Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains material relating to Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO).
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4526527
label
Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, January-May 1973
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526527
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Fifth District Weekly Radio Reports, January-May 1973
description
This file contains material relating to Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO).
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Weekly Radio Reports
subjects
Department of Defense. 9/18/1947-
Agriculture
Amnesty
Arms control
Commerce
Compulsory national service
Crime
Economic stabilization
Energy policy
Federal aid
Federal budget
Food
Inflation (Finance)
Legislation
Meat
National security
Petroleum
Political reform
Prisoners of war
Private schools
Taxation
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Vocational education
Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526527
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-05-31
month
5
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1973-01-01
month
1
year
1973
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
7f954ddefd1a1a7c
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D36, folder "Fifth District Weekly Radio
Reports, January-May 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
SCRIPT TAPED FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF JAN. 13-14, 1973.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. This is my
first weekly radio report of 1973, and so I want to begin by wishing you all a Happy
New Year.
Congre began the new year by convening on Jan. 3, a day when all members-elect were
43
-
26
sworn into office.
Currently both Houses of the Congress are in the process of getting organized--and
this process will take most of this month. It involve assigning members of Congre SS
to the various legislative committees. It is in the committees of the Congre SS that
much of the wrk t akes place--the work of taking testimony, questioning witnesses and
putting le gislation together for consideration by the House and the Senate.
House Republicans have elected me their floor leader for a fifth consecutive two-year
term. I am grateful for that honor. In addition, I am chairman of the Committee which
makes House Republican committee assignments,
so I will be very busy in that
connection all this month.
The Committee on Committees had its first meeting just this past week, which means that
the job of assigning House Republicans to various committees is under
way.
The
Democrats, of course, are engaged in their own committee assignment
tasks.
There has been no busine SS in the House thus far, but on opening day there was a
debate over a
move by the Democrats to change the rules by which the House
operates. What the Democrats proposed is that twice as much time be alloted this year
to taking up bills under a procedure which limits debate to 40 minutes--20 minutes to a
side--and close S all such bills off from amendment.
Other Republicans and I fought this rules change because it meant that there would be
more
time
when important bills would be brought up under a "gag rule--twice as much time
as
in
IBRAR
the previous Congress. We pointed out that complex bills involving hundreds of millions
Digitized from Box D36 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
-2-
of dollars were brought up under this procedure=called suspension of the rules--im the
92nd Congress. And now the Democrats were seeking to
give more time to
doing the same thing in the 93rd Congress. Well, we lost-208 to 204--despite our most
strennous efforts.
I have introduced two bills since Congre SS convened--bills I consider to be of
much
importance.
One
of these bills would help parents bear the financial burden of sending their
children to nonpublic schools--and, in the process, would help to keep nonpublic schools
open and operating. This bill would provide a 50 per cent tax credit--up to 200--for
tuition paid by parents to send their youngsters to a nonpublic school. I feel that
parents have a constitutional right to send their children to the school of their choice.
such
That right is impaired when the
cost of exercising freedom of choice is
unusually great. Parents of nonpublic school children bear a double burden.
They pay public school taxes and at the same time pay nonpublic school tuition. I think
it is
only fair that we subtract from their Federal income tax bill part of what
they pay
to send their children to nonpublic school.
The other bill I have introduced would give states the discretion to require
dual
signatures in connection with welfare checks. This would apply to aid to familie S with
dependent children. The idea behind it is to
make sure that
merchants
who sell
welfare recipients an appliance such as a stove or refrigerator get paid for
their wares. We must prevent welfare cheating.
When people see
welfare cheating, even by a few, they get the impression that such cheating is widespread.
I think preventing welfare cheating would be for the good of the general public
and the
welfare recipient, as well as the
merchant.
RALD FORD LIBRA
This
is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's
capital. I'll be talking with you again next week same time, same station.
#####
SCRIPT TAPED FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF JAN. 20-21, 1973.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
Congress is getting organized. Committee assignments are being made, and members
of Congre SS now are waiting for the President to send his budget and his State of the
Union Message to Capitol Hill. No date has been set for the State of the Union
Message but the fiscal 1974 Budget is due on Jan. 29.
Meantime there have been two big news developments-the Presidential order
setting up Phase III of price and wage controls and the Presidential announcement
that all bombing, shelling and mining of North Vietnam have been halted.
I
am most gratified at the obvious progre SS which has been made toward
finalising a negotiated settlement of the Vietnam War.
As for Phase III of price and wage controls, I
think there is a good chance that the new system will work.
Let me point out that when the present Administration took office four years
ago, the inflation rate was an unbearable 6 per cent. President Nixon's vigorous
actions during Phase I and Phase II of price and wage controls have effectively
reduced that rate of inflation. The Phase III goal is to bring the inflation
rate down to 21 per cent by the end of 1973--and I certainly endorse that objective.
It should be made clear that Phase III does not mean that all restraints have
been abandoned. What the President has done is--in effect--simply to make the
Price Commi ssion and the Pay Board divisions of the Cost of Living Council. The
inmostcases
big change is that labor and management will not have to come to the Federal Government
and ask permission before proceeding with price and wage changes. However, a pattern
of restraints will be in effect--and the Government will act to roll backs price and
seriously
wage rises that feed inflation.
The success of Phase III will depend on a determined self-restraint bbth
FORD LIBRARY 03
-2-
within the Federal Government and among the general public. I believe the Congress
must act on the Federal budget with a sharp sense of fiscal responsibility
that the
general public should
cooperat
[en
in
the fight against inflation. If we
do this, I think WB can bring the inflation
rate down to 2½ per cent.
I might also mention the fuel oil shortage and actions that are being taken to
alleviate it. I have been very much concerned about the fuel oil shortage and so I
have written to Secretary of Interior Rogers Morton and Gen. George Lincoln,
director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, urging that immediate steps be
taken to alleviate the fuel crisis. Hopefully, the Administration's recent action
to increase oil imports will be a first step in solving the immediate oil problem.
In recent weeks the Midwest has undergone a critical fuel shortage--both in
oil and natural g as. Fortunately, the Administration announced on January 8th that
it has authorized more than a fourfold increase in heating oil importssto help ease
the fuel shortages threatened in the Midwest.
Now I would like to turn to legislation I am sponsoring. Last Thursday I
reintroduced what I call my "runaway pappy" bill. This is a piece of legislation
aimed at
fathers who have fled to other states to escape paying child support.
My bill would
make child support orders enforceable in Federal courts. It
would bring Federal authority to bear on the problem of non-support by husgands and
fathers who
shirk their parental responsibilities.
The main purpose of my bill is to try to deter a man from leaving a state to
avoid paying for child support under a court order obtained against him. My bill
grants jurisdiction to Federal officials to act in those cases where a man flees from
one state to another to avoid his parental obligations.
This is Congressman Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'll be talking
with you again next week--same time, same station.
SCRIPT TAPED FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF JAN. 27-28, 1973.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
Here andelseurhere,
The long nightmare of Vietnam is over for Americans.A sigh of relief has
gone
up
that has been heard around the world.
I am very happy about the peace settlement. I am happy not
because the
fighting has stopped--at least as far as America is concerned--but because we have
achieved the kind of peace which will give South Vietnam a chance to survive as a
non-Communist entity. We have achieved an honorable peace,
a peace that has a
chance to stick, a chance to last.
And I am delighted that
the 587 American POW's will be
returning
home
by
March 28 and that there will be the fullest possible accounting of the 1,200 Americans
missing in action. It is cause for rejoicing,
too, that the 23,700 remaining
U.S. troops in Vietnam will be coming home by March 28.
There will be some Americans, particularly those who wanted peace in Vietnam on
pay
Maybe so but surrender would have solved mothing
any terms, who will we could have had peace long agoon That attitude ignores
our ori basic commitment in Vietnam--the fact that We went to South Vietnam's aid with
the purpose of thwarting Communist aggression in Vietnam.
think this original
commitment was important. I think 1t was vital to the future peace of the world.
Vietnam was actually the final and pivotal battle in the Cold War. It may prove to
be one of the building blocks of a future generation of peace for all the peoples
of the world.
It was a curious coincidence--and most fitting--that the President's announcement
of a ceasefire in Vietnam and the scheduled signing of the peace agreement should have
come at a time when the Nation was mourning the death of former President Lyndon
Johnson.
Although I disagreed with military the tactic S Lyndon Johnson
employed in Vietnam, I admired him for his determination to stay the course
BERALD We LIBRARY
-2-
became close
friends while he was President--and I cherished that friendship.
There have been so many momentous events in recent days.
One of these
was the second inauguration of Richard Nixon as
37th President of the
100
United States. More than speople from the Fifth Congressional District came to
Washington for the inauguration, including 34 young Latvian dancers who performed
during a Salute to America's Heritage program at the Corcoran Gallery of Art. Mrs.
Nixon
witnessed the performance by the Latvians from Grand Rapids and
personally
commended them.
Turning to other matters, I would like to report that the United State will ask
Canada to join in making adjustments in water levels in the Great Lake So Great Lakes
levels have been critically high, and some corrective action imperative. I can
tell you authoritatively that the Nixon Administration acted in this matter because
of a letter to the President sent by 34 other congre ssmen and 1 me I am most pleased--
and I hope that the International Control Commi ssion, which is the body that must
takeremedial action,
now will re spond.
I would like to mention now a piece of legislation I introduced in the House
last Wednesday--a bill I
call the Agricultural Marketing and Bargaining Act of
1973. This bill is aimed at eliminating the sad situation that arose last fall when
Michig an apple growers felt forced to picket fruit proce ssors to get living-income
prices for their apples. The bill I have introduced would create a National
Agricultural Bargaining Board, which would set standards to qualify associations of
producers for bargaining purposes and would generate the proper climate for good
faithr bargaining between farm producers and farm product processors. I hope the
Congre SS will see fit to adopt my legislation and that it will prove the answer to
the woes of Michigan's apple growers.
ERALD I'll be LIBRARD
This is your congressman, Jerry Fordi, reporting to you from Washington.
talking with you again next week-same time, same station.
########
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF FEB. 3-4, 1973.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
President Nixon has sent his fiscal 1974 budget to the Congress. The budget
sets guidelines for Federal spending. It also proposes a set of priorities which
the Congress can accept, modify or reject.
In my view, the President's Budget for 1974 points the way toward better
government and continued economic progress.
At the same time, it would keep Federal spending within the limits required if
we are to avoid higher taxes or increased inflation.
The President has urged the Congress to set a rigid ceiling of $268.7 billion
on fiscal 1974 outlays before any spending bills are considered. fully concur
in in that recommendation makes are
The Congress should adopt that spending limitation and then consider the
President's budget proposals in the light of the goals and objectives that have
shaped it. Whatever action the Congress then takes on the budget, all of the
appropriations bills should fit under the $268.7 billion ceiling.
The President has said firmly and vigorously that Federal spending can and
His
one way
should be held down. agree. The 1974 budget indicates how this can be done.
It is true that the President plans to reduci or terminat some programs,
but he also recommends continued and increased support of many effective and
needed programs. Wive most about the attach - here and some increases
Heart + lancer- - 20% Crime- 8%
In many respects the course the President has outlined is difficult and
where cuttachs
painful. But consider what would happen if we do not make the kind of choices
represented by the President's budget recommendations.
The President currently is holding fiscal 1973 outlays to $250 billion and
he is proposing fiscal 1974 outlays totalling $268.7 billion. Without the
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
restraints being employed currently and those proposed in the 1974 budget,
1973 spending would be over $10 billion greater and 1974 spending would be almost
$20 billion more.
And, 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 President's efforts to hold back Federal spending are holding the fiscal
1973 deficit to $25 billion. The fiscal 1974 deficit will be roughly half that,
under the President's budget.
The President has put the tax and inflation monkey squarely on Congress's back.
He has said, bluntly: If there is a tax increase 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.
The President sent his annual Economic Report to the Congress last Wednesday.
He said 1972 was a very good year and that 1973 can be a great year if the Congress
agrees to hold down Federal spending.
The President's Council of Economic Advisers predicted continued overall
expansion and some decline in unemployment and inflation. "The problem," the Council
said, "will be to prevent this expansion from becoming an economic boom."
Specifically, the Council predicted a 10 per cent increase in the Gross National
Product to $1.3 trillion; a real growth in the economy--after inflation-of
6 and 3/4 per cent, an annual increase in prices of 3 per cent, and a reduction in
unemployment "to the neighborhood of 4 1/2 per cent by the end of the year."
This to good news,
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington,
QERALO I'll FORD LIBRARY
be talking with you next week -- same time, same station.
###
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF FEB. 10-11, 1973.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
Starting Feb. 1, the power facilities on the St. Mary's River at Saulte Ste. Marie
were
shut down. This was done to reduce the flow of water from Lake Superior
to the lower Great Lakes. And it will continue over a three-month period, from Feb. 1
to April 30. Reducing the flow of water from Lake Superior into the lower Great Lakes
will lower the levels of Lakes Michigan, St. Clair, Huron and Erie. During the three-
month period of reduced outflows from Lake Superior, the International Joint Commission
will be considering a new plan for regulating the level of Lake Superior. It will be
the first time that the condition of the lower Great Lakes will be taken into account
as part of a Lake Superior regulation plan.
The action I have described is a temporary emergency measure, taken because the
levels of the
lower Great Lakes are from
2 to
2½ feet
higher than their
longterm average at this time of year.
This emergency action didn't just happen. It was taken because 33 other congressmen
and I wrote a letter to
President Nixon urging remedial measures to lower the levels
of the lower Great
Lakes. The President responded with a formal application to the
International Joint Commission to reduce the outflow from Lake Superior. And the
then
International Joint Commission
approved the application.
This doe S not solve the problem of the high levels of lower Great Lakes. It
merely alleviate S the situation. I will continue to work on this problem until a
permanent solution is achieved.
I would like to turn now to moves being made in the Congress to fight the
President on his efforts to hold Federal spending to $250 billion in this fiscal
year and $268.7 billion in fiscal 1974.
CERALD FORD LIBRANDO
he battle of the budget is on .ranging from House action to force the spending
-2-
of $205 million
for the Rural Environmental Assistance Program to the Senate's
insistence on the spending of $593 million for various water projects. The President
is refusing to spend the rural environment al assistance money. He
vetoedthe water
project bill on economy grounds last year. The Senate is also readying a confrontation
with the President by voting to make the job of Office of Management and Budget
director subject to Senate confirmation.
I am not taking the position that every cutback and impoundment ordered by the
Congress has an equal mesponsibility
President is the right one But I do believe that Federal spending shouldbe held to
the $250 billion level this fiscal year and to $268 billion in fiscal 1974. I am
ab solutely
opposed to an increase in
individual Federal
income
taxes. think The the American people
already pay more than enough taxes. And
if the only
way to avoid future tax increases is to cut
some programs, then we
will have to cut.
The President is absolutely right in telling Congress to set a rigid ceiling on
overall government spending. The Congress has a right to decide what programs to cut
and which programs to increase, and its decisions may not agree with the President's
recommendations. But the fact remains that Federal spending has to be
held
down. We cannot just go ahead and authorize and appropriate as much as we would like
Then sont that much tap money swarlable
to. The competition for the Federal dollar is tremendous. Membersi of Congress
simply have to make lot of tough decisions on priorities and stick to them.
I'm convinced the Nixon Administration
is not going to spend as much money
as Congre SS has appropriated for fiscal 1973 regardless of whether Congress re-authorizes
the spending by overriding a Presidential veto. The Congress appropriates but the
President is charged by law with expending--and the laws impose on him the duty to
make
savings and to spend only at a rate which is not wasteful. Instead of challenging
the President, the Congress should try to do a little saving right along with him. This
is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'll be talking with
you again next week--same time, same station oll
SCRIPT TAPED FOR USE bee BY FIFTH DIST. RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF FEB. 17-18, 1973.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
under The Democrat leadership
The House of Representatives has mounted its first challenge to the President over
his impoundment of appropriated funds. of increased spending
The House last Wednesday voted 251 to 142 to require the Secretary of Agriculture
to fund the Rural Environmental Assistance Program, otherwise known as REAP. Present
law allows the Agriculture Secretary to use his own discretion in making payments or
grants or other aid to agricultural producers.
The President cut off REAP funds Enxxk last Doc. 22, and the Administration had
spent only $15 million on the program as of that time. The House had appropriated
225 million for REAP for fiscal 1973, and it is that amount which the Hou se now is
trying to force the President to spend. Prior to the impounding, the Agriculture
Department had planned only to spend $140 million on REAP, in any case.
So we are talking to about saving $210 million in appropriated fund 9-or $125 million
in funds that the Agriculture Department had earmarked for REAR the REAP program.
Whichever way you look at it, there are only a little over four months left in the
1973 fiscal year--and it doesn't make much sense to talk about spending attherizity $210
million or even $125 million on REAP during that four-month period.
SENATE
Assuming the also approve the REAP forced spending bill--and it probably
will--the Pre sident is believed certain to veto it. And I do not believe those who
are seeking to force the expenditure of the se funds can muster up enough votes in the
House for a two-thirds override of the Pre sident's veto.
What about the REAP program? Is it absolutely e ssential in our national scheme of
thing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for this purpose? The REAP program
mainly a form production encreases practices who it does have some constromium
involves soil -building and soil and water conservation projects, including related
LIBRARY
wildlife concorvation and pollution abatement practices. Every President since Harry
-2-
Truman has been trying to cut it back or abolish it on the ground that it provides a
Federal subsidy for projects the good farmers in our country would undertake on their
own anyway. Those who favor this agricultural subsidy contend that
enduring conservation practices will not be engaged in beyxfaxx by farmers and ranchers
without Federal aid because these practices yeikixne provide no immediate or special
benefit to the farmer.
My own position is that REAP is a program which isn not critical to ourNe Nation's
welfare at this time. And at this time we are fighting to hold total Tederal outl ys
to $250 billion and to hold our fiscal 1973 Federal deficit to $25 billion. A $25
billion deficit is bad enough MXXX without spending Feder al dollars on programs which
are not absolutely necessary.
The $225 million appropriation for REAP is only a small part of the $11 billion
which must be kept out of the Federal trough this fiscal year if
we are going to stay below the $250 billion ceiling. And so we must be consistent.
We must shut off the $225 million for REAP along with the otherb billions in Federal
spending which are at stake.
Only one out of five of NMK the country's farmers participate in the REAP program.
It is not critical. We can get along without it during this time of Federal fiscal
belt-tightening.
My hope is that Congre SS will get a handle Federal spending XXX so
WB can get away from confrontations on fiscal affairs between the Congress and the
President.
A joint budgetary control committee of the Congress has moved XS a step in that
direction by filing an interim report on the problem. That report proposes setting up
a
a special committee in each house of Congre SS to establish/budget ceiling**
LIBRARY
at the start of each Congress. But this mechanism won't begin operating until next year.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'llas be
talking with you again next week-same time, same station.
SCRIPT TAPED FOR USE XXX BY FIFTH DIST. RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF FEB. 17-18, 1973.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
The House of Representatives has mounted its first challenge to the President over
his impoundment of appropriated funds.
(2eb,14)
The House last Wednesday voted 251 to 142 to require the Secretary of Agriculture
to fund the Rural Environmental Assistance Program, otherwise known as REAP. Present
law allows the Agriculture Secretary to use his own discretion in making payments or
grants or other aid to agricultural producers.
The President cut off REAP funds EXXXL last Dec. 22, and the Administration had
F spent only $15 million on the program as of that time. The House had appropriated
$ 225 million for REAP for fiscal 1973, and it is that amount which the House now is
trying to force the President to spend. Prior to the impounding, the Agriculture
Department had planned only to spend $140 million on REAP, in any case.
So we are talking is about saving $210 million in appropriated funds-or $125 million
in funds that the Agriculture Department had earmarked for REAR the REAP program.
Whichever way you look at it, there are only a little over four months left in the
1973 fiscal year--and it doesn't make much sense to talk about spending $210
million or even $125 million on REAP during that four-month period.
SENATE
Assuming the Prestdent also approve S the REAP forced spending bill--and it probably
will--the Pre sident is believed certain to veto it. And I do not believe those who
are seeking to force the expenditure of the se funds can muster up enough votes in the
House for a two-thirds override of the Pre sident's veto.
What about the REAP program? Is it absolutely e ssential in our national scheme of
things to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for this purpose? The REAP program
involve S soil-building and soil and water conservation projects, including related
wildlife conservation and pollution abatement practices. Every President since Harry
LIBRARY
-2-
Truman has been trying to cut it back or abolish it on the ground that it provides a
Federal subsidy for projects the good farmers in our country would undertake on their
own anyway. Those who favor this agricultural subsidy contend that
enduring conservation practices will not be engaged in bxyxfarx by farmers and ranchers
without Federal aid because these practices yelkixne provide no immediate or special
benefit to the farmer.
My own position is that REAP is a program which ism not critical to ourlin Nation's
welfare at this time. And at this time we are fighting to hold total Federal outlys
to $250 billion and to hold our fiscal 1973 Federal deficit to $25 billion. A $25
billion deficit is bad enough MXMX without spending Federal dollars on programs which
are not absolutely necessary.
The $225 million appropriation for REAP is only a small part of the $11 billion
which must be kept out of the Federal trough this fiscal year if
we are going to stay below the $250 billion ceiling. And so we must be consistent.
We must shut off the $225 million for REAP along with the otherb billions in Federal
spending which are at stake.
Only one out of five of имк the country's farmers participate in the REAP program.
It is not critical. We can get along without it during this time of Federal fiscal
belt-tightening.
My hope is that Congre SS will get a handle Federal spending XXX so
WB can get away from confrontations on fiscal affairs between the Congress and the
President.
A joint budgetary control committee of the Congress has moved XS a step in that
direction by filing an interim report on the problem. That report proposes setting up
a
a special committee in each house of Congress to establish/budget ceilings
at the start of each Congress. But this mechanism won't begin operating until next year.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington. I'llan be
talking with you again next week-same time, same station, ######
SCRIPT TAPEDFXX FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF FEB. 24-25, 1973.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to
you from the nation's capital.
Before X recessing over the Lintcoln's Birthday period, Congress passed legislation
which ended the one-day old Penn Central railroad strike and ordered the
strikers back to work for 90 days. Meantime the Administration is to propose a
comprehensive plan for railroad operations in the Northeast and to study the
specific labor dispute.
This should be the last time that the Congre SS is forced to take emergency
action to end a strike in tr ensportation. What WB need is legislation to forestall
the possibility of crippling strikes in transportation and to eliminate the need
for Congressional strike-ending action on an emergency basis. I favor giving the
Pre siddnt the power and the flexibility to achieve settlements of such disputes.
I favor legislation which would extend bargaining for 30 days if that seems to the
resident to be productive. And, most significantly, the legislation
should
provide for
settlement of the dispute by an arbitration panel on the basis of
the final and best offer by each of the two sides. When the well-being of the
entire nation is at stake--as is the case in a work stoppage like the Penn Central
strike--special powers must be employed to prevent such a work stoppage in advance
and to bring about a settlement without a shutdown.
I would like to turn now to the recent 10 per cent devaluation of the dollar.
There are some benefits to be derived by the United State S from such action,
of course. The benefits will flow from the fact that U.S. goods will become more
competitive with foreign-produced
goods-both at home and abroad. But the
fact remains that the dollar devaluation indicates the weakne SS of the American
dollar in
relation to other currencies and some underlying problems facing FORD
GERALD LIBRARY
-2-
the American people.
Devaluation is not a cure-all for the problems that beset our country. We
must engage in determined efforts to increase American productivity and to contain
inflation--and we must e iminate restrictions on sales of American goods abroad.
So the hardest part of the battle is still ahead of us, and devaluation is only
a temporary solution. Devaluation will help us compete with foreign manufacturers
but it is only part of the answer.
The next step is to gain trade concessions from other nations. And if it is
necessary to arm the President with the authority to impose
quotas and higher
tariffs in order to win those concessions, then we ought to do that.
The basic problems we face are the barriers to the sale of U.S. goods in
Japan and Europe, the big spread between U.S. labor costs and those of foreign
producers, and such longterm problems as America's increasing thirst for foreign
oil.
We had a $6.4 billion trade deficit in 1972. In other words, imports exceeded
exports by that figure.
U.S. manufacturers still are unable to enter freely into Japanese markets to
set up their own sales forces and they face delays in obtaining simple permits to
transact certain busine SS. Such discriminatory requirements are the rule in
many other countries as well.
So it's not surprising that the President is talking about tough new trade
legislation.
At the same time we will have to concentrate our efforts on
control of inflation. That is the only way we will bring our economic system into
proper balance.
-This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I'll FORD be LIBRARY
talking with you again next week--same time, same station.
#######
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF MARCH 3-5, 1973.
char - Plz make a
clean copy of Phis to
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's capital.
This country is now facing a severe energy shortage.
Already many areas are short of gas and/or fuel oil. Pollution controls are
making energy more expensive.
Congress will have to make some decisions on how we are going to meet the
challenge of unheated homes and power shortages that now threaten millions of
Americans. In short, the controversy between conservationists and those who supply
this country with energy must be settled for the benefit of all our people.
a hnowledgeable witness before a Compressional committee has said:
"We want
low-cost, low-sulphur fuel oil but we don't want ships, pipelines,
terminals or refineries on our shores. We want more coal, but don't want surface
mining and prohibit coal's use by sulphur restrictions. We demand adequate supplies
of electricity but resist setting up nuclear plants.'
The fact appears to be at this
point in time that some of the answers
which will help solve the energy crisis will hurt the environment, and answers
which will help clean up
our air and water will add further complications to our
energy troubles.
Congress, with the help of the people of this Nation, will have to sit down
with the environmentalists and the energy people and make compromises and changes.
How did we get into this situation?
Buring the 1930s, the U.S. Government
advocated a low-cost energy
policy. Prices were held down, consumption of energy was pushed relentlessly by
advertising
and, in some cases, through subsidy. We energized everything in
sight. Now, due to awakening sudden
of
environmental concerns, plus the realization
that our current energy sources are being depleted, we face a crisis.
BERALD FORD VIBRARY
-2-
We have six per cent of the world's population, but we burn up 33 per cent of
the world's energy. Projections are for a rapid increase, unless we level off and
develop more efficient proce sses in manufacture, motoring,
heating and cooling
and other energy uses.
We have 52 billion barrèls of oil, about 10 years' supply at today's rate of
consumption. We
import a lot of oil, about a
fourth of what we
use. But
this supply is subject to the perils of radi cal governments abroad. Current predictions
are that 38 per cent of our oil supplies will have to come from overseas by 1985. This
would
create a $20 billion trade deficit in oil alone.
We have on hand 3,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, about 11 years' supply.
We are talking of bringing in liquefied natural gas from Russia. But it would
Gost
$1.25 per
thousand cubic feet plus transportation charges, compared with
26
cents for U.S-produced natural
gas.
We have anywhere from 160 billion to 600 billion
barrels of shale oil on
hand. But crude oil prices would have to rise 150 per cent to make it economically
feasible to extract this oil. The Department of Transportation has estimated that,
within a few years, gasoline will go up to $1 per gallon.
We have
1½1
trillion tons of coal on hand, enough for a 500-year supply.
But little
of it is low-sulphur. And coal
strip mining is under attack from
environmentalists, as it should be.
We have 450,000 tons of uranium, enough for 13 years. But atomic power produces
only 1 per cent of our power today--and can be expected to produce only 13 per cent by
1985.
There will be many developments on the energy crisis during this session of Congress,
and I will do my best to keep you informed of these developments. This is not a Repub-
lican or Democratic problems. It is a United States problem.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's capital
I'll be talking with you again next week--same time, same station.
10:30 Wednes.
SCRIPT PREPARED FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF MARCH 10-11, 1973.
ok
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's Capital.
carticusm from some sources
With all the fuss that's being made about
the President's efforts to
hold down Federal spending, many Americans are unaware that the proposed Federal budget
for fiscal 1974
earmarks 47 cents out of the Federal dollar for human resources
programs as compared with 30 cents for defense. 5 years Therato ago, was meveral, so Pres
netron has put queater imphasis on solving domestic problems of at The Same america Time is story belping
Some Agreat concern has been yourself
to do is being mafie about the fact that the Office of Economic Opportunity
is being abolished and its major functions
transferred to various Government
annual
Departments. The facts about the anti-poverty program are that anti-poverty expenditures
have grown from less than $8 billion in 1964 to more than 130 billion in the proposed
budget for fiscal 1974. Furthermore, Headstant is not being Transfed. It good to The
The 2 Education The Health programs I be continued Thom The Dipt. of HEW.
And the truth about the anti-poverty activities being shifted from O.E.O. to the
orhers
old Line departments is that this reorganization will increase the efficiency of the
various programs by grouping them with other related Federal efforts and cutting
overhead costs.
In the past,
too much anti-poverty money has been diverted
from human need into staff payrolls and administrative expenses.
Federal level
Maless none agreed
s
The only major O.E.O. program tagged for termination is Community Action. It will
be up to the local communities whether to fund Community Action Programs and keep them
going. Most C.A.P.'s have visted for more than 7 years. In that time, they have had
a chance to demonstrate their value to people at the local level. If local people
believe their C.A.P. program should be continued, that is their decision--and properly so.
[Further Federal spending on this program beyond the $2.8 billion spent on it since 1965 1965-
seems no longer desirable or necessary
There is one other econ omic opportunity Program that deserves special mention and
that is Legal Services. 14 [ think Legal Services is very much needed and
FORD
that'it
LIBRARO
should continue to be
funded at the Federal level. I was very pleased therefore to
learn just recently that the Legal Aid and Defender Association of Kent County will
beceive a Federal g rant of $207,188
for
calendar year 1973. The Federal Government
has been funding the Legal Aid program in Kent County since 1965. The Legal Aid Society
provides roughly $56,000 in local in-kind services and receives about $22,000 in cash
The Legal Aid Society serves
from the United Fund. Thous ands of poor people who otherwise would be without le gal
assistance.
Let me turn now to Federal aid to help students go to college. The proposed Federal
some
budget earmarks $1,750,000,000 for thi S purpose in fiscal 1974. But college and
university officials are protesting that this is not enough. The budget includes $959
million in basic educational opportunity grants, $250 million in work-study funds,
and
$310 million in guaranteed student loans interest money, $150 million for Direct Student
Loans. That 's a lot of money.
The Administration contends that the budgeted amounts are
sufficient so
Repoved of college education
that no qualified student seeking postsecondary education would be left out for lack
of funds. The Appropriations Committees of the Congre SS will be taking testimony and
will make a judgment as to whether the budgeted amounts are adequate. I personally
governmental assestmes - a Lown grant - also but
believe a young person wanting to go to college should have some financial responsibility.
-
I have two more comments on education at this point. I will renew and step up my
efforts to ban the
forced busing of students from one neighborhood to another
simply to satisfy some judge's notion of proper racial balance. And I am delighted that
Presidents'
the Federal budget for fisc al 1974 includes funds to implement my proposal to help parents
who send their children to nonpublic nonprofit schools. think there IS a fairly FOR good
chance for approval of my bill which would provide a tex credit for part of the tuition
paid to send children to nonpublic schools! This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting
to you from Washington. I'll be talking with you again next week--same time, same station.
#######
SCRIPT PREPARED FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF MARCH 17-18, 1973.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry
Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
A recent
nationwide poll showed that the two problems Americans are most concerned
about are inflation and crime.
We are fighting inflation with a holdback on Federal spending, a system of modified
price and wage controls, and efforts to increase food supplies so as to bring down
food prices.
We have been fighting crime with stepped-up anti-crime activities, and now the
President has proposed new legislation as additional weapons against crime.
The jurisdiction of the Federal Government
in the area of law enforcement
is limited, but the
Administration legislation should be of some help. I like the
look of it.
The President has called for a revision of the entire Federal Criminal Code. His
proposals would modernize and strengi then the Code, giving us tougher penalties and
stronger weapons in the war against organized crime and dangerous drug s.
The
Administration is proposing that the death penalty be restored for
certain Federal crimes. This statute will provide capital punishment
for cases of murder over which the Federal Government has jurisdiction, and for
treason and other war-related crimes.
I have alw_ays felt that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against
certain crimes. I was therefore dismayed when the Supreme Court ruled it out.
The capital punishment statute which has now been drafted by the Attorney General is
said toxas be consistent with the Supreme Court's recent decision.
The proposed new capital punishment statute will make it clear that the $ person
may
committing certain Federal crimes
be given and the supreme penalty upon convi tions
GERALD LIBRARY
-2-
I personally believe his will serve as a deterrent to potential hijackers,
whathervisemight
kidnappers, fire-bombers, and persons when plotting to assault a prison guard or an
officer of the law.
Let us turn now to the Administration proposals in the area of drug abuse.
I firmly endorse the recommendation that a five-year prison sentence be mandatory for
anyone convicted of selling heroin. In fact, I question whether a five-year sentence
is severe enough. The Administration malso calls for a sentence of 10 years to life
imprisonment for major drug traffickers and life imprisonment without parole for
offenders with a prior conviction for a drug felony.
There is definite need for a mandatory prison sentence in drug conviction cases.
A recent study by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs showed that over 25 per
cent of the federally convicted narcotics offenders were not even sentenced to jail.
This softness on pushers gives them little reason to get out of the drug
racket or stay out of it.
We are making progre SS in the fight against crime, however, and I feel that actions
taken by the Administration--as well as local offici a ls--are responsible for this
improvement.
The latest FBI figures show that the granter growth rate for serious crime in
America was reduced to 1 per cent for the first nine months of 1972-the lowest rate
of crime increase since 1960. In 83 of our major cities, crime has actually been
reduced.
We don't have to live with lawle ssness-not if we are determined to reduce it to
the lowst possible figure. The Federal government can help in the war ag ainst crime
but the most significant and lasting battles are fought every day on the streets of our
cities and the roads of our rural areas. We are all soldiers in this war, and we FORD can BERARN win
RALL
it. This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's ompital.
I'll be talking with you again next week--same time, same station.,####
SCRIPT PREPARED FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF MARCH 17-18, 1973.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry
Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
A recent
nationwide poll showed that the
problems Americans are most concerned
about are inflation and crime.
We are fighting inflation with a holdback on Federal spending, a system of modified
price and wage controls, and efforts to increase food supplies so as to bring down
food prices.
We have been fighting crime with stepped-up anti-crime activities, and now the
President has proposed new legislation as additional weapons against crime.
The jurisdiction of the Federal Government in the area of law enforcement
is limited, but the Administration legislation should be of some help. I like the
look of it.
The President has called for a revision of the entire Federal Criminal Code. His
proposals would modernize and strengi then the Code, giving us tougher penalties and
stronger weapons in the war against organized crime and dangerous drugs.
The
Precaid Administration is proposing that the death penalty be restored for
certain Federal crimes. This statute will provide mcapital punishment
for cases of murder over which the Federal Government has jurisdiction, and for
treason and other war-related crimes.
I have alw ays felt that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against
certain crimes. I was therefore the dismayed when the Supreme Court ruled it out.
The capital punishment statute which has now been drafted by the Attorney General is
said toxaxa be consistent with the Supreme Court's recent decision.
The proposed new capital punishment statute will make it clear that
person
may
given
committing certain Federal crimes
be
the supreme penalty upon
conviction, GERA. FORD LIBRARY
-2-
I personally believe this will serve as a deterrent to kima potential hijackers,
whathermight
kidnappers, fire-bombers, and persons nhmx plotting be assault a prison guard or an
officer of the law.
Let us turn now to the Administration proposals in the area of drug abuse.
I firmly endorse the recommendation that a five-year prison sentence be mandatory for
anyone convicted of selling heroin. In fact, I question whether a five-year sentence
is severe enough. The Administration malso calls for a sentencer of 10 years to life
imprisonment for major drug traffickers and life imprisonment without parole for
offenders with a prior conviction for a drug felony.
There is definite need for a mandatory prison sentence in drug conviction cases.
A recent study by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs showed that over 25 per
cent of the federally convicted narcotics offenders were not even sentenced to jail.
This softness on pushers gives them little reason to get out of the drug
racket or stay out of it.
We are making progre SS in the fight against crime, however, and I feel that actions
taken by the Administration--as well as local offici a ls--are responsible for this
improvement.
The late st FBI figures show that the grantx growth rate for serious crime in
America was reduced to 1 per cent for the first nine months of 1972-the lowest rate
of crime increase since 1960. In 83 of our major cities, crime has actually been
reduced.
We don't have to live with 1 awle seness-not if we are determined to reduce it to
the lowest possible figure. The Federal government can help in the war ag ainst crime
but the most significant and lasting battles are fought every day on the streets of our
cities and the roads of our rural areas. We are all soldiers in this war, and we can win
it. This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
I'll be talking with you again next week--same time, same station.
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF MARCH 24-25, 1973.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
I share the tremendous feelings of elation and pride that have gripped Americans
since our POW's have been coming home. I
want to
voice special
a
welcome-home for Major Joe Shanahan of Kentwood and to tell his wife, Barbar a, and
the hanahan youngsters, Jim and Theresa, how happy I am that Major Shanahan back
home with his family.
enlisted
Major Shanahan
in the Air Force in October
1956. He entered officer training school and was commi ssioned a second lieutenant
in December 1960. He then entered air navigation training. On completing that training,
he served with a number of units and on May 31, 1968, was assigned to Southeast Asia
with the 14th Tactical Reconnaissance
Squadron
at
Udorn Air Force Base
in Thailand. On August
15, 1968, while on a combat mi ssion over North Vietnam,
Joe Shanahan's RF4C was hit by hostile fire and he was captured by the North Vietnames.
I am
delighted that Major Shanahan now is back home. He has served his country
valimntly and well.
Major Shanahan and his fellow POW's have been welcomed home as heroes--and rightly
so. They can truthfully be called "All-Americans."
It is quite a contrast when you compare these former POW's with those men who
call themselves Americans but who live in Canada or
Swedmen or "underground U.S.A."
because they refused to answer the call of their country.
Era
Now there are many who are demanding total forgiveness for Vietnam
draft
evaders. In fact, there are some members of Congre SS who are seeking total amnersty
for these men, claiming that history speaks X in their favor.
The facts1 are otherwise. History offers clear evidence that Americans who
in the past have refused to serve their country have been held accountable for
their LIBRARY
-2-
mistables
acts.
The United States never has granted unconditional forgiveness to those who
ducked military service.
Not even Abraham Lincoln, whose generosity of spirit is often cited by
proponents of amnesty, went that far.
Althought the totals may not be precise, the Defense Department's latest count
lists 32,557 Vietnam Era deserters.
A recent tally by the White House
lists
1,950 fugitive draft dodgers in Canada and 450 in other countries, primarily
number
Swedan. The biggest
of draft-dodger fugitive --2,100-- are presumed to
have gone underground in this country.
By spurtning their country's call to arms, were these men answering a higher
The wast majority
Pres.Num
moral call? President Nixon
thinks not, and studies indicate that most of his
White House predecessors felt the same way about de serters and draft dodgers in their
day. I agree with the pesition taken by these Pre sidents.
In the Civil War and its aftermath, Presidents Lincoln and Johnson offered
amnesties of varying types to Confederate soldiers and Union Army deserters. But none
of the amnesties was unconditional.
Following World War I, no amnesty was provided for thousands of wartime
deserters or draft evaders. In 1933, 15 years after the end of the war, President
Roosevelt pardoned about 1,500 violators of the Espionage Act and draft laws who had
ed
completed their pri son sentences.
This restor
voting and other
civil
rights usually denied ex-eonvicts. In 1947, President
Truman pardoned 1,523
out of 15,803 draft evaders in line with recommendations from his amnesty board. These
men were serving prison sentences. No amnesty was given to deserters. No amnesty of
FORD
any kind was
granted to deserters or draft dodgers after the Korean War. ТЬ take
a different course today would be a disservice to all of the men who served with loyalty
and distinction in Vietnam, and an affront to the former POW's who now have come back
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting from Washington. I'll be talking with
you again next week-same time, same station. ...#####
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF MARCH 31-APRIL 1, 1973.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's capital.
Let there be no mistake about it. Republicans support a sound vocational
rehabilitation program. They always have, and they always will. But Republicans
in the Hou so, by and large, will
vote to sustain the President's
veto
of S. 7, the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1972, because S. 7 is
overly-
ambitious fiscally and irresponsible legislation.
As
the President has pointed out, S. 7 would result in an increase in
Federal outlays of some $1 billion above the budget for fiscal years 1973-1975.
Said the President in his veto message: "To some members of the Congress, a
$1 billion increase in Federal spending may seem only a small crack in the dam.
But there are more than a dozen
other bills already before the Congress
which also carry extravagant price tags. And more
seem likely to follow
during the remainder of the year.
"If we allow the big spenders to sweep aside budgetary restraints, we can expect
an increase of more than $50 billion in Federal spending before the end of fiscal
year 1975. This would force upon us the unacceptable choice of either raising taxes
substantially--perhaps 86 much as 15 per cent in personal income taxes--or inviting
hefty boost
in consumer prices and interest rates. BY
I personally am very much opposed to the kind of budget-busting represented
by S. 7. I challenge the backers of this legislation to come up with a bill which
is in line with the President's budget.
There are some Americans who are being led to believe that the present Administration
is gutting our social programs.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
There have been tremendous increases in social program spending during the past
GERAL four FORD LIBRARY
years.
-2-
Here are the facts:
--Federal outlays
for the Vocational Rehabilitation
Program would total $650 million under the President Is fiscal 1974 budget-an
increase of 75 per cent over outlays for vocational "rehab" four year S ago.
-- Federal outlays for the elderly will total $63.5 billion in 1974, an increase
of 71 per cent since 1970.
--Federal food aid A increased nearly 3½ times--from $1.2 billion in 1969 to $4.1
hare
billion in 1974.
--Total Federal funds benefitting the sick have grown from $18.1 billion to
$30.3 billion--up 67 per cent in the last four year So
--Federal outlays for direct benefits to low-income persons increased 88 per cent--
from $16.1 billion to $30.3 billion--since the pre sent Administration took office.
--In 1969, outlays for income security programs were $37.7 billion; by 1974, they
will have more than doubled, to $87.6 billion.
--Research on cancer and heart disease, the twogreatest causes of death in the
United States, has increased 117 per cent since 1969 to a new total of $765 million.
--Federal funds for drug abuse prevention and drug law enfor cement programs have
increased from $82
million to $785 million since 1969--a ten-fold increase.
--Since 1969, funds for student grants and work-study have increased nearly
four-fold--up $700 million--with the number of awards increasing by more than 1½
million.
--Federal outlays for anti-pollution programs have increased from $700 million in
fiscal 1969 to $3.1 billion in fiscal 1974, and outlays for waste treatment grants
have risen from $135 million to $1.6 billion in these same years.
Those are the fact s-and they show unmistaketably that Federal outlays for social
ALORA FORD LIBRARY
programs all Federal have increased tremendously in the last four years. Now we must seek to keep
you from the nation S capital
spending under control. This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF APRIL 7-8, 1983.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's capital.
There is no question about it. Inflation is our number one problem. The rise in
meat prices in
recent weeks demanded action, and so the President slapped a ceiling on the price of
all beef, veal, pork, sheep and lamb products.
Why only meat? Well, the record shows that during Phase II of the Economic Stabilization
Program, red meat price S rose at almost twice the rate of all food prices. Grocery
store food
prices excluding red meat--increased less than 3 per cent during
Please II, a rate below the overall increase in consumer prices and within the goals
of the Stabilization Program. In February, prices of red meat increased an additional
5.4 per cent at retail, threatening to erode the substantial gains in the purchasing
power
of labor' S weekly paychecks in Phase II.
The President's action, imposing a ceiling on meat prices, was most welcome.
went
I don't have townstell you how meat prices
up prior to the President's
decision. The retail value of beef has risen 16 per cent since November 1972. the
retail value of pork ha increased 11 per cent since November 1972, despite declines
in the farm-wholesale and the wholesale-retail
price spreads.
Higher red meat prices have contributed about half of the increase in the Consumer
Price Index since December 1972. Price increases for proce ssed red meat have accounted
for 15 per cent of the Wholesale Price Index rise during the first two months of 1973.
The problem of rising food prices demands a concerted counterattack by
both
consumers and the Government. The Federal Government now is doing everything within
its power to bring
this problem under control.
Despite the curfent seriousness of the problem, we can reasonably expect an improve-
FORD
ment in food prices within a few months. The heart of our problem today is a
GERALE shobtage IBRAR,
-2-
of food supplies to meet rapidly increasing consumer demands. We cannot end this
shortage overnight.
Because of strong actions taken by the Government and the actions of the free
marketplace, however, food price S should in crease at a much slower rate in the second
half of 1973. In fact, it is quite possible that the rate of increase by the end of
1973 will be near zero.
Let me make this point. The President did not freeze meat prices at present high
levels. He established a ceiling for meat prices, sothey cannot go any higher. It is
possible--and in fact likely--that meat prices will come down. Certainly meat prices
will come down if we all eat a little less meat.
of beef
Did you know that the per capita
consumption in this country has increased
39 per cent since 1960?
mostresent
The rising demand for food which we have experienced--particularly for red meat--was
generated by a vigorous expansion in consumer incomes during 1972 and early 1973. The
food-price problem has resulted, in part, from the basic health of our economy.
One additional element has been an increase in demand from other countrie
Unfortunately, this rising demand at home and abroad has been accompanied by a
falling supply of food on our farms, particularly in the second half of 1972. The
consequence has been a sharp upsurge in the prices of raw farm products.
During the remainder of 1973, food supplies should expand significantly, although
most of the
expansion will occur in the second half of the year.
Once additional supplies reach the market, farm prices should move down quickly and
we should have a
flattening out of retail prices.
This is your congressman, Jerry
Ford, reporting to you from the nation's capital.
I'll be talking with you again next
week-same time, same station.
GERALD LIBRARY
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF APRIL 14-15, 1973.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
Food
costs are high-especially meat prices--but if we are going to find
the answers to the problem we must keep the issue in proper perspective.
demand
The meat boycott was related to the basic problem, which is that has been
exceeding supply. demand But T personal Ly believe me should be cutting back
d emand
on a proportionate continuing basis. I don't believe it helps to
put t husands of butchers out of work and to declare war on the farmer and cattleman.
To attack food prices by moderating demand makes good sense. But let's not
attack the farmer and the stockman. A quick review of the record reveals revelus that the
farmer has led the fight against inflation for the pæt 20 years, and has suffered
especially from inflation himself.
Here are the facts: Farm prices for food are up only 6 per cent from 20 years
ago. Wholesale prices for food area up 20 per cent from 20 years ago.
Retail food prices are up 43 per cent from 20 years ago. At the same time,
the average wage rate per hour for the nonfarm worke was $1.33 in 1950; $3.65
inna 1972; and $3.78 in January of 1973.
The truth is that the farmer only recently began getting for his crops what he had
received 20 years ago. Meanwhile, the costs of items that go into his production have
doubled--and, in some cases, tripled.
If the cost of farm products had risen as fast as other items, the American
houstewife would be screaming much louder. In 1950, choice steers in the Midwest
markets were bringing $28.88 per hundredwight. If choice steers had gone up as much
since 1950 as a first class postage stamp, they would now be bringing $72.34
per
hundredweight instead of the current price of $45. And if choice steers
GERALD LIBRARY
-2-
had gone up as much as hourly wage rates have--percentage wise--steers now would be
$80.69 per hundredwéight, instead of $45.
I realize pagi t tothe
the housewife, but the truth is that American farmers have
given the rest of us the lowest food bill of any major nation.
The best quality food in our history takes about 16 per cent of our disposable income.
In 1950, food took 23 per cent of our disposable income. The fact that we are spending
7 per cent less on food now than in 1950 means we had $51.7 billion to spend on
consumer and luxury items which created jobs and higher incomes for nonfarm workers.
Steps
People of other countries spend farm more ofthein income 1 for food than we do. The
Germans spend 22.5 per cent of their disposable income
for food; the British, 29 per cent; the Italians, 31.9 per cent; excellent and the
Japanese, 33.2 per cent. In fact, in Japan right now the people cannot buy beef
or pork for le SS than $5 a pound, and it has even gone as high as $17 a pound.
Is the farmer getting rich as a result of higher food prices? According to the
Department of Agriculture, 66 cents of every dollar spent by the American consumer
for farm-originated food in 1972 went to pay the marketing bill--not the farmer.
The marketing bill includes the cost of transportation, processing and distribution--and
accounted for $77 billion out of a total expenditure for food of $116 billion.
Labor was the most costly element in the marketing bill-some $37 billion.
Since 1947, wages in the food industry have tripled. This is why the President has
ordered that wage increase S in the food industry must be cleared with the Cost of
Living Council. So let's not make the farmer the scapegoat for high food prices. He
doesn't deserve it.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
I'll be talking with you again next week-same time, same station.
GERALD LIBRARY
###
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF APRIL 14-15, 1973.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the
Nation's Capital.
Food costs are high--especially meat prices--but if we are going to
find the answers to the problem we must keep the issue in proper perspective.
The meat boycott was related to the basic problem, which is that
supply has been exceeded by demand. But I personally believe we should be
cutting back demand on a proportionate continuing basis. I don't believe
it helps to put thousands of butchers out of work and to declare war on
the farmer and cattleman.
To attack food prices by moderating demand makes good sense. But
let's not attack the farmer and the stockman. A quick review of the record
reveals that the farmer has led the fight against inflation for the past
20 years, and has suffered especially from inflation himself.
Here are the facts: Farm prices for food are up only 6 per cent
from 20 years ago. Wholesale prices for food are up 20 per cent from
20 years ago. Retail food prices are up 43 per cent from 20 years ago.
At the same time, the average wage rate per hour for the nonfarm worker
was $1.33 in 1950; $3.65 in 1972; and $3.78 in January 1973.
The truth is that the farmer only recently began getting for his
crops what he had received 20 years ago. Meanwhile, the costs of items
that go into his production have doubled--and, in some cases, tripled.
If the cost of farm products had risen as fast as other items, the
American housewife would be screaming much louder. In 1950, choice steers
in the Midwest markets were bringing $28.88 per hundredweight. If choice
steers had gone up as much since 1950 as a first class postage stamp,
they would now be bringing $72.34 per hundredweight instead of the current
price of $45. And if choice steers had gone up as much as hourly wage
rates have--percentage wise-steers now would be $80.69 per hundredweight,
instead of $45.
I realize it is little comfort to the housewife, but the truth is
that American farmers have given the rest of us the lowest food bill of
Page 2
any major nation. The best quality food in our history takes about
16 per cent of our disposable income. In 1950, food took 23 per cent of
our disposable income. The fact that we are spending 7 per cent less on
food now than in 1950 means we had $51.7 billion to spend on consumer
and luxury items which created jobs and higher incomes for nonfarm workers.
People of other countries spend far more of their income for food
than we do. The Germans spend 22.5 per cent of their disposable income
for food; the British, 29 per cent; the Italians, 31.9 per cent; and the
Japanese, 33.2 per cent. In fact, in Japan right now the people cannot
buy beef or pork for less than $5 a pound, and it has even gone as high
as $17 a pound.
Is the farmer getting rich as a result of higher food prices?
According to the Department of Agriculture, 66 cents of every dollar spent
by the American consumer for farm-originated food in 1972 went to pay the
marketing bill--not the farmer. The marketing bill includes the cost of
transportation, processing and distribution--and accounted for $77 billion
out of a total expenditure for food of $116 billion.
Labor was the most costly element in the marketing bill--some
$37 billion. Since 1947, wages in the food industry have tripled. This
is why the President has ordered that wage increases in the food industry
must be cleared with the Cost of Living Council. So let's not make the
farmer the scapegoat for high food prices. He doesn't deserve it.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the
Nation's capital. I'll be talking with you again next week--same time,
same station.
# # #
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF APRIL 21-22, 1973.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from
the nation's
capital.
As the budget issue is debated, the amount of Federal money spent for defense
purposes is of great concern. The argument is made that defense spending should be
cut sharply, with the funds lopped off to be used for domestic purposes.
I favor keeping the tightest possible rein on defense spending. I hope that
substantial reductions can be made in the fiscal 1974 defense budget.
But I
feel very strongly that the entire question of defense spending should be put in the
proper perspective.
By that I mean that those who advocate deep cuts in defense outlays are ignorging
several facts.
First, while state and local governments pump billions of dollars into the same
social problem areas that are dealt with in federal programs, the Federal Government
alone
must bear the responsibility for national defense. In this context, it
seems remarkable that WB can maintatin a national défense second to none by
devoting only 30 per cent of our total Federal outlays to defense. Ye that is
precisely what we have been able to do under the present Administration.
Second, the critics are ignoring the fact that the present Administration already
has made significant gains in slicing the fat from the defense budget.
Since
the present Administration took office, our armed
forces have been reduced by 1.3 million persons. This means that today we have the
smallest armed force since 1950, the year before we were forced into the Korean War.
More than half of the current defense budget is devoted to personnel costs--not
FORD
to wild-eyed weapons procurement schemes, as some critics would have the public GERA bel iever
LIBRARY
-2-
Much of the reasoni for these high personnel costs is the increase in military pay--
legislated by Congre which is
designed to take us the full way to an all-volunteer
army.
Third, and perhaps the most critical point, is that deep cuts in defense spending
would
gouge into the muscle of the system that keeps this nation the
strongest on earth.
We can look back on 1972 as
the most significant
years in the history
of American diplomacy.
After 20 years of tense silence, the doors of communication
were opened with China. An arms limitation agreement was signed with the Soviet Union.
An honorable settlement was reached1 in Vietnam.
None of these could have happened--nor would we have the hope for continued
relaxation of international tensions-if America had been forced to negotiate from a
position of weakness.
We were able to achieve what we did in diplomacy because we were a strong nation
able to convince our adversaries that there was less risk in negotiation than in
confrontation.
This year we are embarking on even more critical negotiations than in the past.
Talks already have begun with the Soviets on further limitation of nuclear weapons--
the SALT II talks. Plans are being laid for discussions that hopefully will lead to
Mutual Balance Force Reductions in Europe.
Any serious lowering of our national defense posture will jeopardize these talks
and our
future hopes for peace. Why, after all, would a nation like the Soviet
Union talk arms reductions with us if its leaders knew they were superior to us in
military strength? The answer is simple. They would have no reason at all to do so.
There is no more certain way to doom our hopes for
LIBRARY
a peaceful world than to
make deep cuts now in our defense budget.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's capital.
I'll be talking with you again next week-same time, same station.
april28-29,1973,
SCRIPT FORM USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's capital.
The draft has ended. Industion authority will expire next July 1.
The enactment of the draft extension bill in 1971 provided two years to make a
transition to an All-Volunteer Force. This transition has been made in 18 months, and
further extension of induction authority beyond uly 1, 1973, will è not be necessary.
In part, t his remarkable achievement has been made possible by continuing reductions
in Active Force military strength required to meet our national security commitments.
From a Vietnam War peak of 3.55 million, Active Forces have declined to an end of
fiscal year1974 baseline strength of 2.23 million.
From a level of 229,000 in 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, draft calls have
rapidly declined to zero. Inductions ended last December.
A favorable trend in male enlistments for all of the military Services and
especially the trend in true volunteers, coupled with a decline in required Active
Force strength, have eliminated the need to continue the draft.
Despite
the drop inthe sharp draft and finally the end of draft calls, overall enlistments
have increased. And the proportion of true volunteers among those who enlisted has
increased from 59 per cent in fiscal year 1971 to an estimated 84 per cent in fiscal
year 1973. With the end of draft calls last December, virtually all current enlistees
are true volunteers.
What has brought about this improvement? Congress increased military entry pay
effective in November 1971, and this helped. Conditions of service life have been
improved; the training of personael has been modernized; and there is a renewed
emphasis on professionalism in the Services. these have also helped.
FORD
But the factor that has contributed the most to increases in the number of volunteers
BRAR.
is the improved military recruiting system. The quality of military recruiting has been
-2-
improved, and the recruiting force has been expanded.
With the help of special legislation and continued public support, it should not be
necessary to reinstate the draft in the future to meet peacetime manpower needs.
Enlistment levels reached during the past year match total requirements through
fiscal year 1974. The quality of enlistments has been maintained. Moreover, as
favoragle enlistment trends continue, the military Services will be able to reduce the
number of disciplinary problems by increasing the proportion of high school graduates
among future enlistees.
Increases in the number of highly qualified women enlistees, and the replacement of
military members of civilians in support-type jobs, will further reduce the
requirement for enlisting men instructions into the Armed Forces.
The effectiveness of an enlistment bonus as a means of attracting new members to
skills that are in short supply has been demonstrated by the successful Army and Marine
Corps test of the ground combat arms / bonus. More extensive experience with the
reenlistment bonus has established its usefulness in keeping more men
in the Service who possess critical skills. The authority to use special bonuses for
attraction and retention in critical skills is important insurance against having to
reinstate the induction authority at some future time to meet peacetime manpower needs.
There will be a shortage of military physicians unle: SS special pay incentives are
provided. The Military Services will reduce the health services shortage by improving
the efficiency of military health care. Such improvements--combined with additional
medical scholarships and special pay incentives--should be sufficient to solve this
problem.
Moving to an All-Volunteer Force from a 30-year-old draft system is indeed an historica
and major achievement. I feel that our nation's security during peacetime is best served
LIBRARY
the by an nation's ÄllVVolunteer Force. This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to
capital. I'll be talking with you again next week. game time, same you station.,#### from
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF MAY 5-6, 1973.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capitol.
The
topic that has been on
in everybody the Washington lips here is, headlines of course, is, the ofcourse,
the Watergate Affair.
reveral
Early this week top White House aides re signed,
and
I described this development
1
as a necessary first step in clearing the air on the Watergate Affair.
The President then followed up by going on radio and television and announcing
that he has given Attorney General-designate Elliot Richardson authority to appoint
a special
prosecutor to
supervise the investigation and prosecution
of the Watergate
matter.
I personally have all the confidence in the world in Elliot Richardson. He is a
mam of the highest integraty. But there probably are people who would never be
satisfied unless somebody
is brought in from the outside to investigate the
Watergate Affair.
The Watergate Affair has been damaging to
the Nation from a number of
standpoints. It is eclipsing matters that are
vital to the future of the
Nation.
It has had a numbing effect on the
Hrand of the knote
proce sses of government. It would be good if we would all now let the investigation
proceed understing while we concern ourselves
naturally
in proper measure with other matters of far
greater importance to our welfare as a people and a N_ation.
Let me turn now to the tax reform
proposals outlined last week by the Nixon
Administration.
One of these proposals is virtually identical with a bill I introduced last Jan. 3,
the opening day of the 93rd Congress. This legislation would give parents who earn up
to $18,000 annually a tax credit of 50 per cent for tuition paid to send their
FORD LIBRART
young sters to a nonprofit nonpublic elementary or seconday school, up to a limit
-2-
$200 per child. The House Ways and Means Committee approved a similar bill late last
fall, but Congress adjourned without acting on it. I think the chance S for passage of
this legislation this year
or next are fairly good, particularly
since this
billi
has the backing of Ways and Means Chairman Wilbur Mills.
The Administration's tax reform proposals also would provide
tax relief for the elderly. The legislation would permit moderate-income persons over
65 to deduct up to $500 a year for property taxes or 5 per cent of their annual income
as a tax credit
lderly tenants could deduct 15 per cent of their rent.
The Administration also proposed a way to reduce to "close to zero" the number of
wealthy individuals who use tax shelters to avoid paying any Federal income tax.
The Administration's tax plan would reduce the number of tax shelters by restricting
the amount of taxes individuals could avoid by combining certain deductions and exclusions
from taxable income. The new system would replace the minimum income tax established in
1969 with a minimum taxable income and a limitation on artificial accounting losses.
Under the current system, an individual pays a 10 per cent tax on all but $30,000
of his income derived by such a preference. The new Administration plan would require
that everyone be taxed at normal, graduated rates on at least one-half of his
income,
regardle SS of its source.
The Administration also has proposed changes that would make it easier for millions
of people to figure out their income taxes at tax time. The plan for simplifying the
figuring of income
taxes involves a new tax form, 1040-S. This new form would be
longer than the present "short form," but shorter and less complicated than the regular
Form 1040. About 20 million taxpayers could shift to the new simple Form 1040-S.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the Nation's capital.
I'll be talking with you again next week-same time, same station.
GERALD LIBRARY
######
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF MAY 12-13, 1973.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
I am most pleased with Attorney General Elliot Richardson's announcement that
he will appoint a special prosecutor in the Watergate Case.
This means we will no longer have a situation where the Administration is in the
position of investigating itself. This means that all Americans can rest assured
that the entire truth will be brought out in connectinn with the "atergate Affair.
And let me remind you that the Pre sident specifically gave Mr. Richardson the
authority to name a special
Watergate
prosecutor.
In appointing
Mr. Richardson as attorney general, the President said he had
confidence Mr. Richardson would be "fair and fearless in pursuing the Watergate
case wherever it leads.' !! I agree with t hat assessment of Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Richardson has taken a number of actions which tend to restore public
confidence in the
Justice Department. He has
stated, for instance, that he
wants
the Senate Judiciary Committee to agree with his choice of a special
prosecutor and that he wants the Senate to endorse his appointment. These are wise
adtions on Mr. Richardson's part--and he is to be commended for them.
And now I am delighted to report to you that the intial response to my
questionnaire has been great. The returns have been pouring in. I hope everyone
in my district will take the time and trouble to fill out my
questionnaire because
the more returns I get the better the sampling of opinion in the district.
In scanning the questionnaire returns, it is already obvious that people in the
Fifth District overwhelmingly favor a congressional ceiling on Federal spending,
even if this means cutting existing programs. In short, people in my district favor
economy in government. And so do I.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
In that connection, let me point out that some Americans believe the whole problem
of deficit spending can be solved if We will only make deep cuts in defense spending.
that
The an swer, unfortunately, is not
simple,
I have always been in favor of a strong defense--and I make no mologies for that.
At the same time, I have always sought to
make cuts in the defense budget
laid
before the Congress--but
T have always believed these cuts should be judicious
reductions.
There are those who would have
Americans believe that the Pentagon gets
whatever it wants. The truth is that Congress cut the fiscal 1973 defense budget by
$5,221,208,000, reduced the fiscal 1972 defense budget by $3,025,366,000, cut the
fiscal 1971 defense budget by $2,149,729,000, reduced the fiscal 1970 defense budget
by $5,637,632,000, and cut the fiscal 1969 defense budget by $5,204,172,000.
Don't let anybody kid you that the defense budget can be the source for all extra
funding. This is just not the truth. Here are a few basic facts:
The 1974 defense budget is at the lowest percentage of Federal outlays since 1950.
Fifty-six per cent of the defense budget is manpower cost.
The pay schedule for military personal have increased as incentives
to build up an all-volunteer army. For example, a private made $85 a month in 1963.
In 1973, he gets $350 a month.
Income security outlays in the 1974 Federal budget total $82 billion--just for that one
category alone.
The recommended 1974 budget outlay for the elderly is $64 billion, indicating that
almost one-fourth of our total Federal # spending is earmarked for just one-tenth of
our population.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
And, remember this, most domestic programs are funded by the Federal, state and local
governments, but defense funding is the sole re sponsibility of the Feder al Government.
This is your congre ssman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's capital.
I'll be talking with you again next week. same time, same station. #####
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF MAY 19-20, 1973.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's capital.
Returns from my questionnaire are continuing to pour in, and
along with them
I amr eceiving many letters.
A number of the letters are, of course, focusing on the Watergate Affair, which
is still very much in the news.
I
would like to point out that some good may come out of the Watergate Affair,
sordid though it is. By saying it could produce something beneficial I mean that
it may result on reform of American campaign practices.
A number of campaign reform proposals have already been made in the Congress and
all of them deserve very careful scrutiny. There is a need for reform in campaign
financing. There is a need to shorten the duration of political campaigns. Therei
is
a need to cut down on the cost of campaigning. There is a need to shorten the
time during which campaign advertising would be allowed. And most of all there is
a need for adherence to a
code of
high campaign ethics, for that
isallabout
really is what the Watergate Affair
dirty campaigning.
apart from the
petty criminality involved.
Let's remember this
about the Watergate Scandal. It is different from the
other great scandals that have besmirched government officials at various times
during American
history. No one was on the take in the Watergate Affair.
No
one was accepting
bribes.
No
one was selling government secrets. It was
simply, in short, a political crime
a crime that went far beyond the surface
FORD
crime of breaking and entering. And so now we must look at our campaign laws toomake BERATH
LIBRARY
sure that Watergate never happens again.
We must overhaul our whole approach to campaign financing. We must never
again have shadowy political figures carting large amounts of cash around in suitcases
or stashing large secret cash contributions away in a safe.
To get the ball rolling on campaign reform legislation, the President has
recommended that the Congre SS and the White House cooperate in enacting new legislation
that would tighten up our existing election laws. I strongly favor this
joint
effort to produce clean election legislation.
These are some of the comments I am making in answering my mail on the Watergate
Affair. I am also receiving some mail on the bombing in Cambodia.
The House of Representatives last week voted, in effect, against U.S. bombing in
Cambodia. The House thus broke a long record of stanch support for American military
policies in Southeast Asia.
The
vote on the Cambodian bombing issue was 219 to 188.
The House, in contrast with the more dovish Senate, has been a bulwark of strength
over the years for American military policies in Vietnam and as recently as last fall
firmly rejected move S to withdraw remaining U.S. forces from Vietnam or to cut off
funds
for the prose cution of the
war.
The House last week first voted to deny the Defense Department the authority
for a transfer of fundswithin the defense budget. This involved $25 million for
the bombing of Cambodia. The House later voted 224 to 172to bar the use of any funds
in the Second Supplemental Appropriation Bill for any
U.S. military action in
or over Cambodia.
The House also rejected an attempt by Rep. Sam Stratton, Democrat of New York,
to delay the effect of the no-funds-for Cambodia action for 60 days.
n
I hope this congressional act will not undercut the %****** peace agreement
affecting Vietnam, Laos and, hopefully, Cambodia. I pray tat that this vote will
not interfere with American efforts to find obtain all possible information on our
Missing In Action.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's
capital. I'll be talking with you again next week-same time, same station.
SCRIPT FOR USE BY FIFTH DISTRICT RADIO STATIONS THE WEEKEND OF MAY 26-27, 1973.
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from Washington.
My mail indicates to me that the people in my congressional district are
becoming increasingly
worried about
the gasoline shortage. Many of those
who are writing me are asking why there is a shortage at all.
It was just several years ago that the United States could produce all the
petroleum it needed. The situation has changed rapidly as the national use of
oil and petroleum products has increased at the rate of 5 per cent
or more
a year.
One reason for this increased consumption of petroleum products is that our
new cars with anti-pollutant devices built into them are regular gas-guzzlers.
They simply deliver less
miles per gallon of gas.
Another
reason
for the oil products shortage is that power plants which formerly used coal to
generate electricity are now using fuel oil, when they can't get natural gas.
They are burning fuel oil or natural gas because coal is the dirtiest of the
fuels.
The result is that now we not only can't produce all the crude oil we need
but WB also don't have the refinery
capacity to make all the finished
petroleum products we need.
One hopeful development is that since the President's energy message on
April 18 five companies have announced plans to build or expand refineries in the
United States.
In moving to alleviate the problems caused by the gasoline shortage, the
Administration has called upon the major a oil companies to allocate gasoline
supplies among their various customers in the same proportion as before the
shortage.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
2 -
The plan is voluntary now but it could be made mandatory if persuasion doesn't
work. Farmers are being XII given number one priority in the allocation plan but
tractor
Michigan Agriculture Department officials say they are running out of the fuel they
need to plant their crops. The State Agriculture Department has appealed to all firms
tractor
which supply fuel to farmers, urging them to meet the voluntary Federal priorities
for supplying farmers. If the oil companies do not re spect the Federal priorities,
we will have to institute a plan for mandatory allocation of gasoline and fuel
supplies.
Steps are being taken to overcome fuel shortages in this country. Importation
of more finished products will help. Construction of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline
and the building of a trans-Canadian gas line to bring
natural gas to the
Lower 48 States from Alaska would be a tremendous benefit. Incentives for building
refineries in this country, instead of abroad, would help too. By 1980, electric
utilities expect to be able to use high sulphur coal and still meet clean-air
standards. By 1990, more than half of our electric power will come from nuclear power.
And research is being stepped up to produce natural
gas from coal.
But that doe sn't mean our energy picture looks bright. The days of cheap and
abundant power are over. We must learn to conserve energy. The best way you and I,
as individuals, can do that. is to drive our cars less and drive them at slower
speeds.
One of my constituents sent me an interesting suggestion. He said the Congress
should impose a 50 mile per hour speed limit on the entire nation. Congre SS probably
has the authority to set a speed limit for the interstate highways, but it wuld seem
that limit should be 60 miles an hour rather than 50. Even that, of course, would be
a big help.
ERALD FORD LIBRAR,
This is your congressman, Jerry Ford, reporting to you from the nation's capital.
I'll be talking with you again next week--same time, same station.
######