs which we see today are virtually double what they were a few years
ago. According to projections by the so-called experts, they will double again.
So the present system is not only costly from the point of view of the
taxpayer, but it has another feature that is totally un-American. It tears
families apart. Financially, it's better for families to be divided under the
present welfare system, and there is no incentive for a family to extricate
themselves from welfare. In fact, there's a deterrent. So, if these points are
true, and I doubt if many people will argue to the contrary, shouldn't we do
something affirmatively about the welfare mess? Shouldn't we get rid of it?
Shouldn't we devise a program that will provide an incentive for work, provide
an incentive for a family to extricate themselves from the welfare cycle--as the
President's program does? Shouldn't we have, within the structure of the law, an
incentive for families to stay together, not to separate--as the President's
program does? And shouldn't we try to at least level out the cost of the program?
It is obvious we have to do something affirmatively. Maybe there's a better
answer than what the President has recommended, but I've seen no one propose it.
-6-
So, let's be innovative, imaginative, and try something that has a work incentive,
that requires a person to work before he gets any assistance, if he's physically
able to do SO. Shouldn't we try something that stabilizes the family rather than
tearing it apart? I think the Congress will respond. I applaud not only what the
House did last year, but what I think the House and the Senate will do in 1971 and
'72.
Another point in the President's message last night was the budget that
the President is submitting on Friday. I haven't seen it, so I'm not qualified
to talk about the details. But from everything that I've heard, I can say, one,
it provides for no new Federal taxes. Secondly, it is a budget that will
emphasize a continued effort to decrease the rate of increase in the cost of
living. It is a budget that will perhaps shock some people. But I believe that
when you look at the cyclical impact, where we are expanding our efforts to
improve the economy, we can expect a deficit larger than I and many others believe
in. But if we get full employment, as is anticipated, then that deficit will be
eliminated.
Let us talk about the third point in the President's message. I speak
here of revenue sharing. This is an extremely controversial proposal. Some of
my best friends in the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, do not share the
President's view. I happen to believe in it. Revenue sharing is an idea whose
time has come. I was reading the paper the other day, and I noticed that the
newly elected Democratic governor of Pennsylvania has said his state is on the
verge of bankruptcy. I have read other papers throughout the country quoting
one Mayor after another as saying that his community is nearly bankrupt. Thisis
understandable. The States and local governing units have just about reached the
breaking point on local and state taxes. Yet the demand for services continues.
I'm not saying that states and local governments now should turn to the Federal
Government on the basis that Uncle Sam has an unlimited reservoir of dollars.
That's not true. But the fact is that the Federal tax system is so structured
that as the Nation grows, and as we employ more and more people, Federal revenue
grows rapidly. State and local governments don't have that growth factor in their
tax structures. And so as the economy expands there is a growth in Federal revenue
from 4 to 8 billion dollars a year without any increase in Federal tax rates. So
it is the view of many experts in this area that some of this money should be
returned to the states and local governments. And so at the state and local level
decisions can be made as to the priority of programs or projects needed at that
particular level.
-7-
Under the present system, the federal government expends vasts amounts of
money for local and state needs under categorical grant programs. Categorical
grants started 10 or 15 years ago in a very small way. I think the first year
the amount of money Uncle Sam passed out to local and state governments was under
half a billion dollars a year and there were less than 100 programs. But
categorical programs have grown like Topsy. Today the Federal Government passes
out to state and local governments about 30 billion dollars a year in over 500
categorical grant programs. What it means is that the federal establishment to
a substantial degree is making important decisions at the local level. I happen
to think that local officials in San Diego know the problems of San Diego and its
priorities infinitely better than someone here in Washington. Certainly the
priorities in Grand Rapids, Michigan, my home town, are different from those in
San Diego, and the local elected officials ought to have some responsibilities for
determining those priorities.
Under the President's program of revenue sharing, 5 billion dollars a year
would be divided among the states and the local communities on a formula based on
population and the tax effort of those states. It would grow over a period of
years as the economy expanded and the tax take increased. In my judgment, this
is good legislation. It will help to relieve the problem of high real estate
taxes in the local communities. It will obviate the need for the states to add
to their tax burden. And it will not add to the tax burden at the Federal level.
I think there are substantial advantages to the program, apart from decision
making at the local level.
The fourth point in the President's program is of maximum importance. The
new programs that will be submitted to improve our environment have not been
delineated because a message will be coming to the Congress with the specifics
within the next week or SO. We had a briefing yesterday at the White House, and
I can say that they're broad, they're new, and they are going to be firm. So the
Federal government, to the degree that it is involved in terms of money, regulations,
and research, will have a good environmental program.
Health, point number five, in the President's State of the Union message,
was highlighted by a presidential request for an additional 100 million dollars to
expand the fight against cancer. We have a number of wonderful National Institutes
of Health; Arthritis, Mental Health, Cancer, etc. They're superb organizations.
They do a great job, and we've been spending close to a billion dollars a year in
the whole group over the last several years. But the families of many have been
-8-
touched by the tragedy of cancer. In Washington one of the great citizens of the
community and of the country, Vince Lombardi, died in the last six months. This
100 million dollars is not insurance that cancer will be licked, but it will be
licked, but it will be about a 70 per cent increase in federal research directed
at finding the answer. I'm confident that in this area, as in the area of polio,
with adequate funds and sufficient technical people we will find an answer that
will eliminate cancer as a scourage of our society.
The last presidential proposal, which is probably the most controversial, is
the restructuring of the Federal Government. We now have 11 cabinet posts. The
President's proposal is to go from 11 to seven, and to shift many, many agencies
into four new cabinet departments. This is controversial. But let me just make
this observation. We've had two Hoover Commissions which recommended that
departments be revised, that changes be made. President Johnson appointed the
so-called Heinemann Commission which was supposed to take a look at the structure
of the Federal Government. The Heinemann Commission recommended reorganization of
the Executive Branch much along the lines proposed by the Ash Commission, which
President Nixon appointed. These recommendations provide for substantial change
in the organizational structure of our government. There are many who will be in
opposition. I don't know the attitude of this organization. But I say that it might
be wise, before you make a decision, to wait and see the specifics, because you
might be far better off under the proposed set-up as an organization, as individuals,
than under the existing. No government should be satisfied with the status-quo.
Governments never progress and meet the needs of their people if they do business
in the same way from time in memoriam. I say to you, be open minded until you've
seen the specifics. When you have, you might well be more pleased than with the
present system.
I close with these final observations. I know that many people believe
government is an ogre--that there is great dissatisfaction with our government at
the local, state, and federal levels. But I happen to be an optimist. I believe
our form of government can be responsive to the new decade, and can be responsive
to the needs of 204 million people.
When I speak like this, I often recall a statement that was attributed to Sir
Winston Chruchill. Churchill is reputed to have said: "Democracy is the worst
form of government in the history of mankind, but it is better than any other
that's ever been tried." Then there was an incident that occurred at the time of
the Constitutional Convention in the City of Philadelphia. Some fifty-five
delegates from twelve of the thirteen colonies met in the City of Philadelphia to
-9-
put together a constitution for a new country. And after much deliberation and
many compromises they finally concluded their labors with a governmental document
which is the greatest in the history of mankind. As Ben Franklin walked out of
Constitution Hall, a by-stander asked him: "Mr. Franklin, what have you given us,
a monarchy or a republic?" And Franklin responded, "We have given you a republic
if you can keep it."
Your forefathers and mine have kept a republic for us for almost two
centuries. They've passed on to us a better society and a better government. We
should be thankful; we should be grateful, blessed as we are with what we have.
I say now it's our responsibility, yours and mine, and the responsibility
of millions like us throughout the country, to make sure that what we have
inherited is passed on to those who follow and in better form than we received
it from our forefathers. I know we can. I know we will. Thank you very much.
# # #
no distribution
office Copy
AN ADDRESS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AT THE NLI 26th ANNUAL CONVENTION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1971
Thank you very much, Armen. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
It's a great privilege and very high honor to participate in this program. I
might say, parenthetically, that one of the nice things about attending meetings
such as this is meeting old friends and reminiscing about acquaintanceships.
Seeing Hank, here, brought back many, many fine memories. I must admit we
agreed that the campaign in the Pacific in World War II was shortened considerably
by our joint efforts.
As all of you know, a new Congress was elected in November, and the new
92nd Congress convened last Thursday. You may or may not know that in the process
of organizing the House of Representatives we go through a ritual where the
minority party nominates its candidate for Speaker, and the majority Party
nominates its candidate. Of course, the decision as to who will be Speaker is
really made by the American people, months before. But this ceremony does take
place. Also, one of the traditions on the opening day of Congress is that the
minority party's candidate for Speaker has the privilege, and it is a privilege,
of introducing to the other members of the House the winner of the Speakership
contest. I had the privilege of doing that three times for former Speaker
McCormack, and I had the honor last Thursday of doing it for our new Speaker,
Carl Albert of Oklahoma. In the course of my remarks, I naturally praised Carl
Albert, for whom I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration. But I
thought it might be interesting to interject a little humor. So in the statement
of introduction I said that I had checked the records of history, and that,
although we had had forty-eight other Speakers in our history--from Massachusetts,
Illinois, Tennessee and other states--I found that there had never before been
a Speaker from Bug Tussle, Oklahoma.
Then I indicated that one of my favorite musical comedies was "Oklahoma."
I'm sure that is shared by many, many people in this audience. I remarked that
as I was shaving the day of the Speakership contest, I was humming to myself one
of the superb songs from "Oklahoma." The words came out this way, "Oh, what a
beautiful morning; oh, what a beautiful day; if I had forty more votes in my
pocket; things would be going my way."
FORD
The mention of elections reminds me of another election back in 1966/
that occasion, we, on our side of the aisle, did considerably better. We
succeeded On LIBRARY
-2-
in electing fifty-nine new Republicans, a net gain of forty-seven. Prior to
the convening of the Congress in January of 1967, I thought it would be a great
idea if we could get all of the newly elected Republicans and their wives
together with the leadership and our wives at a conference center just outside
of Washington, D. C., called Airlie House. There we could talk about parliamentary
problems and legislative matters. And in the course of a two day get-together, we
could become better acquainted with one another.
We convened at Airlie House, and at the opening luncheon, I was asked to
say a few words. After spending 1965 and 1966 outnumbered 285 to 140, I was
delighted to see such a substantial increase in numbers on our side of the aisle.
As I looked out and saw these fifty-nine new Republicans, attractive, articulate,
and able, I gave the impression I was happily clucking over my new brood. The
next morning I got up bright and early, and went down to breakfast. As I walked
into the dining room, somebody handed me a copy of the New York Times. I quote
literally from the front page story on our Republican meeting, the lead article,
first sentence which said, "Congressman Jerry Ford, House Republican Leader, was
happily clucking over his new broad." Well, I thought it was amusing that a great
newspaper like the New York Times could make a simple typographical error of that
kind. But I passed it off by kidding the correspondent for the New York Times,
and went on about my business. When my wife, Betty, came down for a late cup
of coffee and a sweet roll, she walked into the dining room and some friend of
mine immediately showed her the front page story in the New York Times. I
conclude by saying that I have yet to satisfactorily explain who that new broad
is.
Let me say that in my remarks here today I will present a short resume of
what the last Congress did, and, two, point out the relevance between what a
President recommends and what a Congress does--the results that can be achieved.
Then I will discuss some of the things that are already on the Congressional
agenda for 1971-72.
In the last Congress, which was controlled by one political party whereas
the White House was controlled by the other, a careful analysis of the record
indicates that in 1969 and 1970 the Congress approved approximately 75 per cent
of what President Nixon recommended. That's an extremely high percentage. If
you compare this with the record of previous Congresses in the last decade, you
find that the last Congress--despite the fact that we had a divided government--
responded in a meaningful way to the legislative proposals recommended by the
President.
-3-
On the other hand, some things were left undone, and one of the reasons
I was late coming to the luncheon this noon was that President Nixon sent to the
Congress today a message that I have in my hand. I won't give you the details,
but it recites thirty-six proposals submitted in the last two years that were
not acted upon. I'm confident that as we move ahead in this Congress, the
left-overs will in the main be approved by the new House and by the Senate.
One of the hallmarks of success of the last Congress was the eventual
approval of a strong anti-crime package. In 1969 and 1970 the President
submitted a very broad based anti-crime program, some thirteen bills. After
some delay, all or most of those proposals were approved in one form or another.
They were approved not only because of the President's interest, but because
fighting crime has become a matter of major importance and the greatest urgency.
We now have on the statute books, for example, a greatly expanded Safe
Streets Act. Under this Act the Federal Government makes financial contributions
to the State and Local Governments, so that the work of State and Local law
enforcement agencies can be improved. The level of aid in this legislation, which
was enacted in 1967, has been expanded by almost 300 per cent. In the first year
of its operation, some 67 million dollars was passed on to State and Local
agencies for law enforcement improvement. For fiscal 1972, the President has
recommended $698.4 million. In order to undertake massive and effective action
against organized crime, the Department of Justice needed new tools to meet the
challenge of the most sophisticated criminal element in our society. Congress
finally has passed that legislation. Now I'm confident we will begin to see
meaningful results gainst this sinister element in our society.
We're all cognizant of the rising problem of drugs and narcotics. This
is an area of law enforcement where we have responsibility divided between the
Local Level, the State and the Federal Government. Federal legislation in this
area, up until last year, was somewhat outmoded. The President recommended, and
the Congress finally approved, a drug abuse control law. It has some strenghtening
provisions. It provides harsher penalties for the professional pusher and peddler.
It provides greater flexibility in sentencing the initial user, particularly the
young. It emphasizes rehabilitation for those in that category. And it takes out
of the Department of Justice the responsibility for drug abuse education and
rehabilitation, as it should. It transfers these two responsibilities to the
Department of HEW. This is good, strong legislation. And I think the Federal
Government's role as a consequence will be strengthened.
-4-
Now let me point out where you can see a direct correlation between a
President's recommendation, approved by the Congress, and the result. Last year,
after a long, long hard fight, we passed showcase anti-crime legislation for the
District of Columbia. It's tough, don't let me mislead you. It has some strong
provisions that were fought by well-intentioned, but I think ill-advised, individuals.
That legislation has contributed significantly, I think, to the announcement you may
have seen in the newspaper this morning. In the District of Columbia in 1970, for
the first time in a decade or more, the crime rate in the city went down rather
than up. What I'm saying is that there is a direct correlation between what a
legislative body does and what can be accomplished in our society. Here's concrete
evidence. I'm the last to say that this decrease in the crime rate is the
exclusive result of this particular action by the Congress. However, I can assure
you that the fact the Congress passed a tough anti-crime bill did have an impact
on those who, over a period of ten years, have continuously and unceasingly
violated the rights of others in the District of Columbia. I hope and trust that
the other anti-crime legislation I have mentioned has a broad impact nationwide,
and will have the same results in your state and in mine.
Now, if I might, I'd like to return for a minute to the programs and problems
that the new Congress faces. I'll never forget the first day I came to Congress,
in January of 1949. I had been a renegade. I had committed what, in many areas
of politics, is an unforgivable sin. I had run against a ten-year incumbent in
the Republican primary. He was somewhat older than I, and I had just gotten out
of the service. I probably had more courage than brains, but nevertheless, I ran
against this GOP incumbent and I won. So I came to Congress in a delegation from
Michigan that had many senior members. I was apprehensive. I walked into the
House Chamber and I sat down by one of our most senior Republicans from Michigan,
concerned about how I would be welcomed. He was a wonderful, kindly gentleman,
for whom I had nothing but the greatest admiration. I said "Good Morning." He
turned to me and he said, "Jerry, do you know the definition of a Congressman?"
I said, "No." He said, "A Congressman is the shortest distance between two ears."
Well, I've survived a few of those cracks. But believe me, the fact that a
congressman has to go back and face the voters every two years is one of the
strengths of our Federal Government. I would be the last to vote for any change
in the term of a congressman. Sure, it would be more convenient to run every four
years rather than every two years, but I am not concerned about what's convenient
for me or 434 other Members of the House. If the term is changed from two to four
GERALD, FORD
-5-
years, it cuts in half the opportunity the voters have to make a change in their
government. It is more important that the voters retain that right than that
someone be concerned about the convenience of 435 members of the House of
Representatives.
Now we turn to a new Congress, with the President in the second half of
his four-year term. And the tone of what we'll be facing is best indicated by
what the President recommended in his State of the Union message last Friday
night. As you know, he said he would not discuss foreign policy on that occasion,
but that he would make a subsequent report to the Congress. Total emphasis was
on our domestic problems and what he felt he, as President, should ask the
Congress to do--chart some new courses, new programs, in the next two years.
First on the list of six was a renewed call for welfare reform. You may
recall the House of Representatives last year passed a welfare reform bill by an
overwhelming margin. The version that we passed got caught in a legislative snarl
in the Senate in the dying days last year. I know it's a controversial proposition,
and I know that many good people have many questions about the so-called workfare
program. But let me ask you, in all sincerity, this question. Is there a person
in this room who will stand up and defend the present welfare program? I've asked
that question in fifty states, and I have yet to find a person who will defend the
present welfare program, and for a good reason. It's getting ever more costly,
and the costs which we see today are virtually double what they were a few years
ago. According to projections by the so-called experts, they will double again.
So the present system is not only costly from the point of view of the
taxpayer, but it has another feature that is totally un-American. It tears
families apart. Financially, it's better for families to be divided under the
present welfare system, and there is no incentive for a family to extricate
themselves from welfare. In fact, there's a deterrent. So, if these points are
true, and I doubt if many people will argue to the contrary, shouldn't we do
something affirmatively about the welfare mess? Shouldn't we get rid of it?
Shouldn't we devise a program that will provide an incentive for work, provide
an incentive for a family to extricate themselves from the welfare cycle--as the
President's program does? Shouldn't we have, within the structure of the law, an
incentive for families to stay together, not to separate--as the President's
program does? And shouldn't we try to at least level out the cost of the program?
It is obvious we have to do something affirmatively. Maybe there's a better
answer than what the President has recommended, but I've seen no one propose it.
-6-
So, let's be innovative, imaginative, and try something that has a work incentive,
that requires a person to work before he gets any assistance, if he's physically
able to do SO. Shouldn't we try something that stabilizes the family rather than
tearing it apart? I think the Congress will respond. I applaud not only what the
House did last year, but what I think the House and the Senate will do in 1971 and
'72.
Another point in the President's message last night was the budget that
the President is submitting on Friday. I haven't seen it, so I'm not qualified
to talk about the details. But from everything that I've heard, I can say, one,
it provides for no new Federal taxes. Secondly, it is a budget that will
emphasize a continued effort to decrease the rate of increase in the cost of
living. It is a budget that will perhaps shock some people. But I believe that
when you look at the cyclical impact, where we are expanding our efforts to
improve the economy, we can expect a deficit larger than I and many others believe
in. But if we get full employment, as is anticipated, then that deficit will be
eliminated.
Let us talk about the third point in the President's message. I speak
here of revenue sharing. This is an extremely controversial proposal. Some of
my best friends in the Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, do not share the
President's view. I happen to believe in it. Revenue sharing is an idea whose
time has come. I was reading the paper the other day, and I noticed that the
newly elected Democratic governor of Pennsylvania has said his state is on the
verge of bankruptcy. I have read other papers throughout the country quoting
one Mayor after another as saying that his community is nearly bankrupt. Thisis
understandable. The States and local governing units have just about reached the
breaking point on local and state taxes. Yet the demand for services continues.
I'm not saying that states and local governments now should turn to the Federal
Government on the basis that Uncle Sam has an unlimited reservoir of dollars.
That's not true. But the fact is that the Federal tax system is so structured
that as the Nation grows, and as we employ more and more people, Federal revenue
grows rapidly. State and local governments don't have that growth factor in their
tax structures. And so as the economy expands there is a growth in Federal revenue
from 4 to 8 billion dollars a year without any increase in Federal tax rates. So
it is the view of many experts in this area that some of this money should be
returned to the states and local governments. And so at the state and local level
decisions can be made as to the priority of programs or projects needed at that
particular level.
-7-
Under the present system, the federal government expends vasts amounts of
money for local and state needs under categorical grant programs. Categorical
grants started 10 or 15 years ago in a very small way. I think the first year
the amount of money Uncle Sam passed out to local and state governments was under
half a billion dollars a year and there were less than 100 programs. But
categorical programs have grown like Topsy. Today the Federal Government passes
out to state and local governments about 30 billion dollars a year in over 500
categorical grant programs. What it means is that the federal establishment to
a substantial degree is making important decisions at the local level. I happen
to think that local officials in San Diego know the problems of San Diego and its
priorities infinitely better than someone here in Washington. Certainly the
priorities in Grand Rapids, Michigan, my home town, are different from those in
San Diego, and the local elected officials ought to have some responsibilities for
determining those priorities.
Under the President's program of revenue sharing, 5 billion dollars a year
would be divided among the states and the local communities on a formula based on
population and the tax effort of those states. It would grow over a period of
years as the economy expanded and the tax take increased. In my judgment, this
is good legislation. It will help to relieve the problem of high real estate
taxes in the local communities. It will obviate the need for the states to add
to their tax burden. And it will not add to the tax burden at the Federal level.
I think there are substantial advantages to the program, apart from decision
making at the local level.
The fourth point in the President's program is of maximum importance. The
new programs that will be submitted to improve our environment have not been
delineated because a message will be coming to the Congress with the specifics
within the next week or SO. We had a briefing yesterday at the White House, and
I can say that they're broad, they're new, and they are going to be firm. So the
Federal government, to the degree that it is involved in terms of money, regulations,
and research, will have a good environmental program.
Health, point number five, in the President's State of the Union message,
was highlighted by a presidential request for an additional 100 million dollars to
expand the fight against cancer. We have a number of wonderful National Institutes
of Health; Arthritis, Mental Health, Cancer, etc. They're superb organizations.
They do a great job, and we've been spending close to a billion dollars a year in
the whole group over the last several years. But the families of many have been
GERALD, FORD LIBRARY
-8-
touched by the tragedy of cancer. In Washington one of the great citizens of the
community and of the country, Vince Lombardi, died in the last six months. This
100 million dollars is not insurance that cancer will be licked, but it will be
licked, but it will be about a 70 per cent increase in federal research directed
at finding the answer. I'm confident that in this area, as in the area of polio,
with adequate funds and sufficient technical people we will find an answer that
will eliminate cancer as a scourage of our society.
The last presidential proposal, which is probably the most controversial, is
the restructuring of the Federal Government. We now have 11 cabinet posts. The
President's proposal is to go from 11 to seven, and to shift many, many agencies
into four new cabinet departments. This is controversial. But let me just make
this observation. We've had two Hoover Commissions which recommended that
departments be revised, that changes be made. President Johnson appointed the
so-called Heinemann Commission which was supposed to take a look at the structure
of the Federal Government. The Heinemann Commission recommended reorganization of
the Executive Branch much along the lines proposed by the Ash Commission, which
President Nixon appointed. These recommendations provide for substantial change
in the organizational structure of our government. There are many who will be in
opposition. I don't know the attitude of this organization. But I say that it might
be wise, before you make a decision, to wait and see the specifics, because you
might be far better off under the proposed set-up as an organization, as individuals,
than under the existing. No government should be satisfied with the status-quo.
Governments never progress and meet the needs of their people if they do business
in the same way from time in memoriam. I say to you, be open minded until you've
seen the specifics. When you have, you might well be more pleased than with the
present system.
I close with these final observations. I know that many people believe
government is an ogre-that there is great dissatisfaction with our government at
the local, state, and federal levels. But I happen to be an optimist. I believe
our form of government can be responsive to the new decade, and can be responsive
to the needs of 204 million people.
When I speak like this, I often recall a statement that was attributed to Sir
Winston Chruchill. Churchill is reputed to have said: "Democracy is the worst
form of government in the history of mankind, but it is better than any other
that's ever been tried." Then there was an incident that occurred at the time of
the Constitutional Convention in the City of Philadelphia. Some fifty-five
delegates from twelve of the thirteen colonies met in the City of Philadelphia to
-9-
put together a constitution for a new country. And after much deliberation and
many compromises they finally concluded their labors with a governmental document
which is the greatest in the history of mankind. As Ben Franklin walked out of
Constitution Hall, a by-stander asked him: "Mr. Franklin, what have you given us,
a monarchy or a republic?" And Franklin responded, "We have given you a republic
if you can keep it."
Your forefathers and mine have kept a republic for us for almost two
centuries. They've passed on to us a better society and a better government. We
should be thankful; we should be grateful, blessed as we are with what we have.
I say now it's our responsibility, yours and mine, and the responsibility
of millions like us throughout the country, to make sure that what we have
inherited is passed on to those who follow and in better form than we received
it from our forefathers. I know we can. I know we will. Thank you very much.
###