Ask the Scholar
Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
The original documents are located in Box D34, folder "Business Roundtable, Dearborn,
MI, April 3, 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
M OFFICE COPY
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
DEARBORN, MICHIGAN
TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 3, 1973
It is my purpose to give you an informal roundup of where
we stand in Congress in areas where The Business Roundtable is
interested and greatly involved.
Before doing that, I want to congratulate Roger Blough,
Virgil Day and all the others who were instrumental in putting
together this organization. Those of us in Congress who have an
understanding of your objectives are gratified by the existence of
the Roundtable. We need more of this; it offers opportunity for
constructive work in the years ahead.
In assessing the present session of Congress, it is well to
describe where Congress is moving in relation to the 1973 elections.
In the Senate, as a result of the November election, that body is
tilted more to the left, by comparison with the previous two to four
years. In the House, where the GOP made a net gain of thirteen, out
of a total 435 seats, the election probably tilted that body slightly
more to the conservative side.
Let me begin by talking about what we will have to do in the
field of fiscal affairs. The first major round took place this
afternoon, April 3. The President, as you know, vetoed 13 measures
that would have added approximately $11 billion in Federal spending
above the $250 billion ceiling he set. Those bills pertained to
agriculture, urban areas, older Americans, and veterans -- all
appealing subjects.
The majority party leadership made a basic decision, for
partisan purposes, that they would force these bills through Congress
and force the President to spend the money, by changing the provision
that he may spend the money to "he shall" spend it. With this
revision in law, it then would be up to the courts to decide whether
the President had to make the expenditures that he considered unwise.
The first veto to come up for action was on the Vocational
Rehabilitation Bill that would have added -- and I want to emphasize
that -- would have added $1 billion to Federal funding of vocational
rehabilitation. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 88 to 2,
(more)
Digitized from Box D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
Page 2
was approved by the House, 200 to 57.
Today the Senate voted to sustain the veto, 60 to 33. I
am proud of the Senate for that, though surprised by the result.
This is a reaction indicative of the current mood of the American
people.
In the House, the President's veto of the rural water/sewage
bill will come up for action in an atmosphere of concern over the
ecology. Hardly anyone wants to be against environmental progress
these days.
If we can sustain three or four of the Presidential vetoes,
the majority leadership's strategy of aiming for partisan gain
may be ended. Then we can get down to business.
The press has tried to create the impression that if the
veto of the Vocational Rehabilitation Bill was sustained, vocational
rehabilitation would be ended. The fact is that while five years
ago there was $371 million in Federal funding for this purpose,
it has risen to $641 million in the current fiscal year, and
$650 million has been recommended in the President's budget for
the next fiscal year. This means there has been a 75 per cent
increase in five years. Any impression that there is a cutback
in vocational rehabilitation support by Uncle Sam is totally
erroneous. Yet the majority party wanted to add another $1 billion
over a three-year period.
In a struggle that probably will take a month to resolve,
we have to sustain at least three or four vetoes, then we can get
to the legislative business that has to be done.
The President has recommended a straight extension of the
Economic Stabilization Act after April 30. The Senate passed a
bill not in accord with the President's recommendations. I
believe it could be cleaned up and made acceptable, if we had a
more constructive attitude in the House Committee on Banking and
Currency.
Amendments to the Stabilization Act had been offered to
roll back agricultural prices to May of 1972. This passed the
committee, but consternation broke out. The House as a whole
rejected the Committee version. It is a totally ridiculous action.
Maybe this will knock some sense into the Committee and eliminate
the demagoguery.
(more)
Page 3
If the final version of renewal of the Stabilization Act
is bad legislation, I am confident the President will veto it,
and the existing law extended will be 30 to 60 days to give the
House and Senate an opportunity to come up with a sensible
measure.
In the labor-management field, there is no hope of major
reform legislation as long as the current complexion of the House
Labor and Education Committee exists. If there is one committee
that is stacked against management, it is the Labor and Education
Committee. While it can hold up desirable legislation, it cannot
affirmatively reflect the will of the House as a whole.
We can come out with a reasonable minimum wage law.
The Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee handles
labor-management legislation pertaining to transportation. It
has avoided a permanent resolution of the numerous transportation
crises that have afflicted the nation in recent years. Instead
of giving us permanent legislation, Congress has acted in an
ad hoc way. It has approved wage settlements without any
compensatory benefits to transportation management.
In 30 to 60 days, we probably will have a dispute involving
the Penn Central Railroad. Congress will not pass essential
legislation to avoid transportation crises until there is a public
outcry for a permanent solution. And I don't think Congress is
going to put up a penny for Penn Central until there is a solution
to the crew size problem and abandonment of uneconomic lines.
As for consumer protection legislation, the Senate passed
a bill to give unlimited authority to a Consumer Protection
Agency; the House version didn't give that authority, and there
was no reconciliation (in the last session of Congress).
It is my opinion that this time the House version will
prevail or there will be no legislation.
We have to face the fact that this will be a highly partisan
Congress. I have never seen Congress start a session with so much
partisanship. It is at a peak right now. We need less partisanship
and more production.
I will be glad to field any questions you may have.
(more)
Page 4
Q.
On welfare payments to strikers, what is the mood of
Congress?
A.
More immediately, the issue is whether strikers should
receive food stamps. The matter of denying food stamps to
strikers lost twice on votes in the House -- the first time by
53 votes, the second time by only 19. In my judgment we're
getting closer. There is a growing sentiment in the country that
food stamps are not justified for strikers. There is a 50-50
chance of voting a prohibition in the House.
I do not believe in food stamps for strikers. In an annual
households
questionnaire I send to the 160,000 voters in my district, which
enbraces 55,000 union families, there was an 80 per cent vote
against food stamps for strikers. I believe it is a political
asset to take a strong stand against the use of food stamps for
persons on strike.
Q.
How do Congressmen regard views from constituents?
A.
People who know their Congressmen have greater influence
on how their representatives vote than do the people in Washington,
the lobbyists. It is the guy at home who makes the impression.
Plant managers can have greater impact on their representatives
from the plant area than can the lobbyists in Washington. Most
politicians like to know people -- particularly their constituents.
Q.
Would you please comment on the likelihood and the substance
of pension and health legislation.
A.
There is a distinct probability that we will get pension
legislation passed in the House, and probably through both houses
of Congress. This is a "hot issue." Congress has to do something
about vesting and portability. I think there will be some pension
legislation, but whether it will be the President's plan or some
other is a question. There is a growing demand in this area.
As to health insurance, we have the extremes of the Ted
Kennedy program and the more moderate Administration plan. I
believe there is about a 50-50 chance there will be a health
plan enacted before adjournment in 1974. It probably will be
closer to the administration recommendations than some of the
others. There is an absolute need for something to take care of
catastrophic illness, and there is no answer I know of in present
private or public plans.
(more)
Page 5
Q.
What is the attitude of the administration toward labor?
There seems to be something like a rapprochement between the
President and labor.
A.
In the House Committee on Education and Labor there will
be no meaningful legislation reported out, and probably none in the
Senate. I think that if we could get a bill out of committee,
there is substantial sentiment for reinstating the original
intent of Taft-Hartley that has been badly eroded by judicial
and administrative interpretations.
There may be some rapprochement between the President and
some elements of labor; but I can assure you that there is none
between Mr. Nixon and Leonard Woodcock.
a.
Could the Administration help change the complexion of the
House Committee on Education and Labor?
A.
No, that is not possible. The machinery for committee
appointments is exclusively the province of Congress itself.
Q.
What about the 5.5 per cent wage-price guidelines -- there
seems to be a great deal of confusion over that?
A.
There is a great deal of uncertainty. Over a period of
the past 12 to 18 months, 5.5 per cent was a figure that could
not be breached. Statistics indicate that settlements were under
5.5 per cent on the whole, though some were above that. The Cost
of Living Council will, I think try to hold to 5.5 per cent, and
exceptions should be fewer because catch-up settlements will not
be as great a factor. I think they will try to hold to 5.5 per
cent.
Q.
The government obtains lots of different kinds of services.
Why do we have to have a special statute regulating the wages for
one of those services -- construction -- in the form of the
Davis-Bacon Act?
A.
Davis-Bacon was enacted on a rationale prevailing in the
Depression days of the 1930's, as a way to get money into the hands
of laboring people. But that is not necessarily a valid rationale
for the 1970's. Even so, Congress has spread application of
Davis-Bacon from projects paid for entirely by the Federal government,
to projects where Federal funds make up only part of the cost. The
President has authority to suspend Davis-Bacon, and some committees
(more)
Page 6
have moved to remove this authority.
Congress is not going to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act at
this time. There is not sufficient public pressure for that. One
of the biggest problems that could be remedied would be to make
the definition of prevailing wage areas more realistic. This is
an administrative problem. But to use the Detroit construction
wage level as the prevailing wage for Grand Rapids, 150 miles
away, just doesn't make sense.
a.
I have read that the construction boom will continue into
the 1980's. We need manpower. Is the administration deemphasizing
the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, which has tried to get
minorities into the building trades?
A.
I know of no decrease in emphasis on this. All of the
actions in the administration point to no decrease in emphasis on
programs for the entry of minorities into the building trades.
I think any deemphasis would be a mistake. Members of minority
groups can and should be trained for construction.
###
OFFICE COPY
REMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
REPUBLICAN LEADER, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
BEFORE THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
DEARBORN, MICHIGAN
TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 3, 1973
It is my purpose to give you an informal roundup of where
we stand in Congress in areas where The Business Roundtable is
interested and greatly involved.
Before doing that, I want to congratulate Roger Blough,
Virgil Day and all the others who were instrumental in putting
together this organization. Those of us in Congress who have an
understanding of your objectives are gratified by the existence of
the Roundtable. We need more of this; it offers opportunity for
constructive work in the years ahead.
In assessing the present session of Congress, it is well to
describe where Congress is moving in relation to the 1973 elections.
In the Senate, as a result of the November election, that body is
tilted more to the left, by comparison with the previous two to four
years. In the House, where the GOP made a net gain of thirteen, out
of a total 435 seats, the election probably tilted that body slightly
more to the conservative side.
Let me begin by talking about what we will have to do in the
field of fiscal affairs. The first major round took place this
afternoon, April 3. The President, as you know, vetoed 13 measures
that would have added approximately $11 billion in Federal spending
above the $250 billion ceiling he set. Those bills pertained to
agriculture, urban areas, older Americans, and veterans -- all
appealing subjects.
The majority party leadership made a basic decision, for
partisan purposes, that they would force these bills through Congress
and force the President to spend the money, by changing the provision
that he may spend the money to "he shall" spend it. With this
revision in law, it then would be up to the courts to decide whether
the President had to make the expenditures that he considered unwise.
The first veto to come up for action was on the Vocational
Rehabilitation Bill that would have added -- and I want to emphasize
that -- would have added $1 billion to Federal funding of vocational
rehabilitation. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 88 to 2,
(more)
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Page 2
was approved by the House, 200 to 57.
Today the Senate voted to sustain the veto, 60 to 33. I
am proud of the Senate for that, though surprised by the result.
This is a reaction indicative of the current mood of the American
people.
In the House, the President's veto of the rural water/sewage
bill will come up for action in an atmosphere of concern over the
ecology. Hardly anyone wants to be against environmental progress
these days.
If we can sustain three or four of the Presidential vetoes,
the majority leadership's strategy of aiming for partisan gain
may be ended. Then we can get down to business.
The press has tried to create the impression that if the
veto of the Vocational Rehabilitation Bill was sustained, vocational
rehabilitation would be ended. The fact is that while five years
ago there was $371 million in Federal funding for this purpose,
it has risen to $641 million in the current fiscal year, and
$650 million has been recommended in the President's budget for
the next fiscal year. This means there has been a 75 per cent
increase in five years. Any impression that there is a cutback
in vocational rehabilitation support by Uncle Sam is totally
erroneous. Yet the majority party wanted to add another $1 billion
over a three-year period.
In a struggle that probably will take a month to resolve,
we have to sustain at least three or four vetoes, then we can get
to the legislative business that has to be done.
The President has recommended a straight extension of the
Economic Stabilization Act after April 30. The Senate passed a
bill not in accord with the President's recommendations. I
believe it could be cleaned up and made acceptable, if we had a
more constructive attitude in the House Committee on Banking and
Currency.
Amendments to the Stabilization Act had been offered to
roll back agricultural prices to May of 1972. This passed the
committee, but consternation broke out. The House as a whole
rejected the Committee version. It is a totally ridiculous action.
Maybe this will knock some sense into the Committee and eliminate
the demagoguery.
(more)
Page 3
If the final version of renewal of the Stabilization Act
is bad legislation, I am confident the President will veto it,
and the existing law extended will be 30 to 60 days to give the
House and Senate an opportunity to come up with a sensible
measure.
In the labor-management field, there is no hope of major
reform legislation as long as the current complexion of the House
Labor and Education Committee exists. If there is one committee
that is stacked against management, it is the Labor and Education
Committee. While it can hold up desirable legislation, it cannot
affirmatively reflect the will of the House as a whole.
We can come out with a reasonable minimum wage law.
The Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee handles
labor-management legislation pertaining to transportation. It
has avoided a permanent resolution of the numerous transportation
crises that have afflicted the nation in recent years. Instead
of giving us permanent legislation, Congress has acted in an
ad hoc way. It has approved wage settlements without any
compensatory benefits to transportation management.
In 30 to 60 days, we probably will have a dispute involving
the Penn Central Railroad. Congress will not pass essential
legislation to avoid transportation crises until there is a public
outcry for a permanent solution. And I don't think Congress is
going to put up a penny for Penn Central until there is a solution
to the crew size problem and abandonment of uneconomic lines.
As for consumer protection legislation, the Senate passed
a bill to give unlimited authority to a Consumer Protection
Agency; the House version didn't give that authority, and there
was no reconciliation (in the last session of Congress).
It is my opinion that this time the House version will
prevail or there will be no legislation.
We have to face the fact that this will be a highly partisan
Congress. I have never seen Congress start a session with so much
partisanship. It is at a peak right now. We need less partisanship
and more production.
I will be glad to field any questions you may have.
(more)
Page 4
Q.
On welfare payments to strikers, what is the mood of
Congress?
A.
More immediately, the issue is whether strikers should
receive food stamps. The matter of denying food stamps to
strikers lost twice on votes in the House -- the first time by
53 votes, the second time by only 19. In my judgment we're
getting closer. There is a growing sentiment in the country that
food stamps are not justified for strikers. There is a 50-50
chance of voting a prohibition in the House.
I do not believe in food stamps for strikers. In an annual
households
questionnaire I send to the 160,000 voters in my district, which
enbraces 55,000 union families, there was an 80 per cent vote
against food stamps for strikers. I believe it is a political
asset to take a strong stand against the use of food stamps for
persons on strike.
Q.
How do Congressmen regard views from constituents?
A.
People who know their Congressmen have greater influence
on how their representatives vote than do the people in Washington,
the lobbyists. It is the guy at home who makes the impression.
Plant managers can have greater impact on their representatives
from the plant area than can the lobbyists in Washington. Most
politicians like to know people -- particularly their constituents.
Q.
Would you please comment on the likelihood and the substance
of pension and health legislation.
A.
There is a distinct probability that we will get pension
legislation passed in the House, and probably through both houses
of Congress. This is a "hot issue." Congress has to do something
about vesting and portability. I think there will be some pension
legislation, but whether it will be the President's plan or some
other is a question. There is a growing demand in this area.
As to health insurance, we have the extremes of the Ted
Kennedy program and the more moderate Administration plan. I
believe there is about a 50-50 chance there will be a health
plan enacted before adjournment in 1974. It probably will be
closer to the administration recommendations than some of the
others. There is an absolute need for something to take care of
catastrophic illness, and there is no answer I know of in present
private or public plans.
FORD
(more)
GERALD
LIBRARY
Page 5
a.
What is the attitude of the administration toward labor?
There seems to be something like a rapprochement between the
President and labor.
A.
In the House Committee on Education and Labor there will
be no meaningful legislation reported out, and probably none in the
Senate. I think that if we could get a bill out of committee,
there is substantial sentiment for reinstating the original
intent of Taft-Hartley that has been badly eroded by judicial
and administrative interpretations.
There may be some rapprochement between the President and
some elements of labor; but I can assure you that there is none
between Mr. Nixon and Leonard Woodcock.
Q.
Could the Administration help change the complexion of the
House Committee on Education and Labor?
A.
No, that is not possible. The machinery for committee
appointments is exclusively the province of Congress itself.
Q.
What about the 5.5 per cent wage-price guidelines -- there
seems to be a great deal of confusion over that?
A.
There is a great deal of uncertainty. Over a period of
the past 12 to 18 months, 5.5 per cent was a figure that could
not be breached. Statistics indicate that settlements were under
5.5 per cent on the whole, though some were above that. The Cost
of Living Council will, I think try to hold to 5.5 per cent, and
exceptions should be fewer because catch-up settlements will not
be as great a factor. I think they will try to hold to 5.5 per
cent.
Q.
The government obtains lots of different kinds of services.
Why do we have to have a special statute regulating the wages for
one of those services -- construction -- in the form of the
Davis-Bacon Act?
A.
Davis-Bacon was enacted on a rationale prevailing in the
Depression days of the 1930's, as a way to get money into the hands
of laboring people. But that is not necessarily a valid rationale
for the 1970's. Even so, Congress has spread application of
Davis-Bacon from projects paid for entirely by the Federal government,
to projects where Federal funds make up only part of the cost. The
President has authority to suspend Davis-Bacon, and some committees
(more)
Page 6
have moved to remove this authority.
Congress is not going to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act at
this time. There is not sufficient public pressure for that. One
of the biggest problems that could be remedied would be to make
the definition of prevailing wage areas more realistic. This is
an administrative problem. But to use the Detroit construction
wage level as the prevailing wage for Grand Rapids, 150 miles
away, just doesn't make sense.
a.
I have read that the construction boom will continue into
the 1980's. We need manpower. Is the administration deemphasizing
the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, which has tried to get
minorities into the building trades?
A.
I know of no decrease in emphasis on this. All of the
actions in the administration point to no decrease in emphasis on
programs for the entry of minorities into the building trades.
I think any deemphasis would be a mistake. Members of minority
groups can and should be trained for construction.
###
Page data
- Page
- 1
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- document
- Media ID
- c7cf176621b26344
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 4526486
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "4526486",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526486",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Business Roundtable, Dearborn, MI, April 3, 1973",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526486",
"collections": [
"Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
"Speeches"
],
"subjects": [
"Construction industry",
"Food stamps",
"Health",
"Insurance",
"Labor disputes",
"Pension trusts",
"Vetoes"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526486.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526486.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526486.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "4526486",
"label": "Business Roundtable, Dearborn, MI, April 3, 1973",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526486"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "4526486",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526486",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Business Roundtable, Dearborn, MI, April 3, 1973",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526486",
"collections": [
"Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers",
"Speeches"
],
"subjects": [
"Construction industry",
"Food stamps",
"Health",
"Insurance",
"Labor disputes",
"Pension trusts",
"Vetoes"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526486.pdf",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526486.pdf",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526486.pdf",
"imageCount": 1,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/4526486",
"naId": 4526486,
"coverageEndDate": {
"logicalDate": "1973-04-30",
"month": 4,
"year": 1973
},
"coverageStartDate": {
"logicalDate": "1973-04-01",
"month": 4,
"year": 1973
},
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 1,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "document",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0054/642080/4526486.pdf",
"mediaId": "c7cf176621b26344",
"ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box D34, folder \"Business Roundtable, Dearborn,\nMI, April 3, 1973\" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at\nthe Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nM OFFICE COPY\nREMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.\nREPUBLICAN LEADER, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nBEFORE THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE\nDEARBORN, MICHIGAN\nTUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 3, 1973\nIt is my purpose to give you an informal roundup of where\nwe stand in Congress in areas where The Business Roundtable is\ninterested and greatly involved.\nBefore doing that, I want to congratulate Roger Blough,\nVirgil Day and all the others who were instrumental in putting\ntogether this organization. Those of us in Congress who have an\nunderstanding of your objectives are gratified by the existence of\nthe Roundtable. We need more of this; it offers opportunity for\nconstructive work in the years ahead.\nIn assessing the present session of Congress, it is well to\ndescribe where Congress is moving in relation to the 1973 elections.\nIn the Senate, as a result of the November election, that body is\ntilted more to the left, by comparison with the previous two to four\nyears. In the House, where the GOP made a net gain of thirteen, out\nof a total 435 seats, the election probably tilted that body slightly\nmore to the conservative side.\nLet me begin by talking about what we will have to do in the\nfield of fiscal affairs. The first major round took place this\nafternoon, April 3. The President, as you know, vetoed 13 measures\nthat would have added approximately $11 billion in Federal spending\nabove the $250 billion ceiling he set. Those bills pertained to\nagriculture, urban areas, older Americans, and veterans -- all\nappealing subjects.\nThe majority party leadership made a basic decision, for\npartisan purposes, that they would force these bills through Congress\nand force the President to spend the money, by changing the provision\nthat he may spend the money to \"he shall\" spend it. With this\nrevision in law, it then would be up to the courts to decide whether\nthe President had to make the expenditures that he considered unwise.\nThe first veto to come up for action was on the Vocational\nRehabilitation Bill that would have added -- and I want to emphasize\nthat -- would have added $1 billion to Federal funding of vocational\nrehabilitation. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 88 to 2,\n(more)\nDigitized from Box D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nPage 2\nwas approved by the House, 200 to 57.\nToday the Senate voted to sustain the veto, 60 to 33. I\nam proud of the Senate for that, though surprised by the result.\nThis is a reaction indicative of the current mood of the American\npeople.\nIn the House, the President's veto of the rural water/sewage\nbill will come up for action in an atmosphere of concern over the\necology. Hardly anyone wants to be against environmental progress\nthese days.\nIf we can sustain three or four of the Presidential vetoes,\nthe majority leadership's strategy of aiming for partisan gain\nmay be ended. Then we can get down to business.\nThe press has tried to create the impression that if the\nveto of the Vocational Rehabilitation Bill was sustained, vocational\nrehabilitation would be ended. The fact is that while five years\nago there was $371 million in Federal funding for this purpose,\nit has risen to $641 million in the current fiscal year, and\n$650 million has been recommended in the President's budget for\nthe next fiscal year. This means there has been a 75 per cent\nincrease in five years. Any impression that there is a cutback\nin vocational rehabilitation support by Uncle Sam is totally\nerroneous. Yet the majority party wanted to add another $1 billion\nover a three-year period.\nIn a struggle that probably will take a month to resolve,\nwe have to sustain at least three or four vetoes, then we can get\nto the legislative business that has to be done.\nThe President has recommended a straight extension of the\nEconomic Stabilization Act after April 30. The Senate passed a\nbill not in accord with the President's recommendations. I\nbelieve it could be cleaned up and made acceptable, if we had a\nmore constructive attitude in the House Committee on Banking and\nCurrency.\nAmendments to the Stabilization Act had been offered to\nroll back agricultural prices to May of 1972. This passed the\ncommittee, but consternation broke out. The House as a whole\nrejected the Committee version. It is a totally ridiculous action.\nMaybe this will knock some sense into the Committee and eliminate\nthe demagoguery.\n(more)\nPage 3\nIf the final version of renewal of the Stabilization Act\nis bad legislation, I am confident the President will veto it,\nand the existing law extended will be 30 to 60 days to give the\nHouse and Senate an opportunity to come up with a sensible\nmeasure.\nIn the labor-management field, there is no hope of major\nreform legislation as long as the current complexion of the House\nLabor and Education Committee exists. If there is one committee\nthat is stacked against management, it is the Labor and Education\nCommittee. While it can hold up desirable legislation, it cannot\naffirmatively reflect the will of the House as a whole.\nWe can come out with a reasonable minimum wage law.\nThe Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee handles\nlabor-management legislation pertaining to transportation. It\nhas avoided a permanent resolution of the numerous transportation\ncrises that have afflicted the nation in recent years. Instead\nof giving us permanent legislation, Congress has acted in an\nad hoc way. It has approved wage settlements without any\ncompensatory benefits to transportation management.\nIn 30 to 60 days, we probably will have a dispute involving\nthe Penn Central Railroad. Congress will not pass essential\nlegislation to avoid transportation crises until there is a public\noutcry for a permanent solution. And I don't think Congress is\ngoing to put up a penny for Penn Central until there is a solution\nto the crew size problem and abandonment of uneconomic lines.\nAs for consumer protection legislation, the Senate passed\na bill to give unlimited authority to a Consumer Protection\nAgency; the House version didn't give that authority, and there\nwas no reconciliation (in the last session of Congress).\nIt is my opinion that this time the House version will\nprevail or there will be no legislation.\nWe have to face the fact that this will be a highly partisan\nCongress. I have never seen Congress start a session with so much\npartisanship. It is at a peak right now. We need less partisanship\nand more production.\nI will be glad to field any questions you may have.\n(more)\nPage 4\nQ.\nOn welfare payments to strikers, what is the mood of\nCongress?\nA.\nMore immediately, the issue is whether strikers should\nreceive food stamps. The matter of denying food stamps to\nstrikers lost twice on votes in the House -- the first time by\n53 votes, the second time by only 19. In my judgment we're\ngetting closer. There is a growing sentiment in the country that\nfood stamps are not justified for strikers. There is a 50-50\nchance of voting a prohibition in the House.\nI do not believe in food stamps for strikers. In an annual\nhouseholds\nquestionnaire I send to the 160,000 voters in my district, which\nenbraces 55,000 union families, there was an 80 per cent vote\nagainst food stamps for strikers. I believe it is a political\nasset to take a strong stand against the use of food stamps for\npersons on strike.\nQ.\nHow do Congressmen regard views from constituents?\nA.\nPeople who know their Congressmen have greater influence\non how their representatives vote than do the people in Washington,\nthe lobbyists. It is the guy at home who makes the impression.\nPlant managers can have greater impact on their representatives\nfrom the plant area than can the lobbyists in Washington. Most\npoliticians like to know people -- particularly their constituents.\nQ.\nWould you please comment on the likelihood and the substance\nof pension and health legislation.\nA.\nThere is a distinct probability that we will get pension\nlegislation passed in the House, and probably through both houses\nof Congress. This is a \"hot issue.\" Congress has to do something\nabout vesting and portability. I think there will be some pension\nlegislation, but whether it will be the President's plan or some\nother is a question. There is a growing demand in this area.\nAs to health insurance, we have the extremes of the Ted\nKennedy program and the more moderate Administration plan. I\nbelieve there is about a 50-50 chance there will be a health\nplan enacted before adjournment in 1974. It probably will be\ncloser to the administration recommendations than some of the\nothers. There is an absolute need for something to take care of\ncatastrophic illness, and there is no answer I know of in present\nprivate or public plans.\n(more)\nPage 5\nQ.\nWhat is the attitude of the administration toward labor?\nThere seems to be something like a rapprochement between the\nPresident and labor.\nA.\nIn the House Committee on Education and Labor there will\nbe no meaningful legislation reported out, and probably none in the\nSenate. I think that if we could get a bill out of committee,\nthere is substantial sentiment for reinstating the original\nintent of Taft-Hartley that has been badly eroded by judicial\nand administrative interpretations.\nThere may be some rapprochement between the President and\nsome elements of labor; but I can assure you that there is none\nbetween Mr. Nixon and Leonard Woodcock.\na.\nCould the Administration help change the complexion of the\nHouse Committee on Education and Labor?\nA.\nNo, that is not possible. The machinery for committee\nappointments is exclusively the province of Congress itself.\nQ.\nWhat about the 5.5 per cent wage-price guidelines -- there\nseems to be a great deal of confusion over that?\nA.\nThere is a great deal of uncertainty. Over a period of\nthe past 12 to 18 months, 5.5 per cent was a figure that could\nnot be breached. Statistics indicate that settlements were under\n5.5 per cent on the whole, though some were above that. The Cost\nof Living Council will, I think try to hold to 5.5 per cent, and\nexceptions should be fewer because catch-up settlements will not\nbe as great a factor. I think they will try to hold to 5.5 per\ncent.\nQ.\nThe government obtains lots of different kinds of services.\nWhy do we have to have a special statute regulating the wages for\none of those services -- construction -- in the form of the\nDavis-Bacon Act?\nA.\nDavis-Bacon was enacted on a rationale prevailing in the\nDepression days of the 1930's, as a way to get money into the hands\nof laboring people. But that is not necessarily a valid rationale\nfor the 1970's. Even so, Congress has spread application of\nDavis-Bacon from projects paid for entirely by the Federal government,\nto projects where Federal funds make up only part of the cost. The\nPresident has authority to suspend Davis-Bacon, and some committees\n(more)\nPage 6\nhave moved to remove this authority.\nCongress is not going to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act at\nthis time. There is not sufficient public pressure for that. One\nof the biggest problems that could be remedied would be to make\nthe definition of prevailing wage areas more realistic. This is\nan administrative problem. But to use the Detroit construction\nwage level as the prevailing wage for Grand Rapids, 150 miles\naway, just doesn't make sense.\na.\nI have read that the construction boom will continue into\nthe 1980's. We need manpower. Is the administration deemphasizing\nthe Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, which has tried to get\nminorities into the building trades?\nA.\nI know of no decrease in emphasis on this. All of the\nactions in the administration point to no decrease in emphasis on\nprograms for the entry of minorities into the building trades.\nI think any deemphasis would be a mistake. Members of minority\ngroups can and should be trained for construction.\n###\nOFFICE COPY\nREMARKS BY REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.\nREPUBLICAN LEADER, U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES\nBEFORE THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE\nDEARBORN, MICHIGAN\nTUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 3, 1973\nIt is my purpose to give you an informal roundup of where\nwe stand in Congress in areas where The Business Roundtable is\ninterested and greatly involved.\nBefore doing that, I want to congratulate Roger Blough,\nVirgil Day and all the others who were instrumental in putting\ntogether this organization. Those of us in Congress who have an\nunderstanding of your objectives are gratified by the existence of\nthe Roundtable. We need more of this; it offers opportunity for\nconstructive work in the years ahead.\nIn assessing the present session of Congress, it is well to\ndescribe where Congress is moving in relation to the 1973 elections.\nIn the Senate, as a result of the November election, that body is\ntilted more to the left, by comparison with the previous two to four\nyears. In the House, where the GOP made a net gain of thirteen, out\nof a total 435 seats, the election probably tilted that body slightly\nmore to the conservative side.\nLet me begin by talking about what we will have to do in the\nfield of fiscal affairs. The first major round took place this\nafternoon, April 3. The President, as you know, vetoed 13 measures\nthat would have added approximately $11 billion in Federal spending\nabove the $250 billion ceiling he set. Those bills pertained to\nagriculture, urban areas, older Americans, and veterans -- all\nappealing subjects.\nThe majority party leadership made a basic decision, for\npartisan purposes, that they would force these bills through Congress\nand force the President to spend the money, by changing the provision\nthat he may spend the money to \"he shall\" spend it. With this\nrevision in law, it then would be up to the courts to decide whether\nthe President had to make the expenditures that he considered unwise.\nThe first veto to come up for action was on the Vocational\nRehabilitation Bill that would have added -- and I want to emphasize\nthat -- would have added $1 billion to Federal funding of vocational\nrehabilitation. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 88 to 2,\n(more)\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nPage 2\nwas approved by the House, 200 to 57.\nToday the Senate voted to sustain the veto, 60 to 33. I\nam proud of the Senate for that, though surprised by the result.\nThis is a reaction indicative of the current mood of the American\npeople.\nIn the House, the President's veto of the rural water/sewage\nbill will come up for action in an atmosphere of concern over the\necology. Hardly anyone wants to be against environmental progress\nthese days.\nIf we can sustain three or four of the Presidential vetoes,\nthe majority leadership's strategy of aiming for partisan gain\nmay be ended. Then we can get down to business.\nThe press has tried to create the impression that if the\nveto of the Vocational Rehabilitation Bill was sustained, vocational\nrehabilitation would be ended. The fact is that while five years\nago there was $371 million in Federal funding for this purpose,\nit has risen to $641 million in the current fiscal year, and\n$650 million has been recommended in the President's budget for\nthe next fiscal year. This means there has been a 75 per cent\nincrease in five years. Any impression that there is a cutback\nin vocational rehabilitation support by Uncle Sam is totally\nerroneous. Yet the majority party wanted to add another $1 billion\nover a three-year period.\nIn a struggle that probably will take a month to resolve,\nwe have to sustain at least three or four vetoes, then we can get\nto the legislative business that has to be done.\nThe President has recommended a straight extension of the\nEconomic Stabilization Act after April 30. The Senate passed a\nbill not in accord with the President's recommendations. I\nbelieve it could be cleaned up and made acceptable, if we had a\nmore constructive attitude in the House Committee on Banking and\nCurrency.\nAmendments to the Stabilization Act had been offered to\nroll back agricultural prices to May of 1972. This passed the\ncommittee, but consternation broke out. The House as a whole\nrejected the Committee version. It is a totally ridiculous action.\nMaybe this will knock some sense into the Committee and eliminate\nthe demagoguery.\n(more)\nPage 3\nIf the final version of renewal of the Stabilization Act\nis bad legislation, I am confident the President will veto it,\nand the existing law extended will be 30 to 60 days to give the\nHouse and Senate an opportunity to come up with a sensible\nmeasure.\nIn the labor-management field, there is no hope of major\nreform legislation as long as the current complexion of the House\nLabor and Education Committee exists. If there is one committee\nthat is stacked against management, it is the Labor and Education\nCommittee. While it can hold up desirable legislation, it cannot\naffirmatively reflect the will of the House as a whole.\nWe can come out with a reasonable minimum wage law.\nThe Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee handles\nlabor-management legislation pertaining to transportation. It\nhas avoided a permanent resolution of the numerous transportation\ncrises that have afflicted the nation in recent years. Instead\nof giving us permanent legislation, Congress has acted in an\nad hoc way. It has approved wage settlements without any\ncompensatory benefits to transportation management.\nIn 30 to 60 days, we probably will have a dispute involving\nthe Penn Central Railroad. Congress will not pass essential\nlegislation to avoid transportation crises until there is a public\noutcry for a permanent solution. And I don't think Congress is\ngoing to put up a penny for Penn Central until there is a solution\nto the crew size problem and abandonment of uneconomic lines.\nAs for consumer protection legislation, the Senate passed\na bill to give unlimited authority to a Consumer Protection\nAgency; the House version didn't give that authority, and there\nwas no reconciliation (in the last session of Congress).\nIt is my opinion that this time the House version will\nprevail or there will be no legislation.\nWe have to face the fact that this will be a highly partisan\nCongress. I have never seen Congress start a session with so much\npartisanship. It is at a peak right now. We need less partisanship\nand more production.\nI will be glad to field any questions you may have.\n(more)\nPage 4\nQ.\nOn welfare payments to strikers, what is the mood of\nCongress?\nA.\nMore immediately, the issue is whether strikers should\nreceive food stamps. The matter of denying food stamps to\nstrikers lost twice on votes in the House -- the first time by\n53 votes, the second time by only 19. In my judgment we're\ngetting closer. There is a growing sentiment in the country that\nfood stamps are not justified for strikers. There is a 50-50\nchance of voting a prohibition in the House.\nI do not believe in food stamps for strikers. In an annual\nhouseholds\nquestionnaire I send to the 160,000 voters in my district, which\nenbraces 55,000 union families, there was an 80 per cent vote\nagainst food stamps for strikers. I believe it is a political\nasset to take a strong stand against the use of food stamps for\npersons on strike.\nQ.\nHow do Congressmen regard views from constituents?\nA.\nPeople who know their Congressmen have greater influence\non how their representatives vote than do the people in Washington,\nthe lobbyists. It is the guy at home who makes the impression.\nPlant managers can have greater impact on their representatives\nfrom the plant area than can the lobbyists in Washington. Most\npoliticians like to know people -- particularly their constituents.\nQ.\nWould you please comment on the likelihood and the substance\nof pension and health legislation.\nA.\nThere is a distinct probability that we will get pension\nlegislation passed in the House, and probably through both houses\nof Congress. This is a \"hot issue.\" Congress has to do something\nabout vesting and portability. I think there will be some pension\nlegislation, but whether it will be the President's plan or some\nother is a question. There is a growing demand in this area.\nAs to health insurance, we have the extremes of the Ted\nKennedy program and the more moderate Administration plan. I\nbelieve there is about a 50-50 chance there will be a health\nplan enacted before adjournment in 1974. It probably will be\ncloser to the administration recommendations than some of the\nothers. There is an absolute need for something to take care of\ncatastrophic illness, and there is no answer I know of in present\nprivate or public plans.\nFORD\n(more)\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\nPage 5\na.\nWhat is the attitude of the administration toward labor?\nThere seems to be something like a rapprochement between the\nPresident and labor.\nA.\nIn the House Committee on Education and Labor there will\nbe no meaningful legislation reported out, and probably none in the\nSenate. I think that if we could get a bill out of committee,\nthere is substantial sentiment for reinstating the original\nintent of Taft-Hartley that has been badly eroded by judicial\nand administrative interpretations.\nThere may be some rapprochement between the President and\nsome elements of labor; but I can assure you that there is none\nbetween Mr. Nixon and Leonard Woodcock.\nQ.\nCould the Administration help change the complexion of the\nHouse Committee on Education and Labor?\nA.\nNo, that is not possible. The machinery for committee\nappointments is exclusively the province of Congress itself.\nQ.\nWhat about the 5.5 per cent wage-price guidelines -- there\nseems to be a great deal of confusion over that?\nA.\nThere is a great deal of uncertainty. Over a period of\nthe past 12 to 18 months, 5.5 per cent was a figure that could\nnot be breached. Statistics indicate that settlements were under\n5.5 per cent on the whole, though some were above that. The Cost\nof Living Council will, I think try to hold to 5.5 per cent, and\nexceptions should be fewer because catch-up settlements will not\nbe as great a factor. I think they will try to hold to 5.5 per\ncent.\nQ.\nThe government obtains lots of different kinds of services.\nWhy do we have to have a special statute regulating the wages for\none of those services -- construction -- in the form of the\nDavis-Bacon Act?\nA.\nDavis-Bacon was enacted on a rationale prevailing in the\nDepression days of the 1930's, as a way to get money into the hands\nof laboring people. But that is not necessarily a valid rationale\nfor the 1970's. Even so, Congress has spread application of\nDavis-Bacon from projects paid for entirely by the Federal government,\nto projects where Federal funds make up only part of the cost. The\nPresident has authority to suspend Davis-Bacon, and some committees\n(more)\nPage 6\nhave moved to remove this authority.\nCongress is not going to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act at\nthis time. There is not sufficient public pressure for that. One\nof the biggest problems that could be remedied would be to make\nthe definition of prevailing wage areas more realistic. This is\nan administrative problem. But to use the Detroit construction\nwage level as the prevailing wage for Grand Rapids, 150 miles\naway, just doesn't make sense.\na.\nI have read that the construction boom will continue into\nthe 1980's. We need manpower. Is the administration deemphasizing\nthe Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, which has tried to get\nminorities into the building trades?\nA.\nI know of no decrease in emphasis on this. All of the\nactions in the administration point to no decrease in emphasis on\nprograms for the entry of minorities into the building trades.\nI think any deemphasis would be a mistake. Members of minority\ngroups can and should be trained for construction.\n###"
}