Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
7339555
label
Press Conference of William Milliken, Governor, State of Michigan, and William T. Coleman, Secretary, Department of Transportation, The Briefing Room
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7339555
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Press Conference of William Milliken, Governor, State of Michigan, and William T. Coleman, Secretary, Department of Transportation, The Briefing Room
citationUrl
collections
White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)
Press Releases
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7339555
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
7
logicalDate
1975-06-07
month
6
year
1975
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
6d598cf2a6ec3b0b
ocrText
Digitized from Box 12 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 7, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
WILLIAM MILLIKEN
GOVERNOR, STATE OF MICHIGAN
AND
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
THE BRIEFING ROOM
11:47 P.M. EDT
MR. HUSHEN: As you know, the President met this
morning with Governors from the Northeast and Midwest. The
meeting lasted about an hour and a half.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss problems
of the railroads, and the meeting was requested by Governor
Milliken of Michigan.
We have Secretary of Transportation Coleman and
Governor Milliken here to brief you today, to give you a
report on the meeting and answer your questions.
Gentlemen.
GOVERNOR MILLIKEN: We had, I felt, a very good
meeting, as Mr. Hushen has said. It lasted about an hour
and a half, which was a half an hour longer than we had
anticipated.
There was no general agreement in the session
among the Governors and with the Administration on how to
deal with all of the problems, except we all agreed we had
a serious problem in the question of transportation, the
implementation of the Association plan, the question of
the adoption of the plan or not by the Congress in July.
I indicated that I felt very strongly about the
abandoned line issue. It means a great deal to Michigan and
to many other States, and there was general discussion about
the importance of the rehabilitation of roadbeds in the
railway system throughout the country. It has a major
impact, I think, on the future of the country, particularly
in the light of the economic problems we have had, in the
light of the energy crisis, which we have been going through
and we will probably continue to face, so that there needs
to be a comprehensive, overall Federal approach of some kind
to deal with the problems which are faced in a very real
sense by the States.
MORE
- 2 -
I was pleased with the President's willingness
to be openminded in his approach -- the indication that
he will be taking a position which has not yet fully
been developed so far as the Congressional approval
of the plan in July.
I was pleased with the obvious deep involvement
and openmindedness of the Secretary and I felt the
meeting was a very good and a very productive one, and
I am hoping that we are going to be able to maintain,
as I am sure we will, very close contact with the
Secretary and with the President on this problem which
obviously will not go away.
Mr. Secretary.
SECRETARY COLEMAN: At the request of Governor
Milliken, the President met this morning with the Governors
of all of the States in the Northeast and the Midwest.
The only ones not there were those that from a telegram
or other reasons said they could not be there. We had
a free, frank and open discussion. Everyone agrees
that the railroad problem is a serious problem. Everyone
agrees that one of the causes is the deteriorating
effect of the track and that has to be restored.
There was an exchange of ideas as to how best
to bring that about and we in the Administration are going
to continue to work at the problem, and we look forward
to the cooperation of the Governors to see that we can
reach a solution which is satisfactory and will solve
the problem which is serious in this country.
Q
Can you both deal with the question of
where you are farthest apart, what the hangup is?
GOVERNOR MILLIKEN: I don't know at this point
that we can really say that we are far apart. We recognize
that it is going to take a great deal of money to
rehabilitate the trackage in this country and that it
is going to take a great deal of money to keep the
branch lines going if, in fact, some of them should be
kept going.
I fully acknowledge that we will have to
abandon some lines, but I think the plan calls for much
more of a wholesale abandonment than I believe is
necessary or desirable. We have not agreed on how the
money will be forthcoming but there was a good deal of
discussion about that possibility.
I don't think it would be accurate to say that
we had a total disagreement on this subject because we
start with the basic premise that a vital rail system
in this country is essential for the future economic
development of the United States, and certainly of the
individual States.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
Governor, did other Governors present
specific proposals for solving the rail problem in
addition to your own?
GOVERNOR MILLIKEN: The New England Governors
specifically recommended the take-over of the rail beds
and the maintenance and rehabilitation of those beds as
part of an overall plan. There certainly was not support
for a Government take-over of the entire system, but
a recognition that this might be, and probably would be,
one good way to go.
So I would say that that constituted one of
the major recommendations made by the Governors, and
the other one would be on the question of rail abandon-
ment, and my specific recommendation for a two-year
moratorium with a branch line abandonment and a Federal-
State match for up to 10 years. That problem gives us
great concern in Michigan and I think that is reflected
in many of the other States.
Q
Mr. Secretary, what was the reaction of
the President to these two proposals?
SECRETARY COLEMAN: The President listened and
he gave serious consideration to the proposals. We have
some problems with the proposals. One, we doubt seriously
whether the public interest is best served by Government
ownership of the roadbeds and other facilities.
Secondly, we always have the problem that you
have to have in any system -- where the only way you
raise money is by taxes from the people -- the extent
to which there can be available Federal outlays for the
program. We do feel that the USRA recommendation is
that there are certain lines that are low density lines
and what should happen there is that the States should
have two years to make up their minds whether the line
is sufficiently important that the State will undertake
to subsidize that line.
In the interim, as you know, the proposal is
that the Federal Government will put up 70 percent of
the money; the State will put up 30 percent of the money.
We can understand why the Governors would indicate that
perhaps two years is not enough. On the other hand,
we do think it is a period of time over which you can
make a significant start and determination.
We did listen to the comments of the Governors
and obviously we will take them into consideration,
because they were seriously presented and we were dealing
with an issue that everybody agrees on the end result;
namely, that the railroad service is very important in
the country.
MORE
- 4 -
On the other hand, I think as far as the
Administration is concerned we would like to resolve
the problem within the private sector context rather than
to have the Federal Government going into the business
of owning the roadbed. We think that presents serious
problems.
Just to give you two, for example, we think then
it would mean every issue of a wage increase becomes
a Federal issue which would have to be resolved in the
White House. We don't think that is in the public interest.
Secondly, we would say every freight increase
or every charge would then become a public interest which
would have to be resolved in the White House. We don't
think that is a proper way. We firmly still believe
when you are dealing with freight that you ought to be
able to operate a service which can pay its own way and
what you need are intelligent programs which will permit
the rehabilitation of the line, perhaps with Federal
guarantee, but that basically it should be resolved
in the private sector.
I think some of the Governors felt -- some of
them agreed with our position -- others said we think
the situation is going to the point that perhaps the
Federal Government may have to step in more, and in
Government today so many problems are matters of degree
that we have to engage in consideration to see what is
the best way to resolve it; but the President did pay
attention. He was quite concerned and he indicated
and he instructed me to continue talking with the
Governors and attempt to come up with a program which will
best serve the interests of the American people.
Q
Do you have a deadline for that program?
Does the President know when you are going to have to
give an answer on this?
SECRETARY COLEMAN: Well, there are varying
deadlines. With respect to the Northeast, we are operating
under statute enacted by the Congress which says by
July 26 USRA will have to submit a plan.
As you know, the Administration has on board
two of the 11 directors. We expect by June 26 we would
have to indicate in executive session as to what our
position finally will be.
In addition, as you know, the President has sent
up the Rail Revitalization Act. We do think that if the
Congress would begin to act and pass on that Act it will
help the railroad situation greatly because we call for
more flexibility in rate regulation.
MORE
- 5 -
We do provide for $2 billion in loan guarantee,
and we also provide for elimination of discriminatory
tax by the local authority on the railroads. We think
those things will make a great difference in the ability
of the railroad to perform satisfactorily.
Q
Secretary Coleman, your statement that the
President instructed you to come up with something that
will have something of interest to the Governors in
terms of a plan indicates that the USRA plan is at least
not sufficient to carry the day; that it is going to
take something else besides that.
SECRETARY COLEMAN: If you got that from my
reply, I did not mean to convey that. What I said was
that the USRA submitted what was a preliminary plan.
The statute called for public comment and reaction by
all the persons involved. The Governors, some of them,
showed certain things that they thought were objectionable
in the plan. The USRA will then come up with the final
plan, and the Administration, likewise, is attempting
to come up with a final plan. The day by which it should
be done is June 26.
More important, we realize that the railroad
problem is a serious problem. We realize the Governors
of the States are quite concerned and we are attempting
to develop programs which the Governors will support and
will solve the problem. We are not saying whether the
USRA plan will be tremendously changed or not.
Q
Mr. Secretary, I want to make sure I
understand you concerning the question of the take-over
of the roadbeds. The President's position has been he
is against that?
SECRETARY COLEMAN: Yes.
Q
And now you use the words "seriously
consider" and things like that. Has his position changed
any?
SECRETARY COLEMAN: Put it this way: I know my
position has not changed and I don't think the President's
position has changed.
Q
Can you tell us a little bit about what
the public service jobs would involve there? Did you
discuss that in connection with the new bill that is
pending on jobs and how they would help with the roadbeds?
SECRETARY COLEMAN: My understanding -- and you
may have me at a disadvantage -- is that I know of no
public bill which has been sponsored by the Administration
which deals specifically with making jobs available for
fixing up the roadbeds.
MORE
- 6 -
Q
No, I am talking about the general public
service jobs bill, and won't that relate to this?
SECRETARY COLEMAN: That was vetoed and it was
also my understanding that even before it was passed that
the Senate or the House knocked out the provision which
was in the bill at one time for public service jobs
directed to the railroad.
Q
Now, there is a new bill coming up and
what I am asking is, is there going to be some effort
to put this back into the bill?
SECRETARY COLEMAN: You better go and ask the
Congressmen.
Q
Was that discussed at all? Did you mention
these public service jobs?
SECRETARY COLEMAN: Today, one Governor did
mention public service. It is the Administration's
position and the position of the Department of Transportation
that the railroad problem is a separate and distinct
problem and it ought to be resolved in the context of
dealing with the railroads, and that is what we hope we
can do.
Q
Governor Milliken, one of the Governors
emerging from the meeting said that all but one Governor
opposed the USRA plan for abandonment. Is that a correct
statement?
GOVERNOR MILLIKEN: I think probably that would
be correct. On the question of public service jobs, that
was not a discussion today, although I had raised the
point very briefly in my remarks. I would hope that it
would be possible in the future to have some public
service job involvement in the rehabilitation of tracks
within the States and perhaps a bill coming down would
embody that concept. I would support that.
Q
USRA has issued a preliminary report
already, Governor. What is the stance of your group
regarding that report? Do you think the Administration
is heading in the right direction, or not?
GOVERNOR MILLIKEN: The Administration, I think,
now is in the process of evaluating that report. So far
as the Association recommendation, I can say personally
that it would have a very serious negative impact in
the State of Michigan and I think that is reflected in
a number of other States.
MORE
- 7 -
The proposal is that some 22 percent of the
track abandonment would occur in the State of Michigan
among all the 17 States. That would have serious
economic repercussions and it is on that particular
point that I, this morning, commented. I think we need --
and there is some disagreement on approach here -- I
think we need a two-year moratorium and I think we need
the Federal match which would be up to 10 years. That
would enable us to do better and sounder planning, and
frankly, support further the case we think can be made
in our State.
There is no question that some lines will have
to be abandoned. I acknowledge that for Michigan and
any other State. But I think the criteria has been
wrong in that we have been pretty much guided by the
element of profitability. And I think we have ignored
some of the economic repercussions which would be very
negative and overall would have the kind of effect which
I think could be disastrous to the economy.
Q
Would you comment on the burden of the
Railway Revitalization Act which, itself, involves some
consolidation and abandonment of rail lines? That is,
the Administration's position.
GOVERNOR MILLIKEN: I would repeat again, I
think there will have to be some abandonment, and in the
end the plan will clearly go in that direction, but I
disagree -- and it is a matter of degree -- I disagree
with the Association plan insofar as its impact in our
State.
Q
Governor, how did the President respond to
your proposal on the abandoned lines, the moratorium
and the 10-year match?
GOVERNOR MILLIKEN: I can't say that he precisely
responded. He certainly was open in his approach. The
fact that he added another half-hour to the hour that we
all were scheduled to be here was an indication of his
interest, and I think his concern, and his desire in
the end to make the right decision.
Q
Governor, you had a statement in there.
Did you spread out copies of that here? Could we have
copies?
GOVERNOR MILLIKEN: It is available.
Q
Could you tell us who was the one Governor
who favored the USRA plan?
MORE
- 8 -
SECRETARY COLEMAN: I would say the effect of
that -- there were 10 Governors present and there was
one Lieutenant Governor. I think it is not quite the
disagreement that you perhaps may think. USRA's
responsibility, given by Congress, was to develop a
plan which would make a national railroad system viable.
In the development of that plan they established certain
criteria and said that when you have a rail line which
is not a national line -- namely, going from State to
State -- but is a branch line, and that the revenue from
that line is much under the expenses, that that presents
a separate problem.
Now all USRA said was, that that type of
operation should not be in a national railroad system.
That does not mean it should not be someplace else.
The Congress then said that with respect to
those lines which USRA determines are not in the national
system and are not profitable, but are losing money,
that we think that the way to handle that problem is
to say that those lines will not be part of a national
system but will be part of a local system, and to give
the locality time to make up its mind as to whether it
will support it as a local system.
We think that the appropriate way to handle
that problem is to say that for those two years the
Federal Government will put up 70 percent of the money
to operate the losing line and the localities will put
up 30 percent.
Now as I understand the Governors, what has now
come forward is really basically a criticism of what
Congress did, not what USRA did, because USRA was acting
within the context of the statute. Everyone agrees that
those branch lines should not be part of the national
system.
So what the Governors have said is, "In our
judgment, we don't think two years is time enough to
make that decision. Secondly, we think that within the
two years instead of having a 70-30 percent match, it
should be a different match." Now this just reflects
the fact that the States don't have the money, but I
think it is also true that the Federal Government is
pushed for money so therefore there has to be discussion
along this line.
But I do think that you escalate the difference
in the problem too big if you think it is other than in
terms of the issue of how long should someone, whether
it be the Federal Government or the local government, support
these losing branch lines until such point when the shippers
and the localities make up a decision as to whether they
will take them over completely.
MORE
- 9 -
Q
Governor Milliken, would you address
yourself to the part of the Railway Revitalization Act
that provides $2 billion in loan guarantees to upgrade
the railways as opposed to the federal ownership of
rail beds or a much bigger subsidy, and does the Governors'
Conference have any view on that?
GOVERNOR MILLIKEN: We did not discuss that
in any great detail this morning. On the question of
federal ownership of the railroad system, I think there
is almost unanimous agreement that that should not come about.
The President's proposal -- the $2 billion proposal --
was discussed very briefly by him, but we were really
centering our attention in our discussion this morning on
the Association plan and on the proposal which will be
before Congress on July 26th.
Q
Mr. Secretary, I am a little confused about
the July 26 and June 26. Could you straighten that out?
SECRETARY COLEMAN: The July 26th: -- there is a
statute which says that by July 26th USRA must submit the
final plan to the Congress. It then lays over in the Congress
for 60 legislative days, and at the end of that time
Congress must vote the approval of the plan, or reject it.
Now the June date comes about because to get the plan
submitted to the Congress by the 26th of July, the Executive
Committee of USRA will have a meeting -- and on that
Executive Committee there is at least one or two members
of the Administration -- and assuming that a vote is called
for as to whether the final plan as revised, after the
hearings on the preliminary plan, will be submitted to
the Congress, at that time the Administration people will
take a position.
MR. BARNUM: The statute specifically requires
30 days before the July 26 date the Executive Committee of
USRA shall submit to the Board of Directors of USRA and to
the ICC its proposal, namely the Executive Committee's
proposal for the final system plan.
Q
So the President has to make up his mind
by the 26th of this month as to which direction he wants
the Administration people to go?
MR. BARNUM: That is correct, and there is one
member of the Administration, the Secretary of Transportation,
who is a member of the Executive Committee of the United
States Railway Association.
Q
Mr. Secretary, did I understand you correctly?
A moment ago you said you have not changed your position
and as far as you know the President has not changed his.
Is that on the abandonment issue?
MORE
- 10 -
SECRETARY COLEMAN: I thought the issue I was
asked about was as to whether it is in the public interest
to have public ownership of the railroads, and on that
I think all the Governors are in agreement; that there
ought not to be public ownership of the entire railroad
system. There are some people that talk in terms of
public ownership of the roadbed, and it is my position
that that is not in the public interest, and I think
that is also the position of the President. I say that
only because I think the President speaks for himself.
Q
How about your position on the abandonment
issue? Do you have one? As far as whether this idea of
the two-year moratorium is good or whether it is bad?
SECRETARY COLEMAN: I have heard the argument, and
I always listen to the argument. I think that I would
rather reserve judgment although my initial reaction is
I think it is probably better to start off with the two-year
period and see whether the job can't be done in two years.
I guess I still suffer from the fact that I came out
of the background of a practicing lawyer where, if you knew
you had to go to Court in the next year, you got something
done. When the Judge says, "Oh, Gee, you have two years,"
then you really got nothing done.
I think you really have to come to the basic
issue as to how you handle losing lines which are not part
of a national system. I don't think it is in the public
interest to handle that permanently by having a massive
federal subsidy. On the other hand, I think it does require
a lot of concern in the localities -- it is in keeping
with the Administration's position in other areas -- that
when you are dealing with something that affects the
localities it is the locality that has to make the determination,
and they have to make the judgment consistent with their
ability to raise the money.
Now that does not mean that in a program -- as we
have some time other places -- at times we do give some
federal help. But basically when you are dealing with
something which is not national in scope but is limited to
a community, affects their economic welfare, I think basically
the government should leave that to the locality. That does
not mean there may not be instances where it is in the
national interest to support it, and that is what I think
the debate is about.
Q
Will you tell us why neither New York nor
Ohio were represented at the meeting?
MORE
- 11 -
SECRETARY COLEMAN: I think you better check with
them. As far as the Governor of New York, he sent a
telegram. As you know New York City, the State of New
York, has some serious budget problems, and that is the
reason why I think Governor Carey was not there. There
was another Governor that was not there, I know, because
he had a death in the immediate family. There was a third
Governor -- the Governor from Massachusetts was not there
because he has an active session of the legislature, but
he did send the Lieutenant Governor.
Q
Can you tell us what the Governor's telegram
said?
SECRETARY COLEMAN: Which one?
Q
Carey.
SECRETARY COLEMAN: I have not seen the telegram,
but I was informed he was not there and he did send a telegram.
GOVERNOR MILLIKEN: I did not know he did, but
I am sure it was a friendly one.
SECRETARY COLEMAN: It was a friendly one. He
indicated he had problems in New York, and with all due
respect, he could not get down here today. He would have liked
very much to have been nere.
THE PRESS: Thank you.
END
(AT 12:10 P.M. EDT)