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
4526483
label
Public Affairs Conference, American Institute of Architects and the Consulting Engineers Council, March 19, 1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526483
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Public Affairs Conference, American Institute of Architects and the Consulting Engineers Council, March 19, 1973
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Economics
Federal budget
Housing
Impoundment of funds
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526483
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-03-31
month
3
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1973-03-01
month
3
year
1973
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
351a0d7810e4be07
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D34, folder "Public Affairs Conference,
American Institute of Architects and the Consulting Engineers Council, March 19, 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Remarks at the Public Affairs Conference of the American Institute of Architects
and the Consulting Engineers Council, March 19,1973.
M OFFICE COPY
I have been assigned the responsibility of presenting a "Crystal Ball Look
at the 93rd Congress." This is a formible task. The way Congress sometimes acts,
not even prophetess Jeanne Dixon or a magician with the best ouija board could make
a definite prediction on what the upcoming session will bring.
However, one issue overshadows all others in the 93rd Congress. That issue
is the economy.
The 93rd Congress, with its Democratic majority, has renewed a tug-of-war
between the President over Federal spending. In the past few months, there have
been many charges that the President has encroached on legislative powers.
If you analyze closely what has happened in the Congress and in its relations
with the President, you will conclude it is not that the President has taken over
the powers of the Congress, but that the Congress has abdicated its responsibility
for making hard fiscal decisions.
This goes right to the heart of the question of Presidential impoundment of
funds appropriated by the Congress. Last year, faced with a ballooning Federal
deficit, the President asked the Congress for authority to hold Federal spending
to $250 billion and thereby maintain a semblance of fiscal sanity. I cosponsored
such legislation. The House approved the President's request. The Senate did not.
The President had only one choice to avoid inflation or a tax increase--refuse to
spend some of the appropriated money.
Am I being a blind loyalist in speaking sympathetically of the President's
impoundment of appropriated funds?
Listen to what Senate Democratic Leader Mike Mansfield said at a caucus of
Democratic senators on January 3, 1973:
"The fault lies not in the Executive Branch but in ourselves, in the
Congress. We cannot insist upon the power to control expenditures and then fail
to do so. If we do not do the job, if we continue to abdicate our Constitutional
responsibility, the powers of the Government will have to be recast so that it can
be done elsewhere."
Yet, the Democratically-controlled Congress is trying to reinstate programs.
It is seeking to force the spending of billions of dollars during the next four
months. If successful, this would result in a deficit for fiscal 1973 which would
total about $36 billion and would cause a sharp rise in inflation.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
2
Let me emphasize that President Nixon is not the first President to impound
funds. As a matter of fact, Presidents have been refusing to spend funds ever
since the days of Thomas Jefferson. Members of Congress have complained. There have
been threats of action against the Executive, but there has never been a court
decision on the legality of Presidential impoundment. Currently, there is a legal
challenge to the impoundment of funds by President Nixon. There are, in fact,
15 Democratic committee chairmen in the Senate who have joined in the suit.
This is highly interesting, inasmuch as Presidents Harry Truman, John
Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson also impounded funds. I know of no serious challenge
by Democrats to funds impounded by those Presidents. Kennedy did not even
reveal the total of funds he impounded! President Nixon was the first President
to make these figures public. He has listed the funds he has impounded and has
provided a rationale for his action.
The battle over impoundment leads into the battle over the $268.7 billion
fiscal 1974 budget.
In no area are Congress' procedures more archaic than in the consideration
of the budget--the basic plan through which the Federal Government sets its
priorities.
At no time does the Congress ever consider the budget as a complete
package. There are 15 major appropriation bills. None of these bills is
considered in relationship to another. There is no setting of priorities, except
in the President's budget. Congress considers each money bill as though it were
the only appropriations bill to be dealt with all year, tugging and pulling at it
in response to the influence of lobbying groups.
Currently, a joint committee is working to develop a means for improving
Congressional control over the budget. It has filed its interim report. In
addition, a unified computerized system is being planned. This system will
permit classifying various programs and expenditures of the Government so that
the Executive Branch and the Congress will know how much is being spent for a
particular purpose. This knowledge is essential if we are to achieve effective
control over Federal expenditures on the basis of a system of priorities.
I believe the Congress should adopt a spending limitation and then consider
the budget proposals in the light of the goals and objectives that shape the
budget. Whatever action Congress then takes on the budget, all the appropriation
bills should fit under the overall ceiling.
It is true that the President plans to reduce or terminate some Federal
programs, but he also recommends continued and increased support of many effective
3
and needed programs. You have heard mostly about the cutbacks. There are also
some increases, such as a 20 per cent rise in funding for cancer research and an
8 per cent jump in anti-crime spending.
Where cutbacks are called for, the course the President has outlined is
difficult and painful. But consider what would happen if we do not make the kind
of choices represented by the budget recommendations. Without the restraints
currently being employed and those proposed in the 1974 budget, 1973 spending would
be $11 billion greater and 1974 spending would be almost $20 billion more.
Most importantly, these higher spending levels would mean either an across-
the-board personal income tax surcharge of at least 15 per cent or an added deficit
which would fuel the fires of inflation.
The American people believe that Federal spending can and should be held
down. The 1974 budget indicates some ways in which this can be done. It is now
up to the Congress to act. The Congress can make the decisions or it can leave the
decision-making function to the Executive. The President has put the tax and
inflation monkey squarely on Congress' back. He has said, in effect: If there is
a tax increase this year because of Federal spending in excess of my budget,
Congress will be to blame. If there is no tax increase but a larger deficit, which
adds to inflation, Congress will be to blame for the higher cost of living.
Speaking of inflation, I think the President has done an excellent job in
curbing it. The economy has plenty of zip in it. Profits are good. More
Americans are working than ever before. Personal incomes are setting new records.
It appears the national income will exceed a trillion dollars by the end of this
year. As you know, real gorwth in the economy topped 6 per cent last year. That
was a highly unusual rate of growth. I predict now that we will have a real
growth of 5.5. per cent or better in 1973--a fine showing in anybody's book. The
years 1972 and 1973 probably will give us more economic growth than any other
two-year period since the Korean War.
The President has acted wisely in moving this country to a self-administering
price and wage control system. Let none think all the restraints have been removed.
We are simply in a transition from a system of strict controls to a position where
we once again will enjoy a free economy. I am encouraged by the President's
action, and I believe it will work. It pains me to see our free enterprise system
operate under a net of artificial governmental restraints.
The President has promised to send Congress some tax reform proposals, and
the House Ways and Means Committee has started hearings on general tax reform. I am
4
pleased that the President has made tax reform a priority item because it ranks at
the top of my list of things Congress should do.
There is no aspect of our national concerns that rates a higher priority
than keeping our economy healthy. This means the Congress should act promptly
to impose strict limits on Federal spending, to reform our tax structure, and to
give the President the bargaining power he needs in trade negotiations with other
nations. Hopefully, the Congress will join hands with the President in these
matters.
As architects and engineers, I know each of you is concerned about the
matter of subsidized housing. Let me clear up any misconceptions on this issue.
As Secretary Romey emphasized in his speech to the National Association of
Home Builders on January 8, subsidized housing starts will continue at an annual
rate of 250,000 for the next 18 months. This is equal to the number of subsidized
units built during 1972. The Secretary also stressed that if the Department of
Housing and Urban Development has made a funding commitment, a project will receive
its money.
The Federal government is not withdrawing from subsidized housing. The
Administration is firmly committed to the goal first set forth for America in the
1949 Housing Act: "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every
American family." The objective of the temporary halt--and I stress temporary
halt--in the approval of new commitments is to provide an opportunity to examine what
has been accomplished and what has failed. It is now clear that all to frequently
the needy have not been the primary beneficiaries of these programs; that the
programs have been riddled with inequities; and that the cost for each unit of
subsidized housing produced under these programs has been too high. An evaluation
is needed to determine wheter the course HUD is on is the right one. We must
continually review programs, discard bad ones, and try new methods if the old ones
have failed. This is how progress is achieved. A major housing study is now
underway within the Government, under the direction of the President's Counsellor
for Community Development. Within the next half year, Congress should be acting
on policy recommendations based on this study.
The President, in one of his recent State of the Union messages, set forth
new directions for community development in America.
In addition to his appointment of a Presidential Counsellor on Community
Development to coordinate programs, the President outlined a program which will
allow people and their leaders in each community to meet their own needs in ways
they think best.
5
I know many of you have worked on projects which have been delayed by a
massive amount of red tape. Our present system of community development has led
to the creation of too many complex and often competing Federal programs.
The President will submit legislation to be known as the Better Communities
Act. Under this act, revenue sharing would be the vehicle for community (evelopment
in place of categorical grants. The flow of money to cities and urban counties
would be based on a formula reflecting community needs. In the years following
enactment, funds would be used to assure that no city receives less money for community
development than it has received under the categorical grant programs. Recipients
would be required to show the Federal Government only that they are complying with
Federal statutes in their revenue sharing expenditures, thereby eliminating much of
the red tape.
I would like now to comment briefly on the Public Buildings Amendments
adopted by Congress last year. As you know, this legislation created a revolving
fund which makes it possible for us to expedite the construction of Federal
buildings. General Services Administration has already contracted for 34 of the
public buildings which were stalled due to lack of construction funds. Another 18
buildings are scheduled to be placed under contract this year.
The questions of impoundment, the budget, inflation and community development
are just some of the major issues facing the 93rd Congress.
At this time, Congress is coming under closer and closer scrutiny by the
public. If Congress is to continue as a viable part of American Government, it
must face its fiscal responsibilities. It must modernize its procedures to
cope with the problems of the last third of the 20th Century. It must approve
new programs which will raise the standard of life in the United States. These
are the challenges which face the 93rd Congress.
#####
Remarks at the Public Affairs Conference of the American Institute of Architects
and the Consulting Engineers Council, March 19,1973.
O OFFICE COPY
I have been assigned the responsibility of presenting a "Crystal Ball Look
at the 93rd Congress." This is a formible task. The way Congress sometimes acts,
not even prophetess Jeanne Dixon or a magician with the best ouija board could make
a definite prediction on what the upcoming session will bring.
However, one issue overshadows all others in the 93rd Congress. That issue
is the economy.
The 93rd Congress, with its Democratic majority, has renewed a tug-of-war
between the President over Federal spending. In the past few months, there have
been many charges that the President has encroached on legislative powers.
If you analyze closely what has happened in the Congress and in its relations
with the President, you will conclude it is not that the President has taken over
the powers of the Congress, but that the Congress has. abdicated its responsibility
for making hard fiscal decisions.
This goes right to the heart of the question of Presidential impoundment of
funds appropriated by the Congress. Last year, faced with a ballooning Federal
deficit, the President asked the Congress for authority to hold Federal spending
to $250 billion and thereby maintain a semblance of fiscal sanity. I cosponsored
such legislation. The House approved the President's request. The Senate did not.'
The President had only one choice to avoid inflation or a tax increase--refuse to
spend some of the appropriated money.
Am I being a blind loyalist in speaking sympathetically of the President's
impoundment of appropriated funds?
Listen to what Senate Democratic Leader Mike Mansfield said at a caucus of
Democratic senators on January 3, 1973:
"The fault lies not in the Executive Branch but in ourselves; in the
Congress. We cannot insist upon the power to control expenditures and then fail
to do so. If we do not do the job, if we continue to abdicate our Constitutional
responsibility, the powers of the Government will have to be recast so that it can
be done elsewhere."
Yet, the Democratically-controlled Congress is trying to reinstate programs.
It is seeking to force the spending of billions of dollars during the next four
months. If successful, this would result in a deficit for fiscal 1973 which would
total about $36 billion and would cause a sharp rise in inflation.
2
Let me emphasize that President Nixon is not the first President to impound
funds. As a matter of fact, Presidents have been refusing to spend funds ever
since the days of Thomas Jefferson. Members of Congress have complained. There have
been threats of action against the Executive, but there has never been a court
decision on the legality of Presidential impoundment. Currently, there is a legal
challenge to the impoundment of funds by President Nixon. There are, in fact,
15 Democratic committee chairmen in the Senate who have joined in the suit.
This is highly interesting, inasmuch as Presidents Harry Truman, John
Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson also impounded funds. I know of no serious challenge
by Democrats to funds impounded by those Presidents. Kennedy did not even
reveal the total of funds he impounded! President Nixon was the first President
to make these figures public. He has listed the funds he has impounded and has
provided a rationale for his action.
The battle over impoundment leads into the battle over the $268.7 billion
fiscal 1974 budget.
In no area are Congress' procedures more archaic than in the consideration
of the budget--the basic plan through which the Federal Government sets its
priorities.
At no time does the Congress ever consider the budget as a complete
package. There are 15 major appropriation bills. None of these bills is
considered in relationship to another. There is no setting of priorities, except
in the President's budget. Congress considers each money bill as though it were
the only appropriations bill to be dealt with all year, tugging and pulling at it
in response to the influence of lobbying groups.
Currently, a joint committee is working to develop a means for improving
Congressional control over the budget. It has filed its interim repòrt. In
addition, a unified computerized system is being planned. This system will
permit classifying various programs and expenditures of the Government so that
the Executive Branch and the Congress will know how much is being spent for a
particular purpose. This knowledge is essential if we are to achieve effective
control over Federal expenditures on the basis of a system of priorities.
I believe the Congress should adopt a spending limitation and then consider
the budget proposals in the light of the goals and objectives that shape the
budget. Whatever action Congress then takes on the budget, all the appropriation
bills should fit under the overall ceiling.
It is true that the President plans to reduce or terminate some Federal
programs, but he also recommends continued and increased support of many effective
3
and needed programs. You have heard mostly about the cutbacks. There are also
some increases, such as a 20 per cent rise in funding for cancer research and an
8 per cent jump in anti-crime spending.
Where cutbacks are called for, the course the President has outlined is
difficult and painful. But consider what would happen if we do not make the kind
of choices represented by the budget recommendations. Without the restraints
currently being employed and those proposed in the 1974 budget, 1973 spending would
be $11 billion greater and 1974 spending would be almost $20 billion more.
Most importantly, these higher spending levels would mean either an across-
the-board personal income tax surcharge of at least 15 per cent or an added deficit
which would fuel the fires of inflation.
The American people believe that Federal spending can and should be held
down. The 1974 budget indicates some ways in which this can be done. It is now
up to the Congress to act. The Congress can make the decisions or it can leave the
decision-making function to the Executive. The President has put the tax and
inflation monkey squarely on Congress' back. He has said, in effect: If there is
a tax increase this year because of Federal spending in excess of my budget,
Congress will be to blame. If there is no tax increase but a larger deficit, which
adds to inflation, Congress will be to blame for the higher cost of living.
Speaking of inflation, I think the President has done an excellent job in
curbing it. The economy has plenty of zip in it. Profits are good. More
Americans are working than ever before. Personal incomes are setting new records.
It appears the national income will exceed a trillion dollars by the end of this
year. As you know, real gorwth in the economy topped 6 per cent last year, That
was a highly unusual rate of growth. I predict now that we will have a real
growth of 5.5. per cent or better in 1973--a fine showing in anybody's book. The
years 1972 and 1973 probably will give us more economic growth than any other
two-year period since the Korean War.
The President has acted wisely in moving this country to a self-administering
price and wage control system. Let none think all the restraints have been removed.
We are simply in a transition from a system of strict controls to a position where
we once again will enjoy a free economy. I am encouraged by the President's
action, and I believe it will work. It pains me to see our free enterprise system
operate under a net of artificial governmental restraints.
The President has promised to send Congress some tax reform proposals, and
the House Ways and Means Committee has started hearings on general tax reform. I am
4
pleased that the President has made tax reform a priority item because it ranks at
the top of my list of things Congress should do.
There is no aspect of our national concerns that rates a higher priority
than keeping our economy healthy. This means the Congress should act promptly
to impose strict limits on Federal spending, to reform our tax structure, and to
give the President the bargaining power he needs in trade negotiations with other
nations. Hopefully, the Congress will join hands with the President in these
matters.
As architects and engineers, I know each of you is concerned about the
matter of subsidized housing. Let me clear up any misconceptions on this issue.
As Secretary Romey emphasized in his speech to the National Association of
Home Builders on January 8, subsidized housing starts will continue at an annual
rate of 250,000 for the next 18 months. This is equal to the number of subsidized
units built during 1972. The Secretary also stressed that if the Department of
Housing and Urban Development has made a funding commitment, a project will receive
its money.
The Federal government is not withdrawing from subsidized housing. The
Administration is firmly committed to the goal first set forth for America in the
1949 Housing Act: "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every
American family." The objective of the temporary halt--and I stress temporary
halt--in the approval of new commitments is to provide an opportunity to examine what
has been accomplished and what has failed. It is now clear that all to frequently
the needy have not been the primary beneficiaries of these programs; that the
programs have been riddled with inequities; and that the cost for each unit of
subsidized housing produced under these programs has been too high. An evaluation
is needed to determine wheter the course HUD is on is the right one. We must
continually review programs, discard bad ones, and try new methods if the old ones
have failed. This is how progress is achieved. A major housing study is now
underway within the Government, under the direction of the President's Counsellor
for Community Development. Within the next half year, Congress should be acting
on policy recommendations based on this study.
The President, in one of his recent State of the Union messages, set forth
new directions for community development in America.
In addition to his appointment of a Presidential Counsellor on Community
Development to coordinate programs, the President outlined a program which will
allow people and their leaders in each community to meet their own needs in ways
they think best.
5
I know many of you have worked on projects which have been delayed by a
massive amount of red tape. Our present system of community development has led
to the creation of too many complex and often competing Federal programs.
The President will submit legislation to be known as the Better Communities
Act. Under this act, revenue sharing would be the vehicle for community development
in place of categorical grants. The flow of money to cities and urban counties
would be based on a formula reflecting community needs. In the years following
enactment, funds would be used to assure that no city receives less money for community
development than it has received under the categorical grant programs. Recipients
would be required to show the Federal Government only that they are complying with
Federal statutes in their revenue sharing expenditures, thereby eliminating much of
the red tape.
I would like now to comment briefly on the Public Buildings Amendments
adopted by Congress last year. As you know, this legislation created a revolving
fund which makes it possible for us to expedite the construction of Federal
buildings. General Services Administration has already contracted for 34 of the
public buildings which were stalled due to lack of construction funds. Another 18
buildings are scheduled to be placed under contract this year.
The questions of impoundment, the budget, inflation and community development
are just some of the major issues facing the 93rd Congress.
At this time, Congress is coming under closer and closer scrutiny by the
public. If Congress is to continue as a viable part of American Government, it
must face its fiscal responsibilities. It must modernize its procedures to
cope with the problems of the last third of the 20th Century. It must approve
new programs which will raise the standard of life in the United States. These
are the challenges which face the 93rd Congress.
#####
R.FORD
LIBRARY
GERALD