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
7340012
label
Remarks of the President at Briefing on General Revenue Sharing [Ford Speech or Statement]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7340012
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Remarks of the President at Briefing on General Revenue Sharing [Ford Speech or Statement]
citationUrl
collections
White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)
Press Releases
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7340012
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
10
logicalDate
1975-07-10
month
7
year
1975
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
27da6a74e3652ae3
ocrText
Digitized from Box 13 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 10, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
AT THE
BRIEFING ON
GENERAL REVENUE SHARING
THE EAST ROOM
2:07 P.M. EDT
Mr. Vice President, members of the Cabinet,
distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:
It is wonderful to have you here in the
White House. As I look around the room I see many,
many mayors that have been so kind and hospitable
and thoughtful to me in my various travels, and I
thank you for it.
It is nice to have an opportunity to
reciprocate not only with this meeting here this
afternoon, but when you conclude your opportunities
with the Cabinet and other members, I am looking forward
to joining you for some refreshments in the State
Dining Room. So after you have gone through your
labors, why, we will see you a little later this
afternoon.
I was trying to look at some notes I put
together yesterday and I was going to say something
yesterday based on what I read about what you had been
doing, and then I read this morning and I thought I
had to change my remarks. (Laughter)
So instead of using any notes, I will just
respond extemporaneously with some of the things I
know you are interested in.
First, I am deeply grateful that your organ-
ization in its deliberations yesterday made a decision
to not relate your problems to the national defense
needs and requirements of our country as a whole.
MORE
Page 2
I think there is enough money available for
all of your essential programs to be adequately funded,
and I think it is important for us to have your support
in a completely strong, alert military organization
because if we don't have that kind of strength for
national security, many of the other things we try to
do cannot be sustained.
I spent 14 years of my 25 years in the Congress
working on the defense appropriation bill so I know a
little bit about it. We had Secretaries of Defense
come before that committee every year. We had all
types of military personnel coming up to justify the
budget, and we in those years provided an adequate
military force to protect our national security.
We didn't give them too much. We gave them
enough, and the net result was our security during
a very difficult period was fully adequate for the
defense of this country. And I can assure you that in
the presentation of a military budget by this Administration,
the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines will
get everything they need and not one penny more.
But we do need that as insurance for the
maintenance of peace and the winning of any conflict
if we should be involved in one.
I think records ought to show that some seven
or eight years ago out of our total expenditures
for the Federal Government, the Defense Department
received roughly 43 or 44 percent, and that many of
our other programs, primarily in the programs to help
people--and that is used in the broadest context-- the
percentage that came from the total expenditures of the
Federal Government was roughly 32 or 33 percent.
Now we are spending a lot more money today and
out of the total pie, the Defense Department gets about
30 percent and all of the other programs are now getting
over 40 percent. So we not only have a bigger percentage
going to the non-defense areas, but we have a bigger
piece of pie from which to make money available. And
we will continue to make sure that everything we can
will be done in the areas in which you have a tremendous
responsibility.
But at the same time, in dividing this
Federal availability in the area of money, we have to
have an adequate amount for our national security.
MORE
Page 3
I think if we do it right, and I think we will,
the defense will be adequately funded, our people will
be adequately supplied and you who have great respon-
sibilities out through 50 States will likewise get
everything we possibly can to help you.
Now let me talk about two programs which I
know you have an interest in. First, general revenue
sharing.
I can recall vividly 10 years ago when the
idea was first seriously proposed. It moved very slowly.
Many people had serious reservations and some good areas
of reservations, but gradually it was realized that general
revenue sharing was a way, and perhaps the best way
to strengthen local communities and States so that
more decision-making could be handled at the local and
the State levels.
I happen to subscribe to that because all of
you -- and literally hundreds around the country -- can
make most of the basic decisions better at your level
than we can in Washington.
General revenue sharing was one way in which
the Federal Government could make it easier for you to
do this, and so I think it was 1972 that finally, after
a tremendous effort by many people--individuals from
your organization, Governors under the leadership of the
now Vice President, Members of Congress, members of
the White House staff- we finally put together a finely
tuned general revenue sharing program that has been in
effect now so that about $17 billion has been made
available to State and local communities out of the
anticipated five-year program of roughly $30 billion.
Now I know a little bit about the negotiations
that went into getting counties, getting States,
getting cities to work together on a formula. And
the three parts of that formula, as I recollect, are
number of people, need and tax effort.
I don't think that we want to go through
that long negotiation again.
MORE
Page 4
Let me tell you why, There are still in the
Congress many Members who were opposed and are opposed
to general revenue sharing. If we tinker with the formula
or if we try to undermine it in any other way, it would
be my fear -- and it should be yours -- that the whole
program would not be extended.
That serious possibility, in my judgment,
should encourage us to work together to extend what we
have.
I recommended a five-year extension of the
program last April. It is basically the proposal that
is on the statute books today. I added a little annual
increment so that there could be an increase each year
to take into account the cost of living increases that
we are experiencing.
I think it ends up after the five-year period,
Jim, of about -- it is $39 billion in this five-year
period instead of the $30 billion in the first five
years.
So, I think on dollars we can justify it. The
formula is about as equitable as you can make it. More
importantly, if we work together, we can get it enacted.
If we fool around, in my judgment you face the possibility
that it will either not be extended on the one hand
or it could be confused such that you wouldn't like it.
So, there is an old addage. A bird in the hand
is worth two in the bush, and I just think, and I bet
Coleman Young there thinks SO, too.
Let me talk about the new highway bill that I
submitted a week or so ago. I probably had the
reputation of being the most dedicated to the Highway
Trust Fund as any Member of the Congress, and I think it
did a great job over a period of some 20 years.
We have substantially built a 42,500 mile
interstate highway system. Eighty-six percent of it is
completed.
We have been collecting 4 cents a gallon in
Federal gasoline excise tax. We have had some other
Federal excise taxes go into the Trust Fund, but we are
coming to the point where it can and will be completed,
but it doesn't need as much funding today as it did
before.
MORE
Page 5
So, I have recommended out of the 4 cents, 1
cent continue to go in to fully fund and complete the
interstate highway system; 2 of the 4 cents be turned
over to the general fund, and 1 cent out of the 4 cents
go back to the States as soon as the respective States
enact a 1 cent increase in their gasoline tax.
We keep it until they take it. If they do it
under formula in your respective State, I think you will
be the beneficiary, so help us out.
What else does the program recommend? Under
the existing highway law, there are some 30 categorical
grant programs. There has been a tendency in recent years
to multiply them, not to make them less, and the net
result is that Governors tell me that there is so much
inflexibility they can't adequately and expeditiously
go ahead with their roadbuilding program.
What we have done is to recommend that those
30 categorical grant programs be reduced to four: The
interstate highway program being one, an urban program
being another, a rural program a third and the safety
program a fourth.
When you take that program and combine it with
the mass transit bill that we got through with the help
of a lot of the mayors here last year, the $11 billion
mass transit bill that was put through in the last days
of the last session, if you take the urban highway
program and the mass transit program, there is
sufficient money and adequate flexibility for the major
metropolitan areas if they desire -- that is your option --
to proceed with the development and the expansion of a
mass transit system in our major metropolitan areas.
I hope that you can help us. I believe that it
is good for the country, the new highway program. I
believe that it will be immensely beneficial to you and
the people that you so adequately and effectively
represent.
So, as you talk to your Members in the House,
as well as in the Senate, do a sales job. I think you
will be better off with our program, and so will your
constituents, than for an extension of the existing
Highway Trust Fund in its present concept.
There are other things that you will hear about
from members of my Administration. There are other things
where you can ask some questions.
MORE
Page 6
I am an optimist about where this country is
going in the future. We have gone through a rough time
the last few months, and we are not totally out of the
woods at the present time. But every indicator I see
is turning up, or it looks like it is not as bad as it
was a couple of months ago.
So, when you put them all together, it adds
up to the fact that America is going to start bounding
upward.
Our economy is going to improve. Job
opportunities will be enhanced. Your financial affairs
inevitably will improve, and I hope ours will, too. The
net result is because of our faith in this Government,
because of the kind of Government we have, America has
bright days ahead.
All of us, regardless of political affiliation,
can be the beneficiaries.
I have two final responsibilities before the
good opportunity to get together with you later. One
is to congratulate Moon Landrieu on his election, and
secondly, to introduce to you, for some observations
and comments, the Vice President of the United States,
Nelson Rockefeller.
Thank you very much.
END
(AT 2:23 P.M. EDT)