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
4520496
label
Consumer Protection Agency
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4520496
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Consumer Protection Agency
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Consumer protection
Speeches, addresses, etc.
Legislation
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4520496
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-07-01
month
7
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-02-01
month
2
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f1c2cd82d2fd7fcc
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 8, folder "Consumer Protection Agency" of the
Philip Buchen Files 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. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 8 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CPA
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 12, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN T.W.B
SUBJECT:
Consumer Protection Agency
From the office of John Byington in the office of
Virginia Knauer, I have received a copy of your
communication of February 3, 1975 addressed to
Roy Ash.
I would appreciate your giving this prompt consideration,
because I am sure the President would like to move on
this initiative. If there are any aspects of the
proposal which concern you, I would be happy to discuss
them with you.
Attachment
FORD is LIBRARY QERALD
A NOTE FROM
S. JOHN BYINGTON
Phil
This Privary
Proclamating now
seems finally back
on the trach -see
attached. of you
get a chance intervally,
please give it a push.
Thank 8/B
GERALD ? FORD
someing THE
WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 17, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Paul O'Neill
THROUGH:
Phil Buchen
FROM:
Ken Lazarus
ke
SUBJECT:
Consumer Protection Agency
I have reviewed the draft Memorandum for the President from James T.
Lynn, which presents several options for decision on an Administration
position relative to CPA legislation and offer the following:
First, although I am not familiar with the specific CPA proposals, I
question flat statements to the effect that on the merits any such
legislation is bad and not needed.
Second, whether an Administration position is responsive only to
political needs or reflective of sound public policy, there is simply
no reason to limit the focus of Presidential options to four pending
legislative items.
Third, the memorandum should be reconstructed--not refurbished--i
order to assess the substantive questions which have been caught up
in the CPA legislation, e.g., needs, rights and remedies, costs, etc.
This would allow the President to formulate a position on issues rather
than captions and lay the necessary footing for later tactical decisions.
FORD i LIBRARY 97V#79
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
February 12, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
KEN LAZARUS
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN P.W.B.
Please prepare suggested comments on the
attached Consumer Protection Agency
material.
Attachment
BERALD & FORGINARY FORD LIBRARY
1
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
MEMORANDUM FOR MESSRS. BUCHEN
MARSH
BAROODY
CAVANAUGH
SUBJECT: Consumer Protection Agency
Attached is a draft memorandum for the President
on an Administration position on a Consumer Pro-
tection Agency.
Monday. May I please have your vote and comments by COB,
Signed Paul H. C'Neill
Paul H. O'Neill
Attachments
SERALD LISEARY ? FORD
DECISION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES T. LYNN
SUBJECT: Administration Position on a Consumer Protection
Agency
Congress is expected to take up Consumer Protection
Agency (CPA) legislation early in this session. The Adminis-
tration will be pressed for its position. This memorandum
presents several options for decision on an Administration
position.
Background. The House passed CPA legislation last
March by a vote of 293 to 94. The Senate failed to pass
a stronger bill after four attempts at filibuster cloture
were defeated, the last by only two votes. The departure
of Senator Ervin - who led the Senate filibuster --- and
the makeup of the new Congress could result in passage of
a bill early in this Congress, unless the Administration
intervenes successfully.
Options. Attachment A identifies the differences
among major CPA bills. We believe the options are:
Option 1. Submit a bill along the lines of the Brown
version in the 93rd Congress -- a CPA with limited powers,
largely an amicus agency.
FORD & LIBRARY BERALD
2
Option 2. Submit a consumer message summarizing the
Administration's consumer proposals, but not endorsing CPA.
Option 3. Do not take a public position on CPA, but
informally encourage Senator Dole and others to take the lead
in working for a CPA with restricted powers along the lines
of the Brown version.
Option 4. Do not communicate an Administration position
-- either formally or informally --- at this time.
Option 5. Indicate Administration opposition to CPA
legislation and threaten a veto. Also indicate that the
Administration has submitted a bill to establish a regulatory
agency review commission which shall address the matter of
consumer protection in regulatory agency actions.
Major arguments for and against each option are provided
at Attachment B.
Decision
Option 1 - Submit a restricted CPA bill. (Favored
by
)
Option 2 - Submit a consumer message on Administration
consumer proposals other than CPA.
(Favored by
)
Option 3 - Work informally for restricted CPA.
(Favored by
)
Option 4 - Do not take position, formally or informally.
(Favored by
)
Option 5 - Indicate opposition to any CPA proposal.
FORD & 076930 LIBRARY
(Favored by
)
Attac hment A
Major Differences in CPA Bills
Dole Bill
Holifield-Horton Bill
Brown Amendments
Issue
S. 200 (Ribicoff)
93rd Congress
93rd Congress
93rd Congress
Interrogatory
Independent CPA inter-
CPA use of host agency
CPA use of host agency
No interrogatory
Authority
rogatory authority
interrogatory authori-
interrogatory authori-
authority
ty
ty
Term and Removal of
4-year term, coterm-
4-year term
No limitation on Presi-
No limitation on Presi-
CPA Administrator
inous with that of
dent's power to appoint
dent's power to appoint
President; limita-
or remove
or remove
tions on President's
power to remove
Budget and Legis-
Annual report to
Annual report to
No provision
No provision
lation
contain simultaneous
contain simultaneous
budget and legisla-
budget and legisla-
tive recommendations
tive recommendations
to OMB and Congress
to OMB and Congress
CPA Right to Obtain
Right of judicial
Right of judicial
Right of judicial
No right of judicial
Judicial Review of
reviews comparable
reviews comparable
reviews comparable
review of agency ac
FORD i LIBRARY
Agency Regulatory
to that of private
to that of private
to that of private
tions
Decisions
parties
parties
parties
CPA Judicial
CPA represents
CPA represents
CPA represents
Justice Department
Representation
itself
itself
itself
discretion to repre-
sent CPA
Exemptions from
CIA, NSA, FBI, labor-
CIA, NSA, FBI, labor-
CIA, NSA, FBI, labor-
CIA, NSA, FBI and
CPA Review
related and FCC li-
related and FCC li-
related matters, but
entire DOD, State
censing matters, but
censing matters, but
only national secu-
and AEC
only national secu-
only national secu-
rity and intelligence
rity and intelligence
rity and intelligence
functions of DOD,
functions of DOD,
functions of DoD,
State and AEC
State and AEC
State and AEC
CPA Access to Trade
CPA denied such infor-
CPA denied such infor-
CPA denied such infor-
CPA denied information
Secrets and Commer-
mation only if given
mation only if given
mation only if given
given both "voluntar-
cial and Financial
to other Federal agen-
to other Federal agen-
to other Federal agency
ily" to a Federal agency,
Information Possessed
cy on written promise
cy on written promise
on written promise of
or on a written promise
y Federal Agencies
of confidentiality
of confidentiality
confidentiality
of confidentiality
PA Access to Crim-
Exemption for prosecu-
Exemption for prosecu-
No exemption for crimi-
Full exemption for
al Investigation
torial recommendations
torial recommendations
nal investigative files
criminal investiga-
.les
only
only
(only for "internal
tion files
agency policy recommenda-
tions," which could be
interpretated to mean
prosecutorial recommenda-
tions)
ATTachmenT D
Options--Administration Position on CPA Legislation
Option 1. Submit an Administration bill establishing a
restricted Consumer Protection Agency
Pro - Enactment of some corm of CPA legislation stands
a good chance. An Administration bill would improve the
chances for more restrictive final legislation and give
the Administration a positive position on a consumer issue.
Given the pressure for some type of CPA bill, the Brown amended
version represents a "least damage" alternative.
Con - There is a substantial amount of opposition in the
business community to any CPA legislation. On the merits, a
CPA is not needed nor is it likely to be able to achieve the
goals of its proponents. Administration proposed legislation
would also be inconsistent with your public opposition to new
spending programs. Virtually all of the Brown Amendments were
voted down by substantial margins in the House last year, making
it unlikely that Congress would accept them.
Option 2. Submit a Consumer Message on Administration consumer
proposals other than CPA
Pro - Such a message would provide the Administration with
an opportunity to summarize and state the consumer proposals
in the 1976 budget and would provide a counterforce to the
argument that the Administration is "anti-consumer. "
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
2
Con - Most of the proposals that would be highlighted
in a consumer message have already been undertaken or proposed
in the previous Congress. Such a message would be unlikely to
satisfy CPA proponents and would draw attention to CPA in the
absence of a CPA endorsement.
Option 3. Work Informally for a Restricted CPA
Pro - This option would avoid a Presidential commitment
initially, and would allow those who favor a restricted CPA
an opportunity to obtain such a bill to test the viability
of a restricted CPA option.
Con - It would be difficult to maintain an informal
position for legislation.
Option 4. Take No Position At this Time
Pro - This option allows you maximum future flexibility
and maneuverability, depending on progress of the various CPA
bills in the Congress.
Con - Failure to take a public position may be criticized
as irresponsible, as well as maneuvering for the defeat of CPA
legislation.
Option 5. Oppose Any CPA Legislation
Pro - On the merits, the adversary nature of CPA is the
wrong way to assure that regulatory agencies take the interests
FORD
of consumers into account. A more effective and efficient way
would be for the agencies themselves to be forced through
LABRARY
3
congressional oversight and appropriate legislation--to -
organize for and heed consumer concerns. Strong Administra-
tion opposition would give opponents of CP... a rallying point.
Con - The Administration runs the risk of being
characterized as "anti-consumer, " by not having an alternative
to CPA legislation. Failure to endorse a restricted CPA bill
could result in a much stronger CPA bill coming out of Congress.
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
Consumer Protection
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
file
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
FEB 25 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR Phillip W. Buchen
Subject: Proposed proclamation entitled "Consumer Privacy
Code"
I want to let you know where we stand with respect to
the proposed proclamation which was referred to us by
Mrs. Knauer on February 3. The proposal was referred
to several agencies (Commerce, Defense, HEW, Justice,
FTC and SBA) for comment and we hope to have their
views and be in a position
by March 17.
Palm to Paul discuss H. O'Neill them Quis with you
Deputy Director
FORD is LIBRARY
3/3/75
THE WHITE HOUSE
Argent
WASHINGTON
March 1, 1975
for Ken Lazarus
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
JIM LYNN
JACK MARSH
ALAN GREENSPAN
BILL SEIDMAN
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM:
JIM CAVANAUGH
SUBJECT:
CONSUMER/REGULATORY REFORM
SPECIAL MESSAGE
The President has asked that options to be included
in a possible special message on consumer initiatives
and regulatory reform be prepared for his review as
soon as possible.
Bill Baroody and Virginia Knauer's staffs have put to-
gether the attached set of proposals for that message.
Could you please review each option and return your
comments and recommendations to Pam Needham, Room 214
OEOB, X6776, by COB, Wednesday March 5.
Many thanks.
FORD is LIBRARY 9ERALD
Ken did go to
Mr. Buchen
meeting with
Jack marsh
There is to be a 5:30 p.m. meeting
wi th the President on regulatory reform.
Ken Lazarus wanted to be sure you
were aware of it -- in case you want to
attend.
R.FORD,
Eva
will got in late, if of 5/1/19
Ask Ken to attend:
GERALD
Consumer massage Regulatory
Friday 3/7/75
For filing
BRARV
4:30 Mr. Lazarus thought you should take a look at Option 14 --
which should be discussed further with Marsh. He will
attempt to see Jack on this.
Have Ken lot
knowif I'm
mc do anything
to for ther T. on
FORD & LIBRARY CERRID
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 7, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
KEN LAZARUS
KT
SUBJECT:
Consumer/Regulatory Reform Message
I have reviewed the March 7 draft of the Memorandum for the
President on the referenced subject and offer the following
comments on behalf of the Counsel's office.
I. Our views on the various options may be outlined as follows:
(1) Consumer Representation Act of 1975. While we would
appreciate the opportunity to consider further the specific
remedies which would be created by this Act and have some
reservations relative to the size of the office that would be
created within the EOP, we support the broad outlines of
the proposal.
(2) Consumer Benefit Analysis. Support.
(3) Regulatory Reform Commission. Although we support this
option, we would suggest that its mandate is logically
contingent upon the President's action on other options
relevant to regulatory reform. Stated another way, those
areas of regulatory reform not dealt with precisely and
directly by the President's message ought be drawn within
the bailiwick of the Commission for further study. Further,
a Task Force might present an attractive alternative to the
creation of yet another commission.
(4) Reform of Surface Transportation Regulation. Support.
(5) Air Transportation Regulatory Reform. Support.
(6) Financial Institutions Act. Support.
GERALO FORD LIBRARY
- 2 -
(7) Announce Legislation to be Submitted to Reform the
Robinson- Patman Act. Support.
(8) Provide for Easier Deviation from Food Standards in
Order to Develop New Foods. Oppose.
(9) Establish Intergovernmental Task Force on State and
Local Regulatory Reform Leading to a White House Conference.
Support.
(10) Announce Administration Support for Special Senate
Committee on Regulatory Reform. Oppose. It would appear
inappropriate and futile for the President to comment on the
internal operations of the Senate.
(11) Propose Legislation to Streamline Hearing Procedures
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Although
we support this option, it might be more appropriate to include
the item within a related proposal due to its relevant
insignificance.
(12) Repeal Federal Law Allowing for State Resale Price
Maintenance Laws (with fair trade laws). Support.
(13) Submit Legislation to Prohibit Pyramid Sales
Transactions. Support. However, we anticipate difficulty
in creating a legislative scheme to prohibit "transactions in
which the incentive for the buyer of a distributorship is the
prospect of monetary gain from the sale of further dis-
tributorships, 11 absent the presence of fraud.
(14) Announce Decision on Auto No-Fault Legislation. Treated
at II below.
(15) Announce a Review of Antitrust Immunities to be
Completed in Ninety Days. Support with some reservation on
the need for announcing a deadline.
(16) Announce Intention to Veto Any Legislation Which
Unnecessarily Raises Prices to the Consumer or Restricts
Production. This is not properly an option but should be
FORD
woven into the general rhetoric of the message. Oppose.
GERALD
LIBRARY
- 3 -
(17) Propose Changes in the Federal Reporting Act and
Federal Register to Give the Public Better Notice and
Clearer Understanding of Proposed Federal Decisions.
Oppose. On the merits we see no need for this type of
legislation and, on a political level, the option will likely
have no utility.
(18) Prohibit States and Localities from not Permitting
the Advertising of Prescription Drug Prices. Oppose.
This issue should be woven into the agenda of the inter-
governmental task force referred to in Option (9) above.
(19) Make Note of the National Appliance and Motor Vehicle
Energy Labeling Act of 1975. Support.
(20) Resubmit Drug Identification Act. Support.
(21) Note that the Administration Plans to Resubmit Medical
Services Legislation. Oppose.
(22) Propose Legislation Aimed at Product Testing in the
Private Sector - -- A Consumer Product Test Methods Act
Such as Has Been Supported by the National Bureau of
Standards. Oppose.
(23) Improved Quality Grading Systems of Packaged Foods.
Support.
(24) Improve the System for Disseminating Product Recall
and Hazardous Information and Follow-up. Support.
II. Discussion of No-Fault (Option 14). At the current time, there
is simply an inadequate foundation upon which the President can
construct a firm position on this issue. The threshold question
relative to S. 354, the pending bill to establish a national No-Fault
Insurance Act, is whether Federal, as opposed to State, action
is appropriate. Assuming that Federal legislation would not be
inconsistent with the sound precepts of Federalism, the second
issue posed by the measure is the constitutionality of the role of
the Federal Government which is contemplated by the "national
standards approach. " This approach would authorize a State to
FORD is LIBRARY OERALD
- 4 -
enact legislation which meets Federal standards but in the
absence of enactment of State law, the Federal model would
be imposed upon a State and State personnel would also be
required to enforce it. Finally, No-Fault presents a third
series of issues, including enforcement mechanisms, costs,
certain potential inequities and its impact upon competitive
markets.
During his recent confirmation hearings, Transportation
Secretary Coleman indicated to Senator Magnuson, the principal
sponsor of S. 354, that he would promptly initiate a study of
the bill and communicate his recommendations to the President.
As the Cabinet member who will be most directly involved in
this area, Mr. Coleman should have the opportunity to take a
new look at No-Fault and to make his views known.
At the current time, the President should direct Secretary
Coleman and Attorney General Levi to examine the threshold
issue presented by No-Fault, i.e., the Federalism issue,
and report back within a reasonable period of time. In the event
the conclusion is reached that the Federal Government should
develop a nationwide No-Fault insurance program, further issues
can be examined in order to construct a realistic and workable
legislative proposal.
It should be noted that Senators Eastland and Hruska have
communicated an interest in the No-Fault issue directly to the
President and have requested the opportunity to present their
case in opposition prior to any Presidential decision on the
subject. The Presidentassured them that they would have such
an opportunity. This is certainly not the time to further alienate
conservative forces in the Senate.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
Wednesday 7/30/75
1:15 You had called to talk with Mr. Quern about the
Consumer Protection Agency Legislation.
His office advises that Kathleen Ryan on the Domestic
6563
Council would be the person to call.
FORD LIBRARY s
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 17, 1975
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TEXT OF A LETTER FRCM THE PRESIDENT
TO THREE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
April 17, 1975
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In the interest of protecting the American consumer, I
am directing department and agency heads, in coordination
with the Domestic Council, to review Executive branch pro--
cedures to make certain that consumer interests receive
full consideration in all Government actions.
To be frank, I recognize the legitimate public and
Congressional concerns that departments and agencies be more
responsive to the interests of consumers. This must be
changed. Therefore, I am asking agency heads to examine
the specific efforts they are making now to represent the
consumer in their agencies' decisions and activities and
to work with Virginia Knauer, my Special Assistant for
Consumer Affairs, in instituting additional efforts which
the agencies can undertake to better represent consumer
interests.
In examining their present procedures and in establishing
new ones, department and agency heads will follow these
guidelines:
All consumer interests should receive a fair chance
to be heard in the Government decision making process;
and
The costs and administrative requirements of Federal
rules and regulations on the private sector should be
held to a minimum.
Regulatory reform is one of the most important vehicles for
improving consumer protection. Outdated regulatory practices
lead to higher prices and reduced services. I urge the
Congress to enact a number of specific legislative proposals
in this regard, including the bill I submitted in January to
establish a Regulatory Review Commission. I renew my request
to the Congress to repeal outdated fair trade laws which raise
prices and to reform many of the existing banking laws and
regulations which penalize small savers. I will soon request
legislation to overhaul our system of transportation regula-
tion to allow freer competition, improved services, and lower
prices.
I also intend to ask the chairmen and members of the independent
regulatory agencies to meet with me to discuss ways they can
make immediate improvements in the regulatory process. I am
determined that the public will receive the most efficient and
effective public service at the least cost.
In view of the steps that are being taken by the Executive
department to make Government-wide improvements in the quality
of service to the consumer, I am requesting that the Congrepord
postpone further action on S. 200, which would create a new
Federal Agency for Consumer Advocacy.
LIBRARY
more
(OVER)
2
I do not believe that we need yet another Federal bureaucracy
in Washington, with its attendant costs of $60 million for the
first three years and hundreds of additional Federal employees,
in order to achieve better consumer representation and pro-
tection in Government. At a time when we are trying to cut
down on both the size and the cost of Government, it would
be unsound to add another layer of bureaucracy instead of
improving the underlying structure.
It is my conviction that the best way to protect the consumer
is to improve the existing institutions of Government, not to
add more Government.
I look forward to working with you, the members of your Committee,
and the Congress in advancing the interests of all consumers
within our existing departments and agencies.
Sincerely,
GERALD R. FORD
The Honorable Abraham A. Ribicoff
Chairman
Senate Government Operations Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Jack Brooks
Chairman
House Government Operations Committee
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Harley 0. Staggers
Chairman
House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
# # # #
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 17, 1975
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
P.1:4
THE WHITE HOUSE
PRESS CONFERENCE
OF
HUGH SCOTT
SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
AND
JOHN RHODES
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
STATE OF ARIZONA
THE BRIEFING ROOM
9:49 A.M. EDT
MR. HUSHEN: Good morning.
Ron will be down in a minute and we will fill
you in on his aspects of it.
The meeting lasted approximately one hour and
40 minutes, We have the minority leaders, Congressman
Rhodes and Senator Scott, here to brief you on what
transpired.
CONGRESSMAN RHODES: There were three subjects
considered. I will take up two of them and leave one
for Senator Scott.
The consumer legislation was discussed, and the
President made it very plain that he is not in favor of
the creation of a new agency for consumerism. He stated
that he is engaged now in trying to get the various
departments of the Executive Branch to set up beefed-up
agencies within their own branches to monitor consumer
matters and to be concerned about the interests of the
consumer in their particular bailiwicks.
We also discussed the housing bill. The Secretary
of HUD, Mrs. Hills, was present and outlined in some
detail the provisions of the housing bill. The indication
was that there will be a veto of that housing bill.
Senator Scott?
MORE
(OVER)
BRAR
- 2 -
SENATOR SCOTT: On the matter of crime legis-
lation, the President and the Attorney General briefed us
on a coming message which will address itself to
matters already under consideration in the Senate, S. 1.
It will recommend revisions of the Federal
code. It will involve some very tough recommendations
designed to promote domestic tranquility. It recognizes
the serious nature of increases in crime.
The program will be a strong message that
will involve recommendations for mandatory prison
sentences, particulary in the areas of violent crimes
and recidivists.
There may be provisions barring parole in
certain instances. There will be exceptions for
obvious and humanitarian reasons -- the mentally
defective, the fringe involvements, those under 18 and
so forth.
It is expected there will be recommendations
for mandatory provisions having to do with skyjacking
and drug dealing, for example.
The problem for improving the offices of
prosecutors and of dealing more effectively with
recidivists will be taken up. There will be no requests
for registration for guns of gun owners and whatever
provisions will be in there are yet to be developed, other
than that.
There will be some strict standards for sentencing
by judges. I, as a former prosecutor, made the point that
I think the greatest flawsin the criminal justice system
probably are lenient judges, such as one judge in Washington
with hundreds of cases who has not yet, I believe, sentenced
anyone to prison as a violator, or, if so, in an extra-
ordinarily limited number of cases.
We will try to comprise these suggestions in the
present S. 1 in the Senate, and it may well include, as I
said, Federal rules on civil procedure. We regard
criminal law enforcement in large part as still a problem
under the laws of the cities and States, and we believe
that the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration Act is
working, and is useful, and is helpful.
We also may be asked to consider provisions for
compensation of victims of crime, such as 12 States
already have.
MORE
- 3 -
Q
Could you elaborate on that phrase,
"mandatory provisions for skyjacking and drug dealing"?
How tough will the mandatory provisions be?
SENATOR SCOTT: We are only told that they
will be tough, that they will recommend that judges be
required to impose mandatory sentences upon conviction.
Q Isn't there an optional death sentence
now for skyjacking, optional? Is that right, sir?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think that is right.
Q
It is not mandatory?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think it is optional. It
requires a finding.
Q
When is this going to Congress?
SENATOR SCOTT: Hopefully this week.
Q
Why will the housing bill be vetoed, and
how much money is in that?
CONGRESSMAN RHODES: It is very hard to cost
it out, Helen. There are so many programs that involve
commitments in future years. The main reason for the
veto is that the provisions do not appear to really be cal-
culated to take care of the problem.
It is not a well-considered bill, and we are
also told that the housing starts which we can expect
for the balance of the year, according to the best fore-
casts, are such that again, perhaps the impact of the
bill will come just at the time when the starts are
picking up anyway and might possibly have a deleterious
effect on the inflationary side of the economy.
MORE
FORD i 93 LIBRARY
- 4 -
Q
Will this give help to about 400,000
middle income people?
CONGRESSMAN RHODES: There are provisions
for subsidies for interest which would; I believe
the limitation is such that about 400,000 mortgages
could possibly come under that.
There will be a substitute bill prepared,
by the way, which we assume will accompany the veto
message. The Administration is not unmindful of the
need for housing legislation, but it would not care
to have this particular bill become law.
SENATOR SCOTT: And the need for foreclosure
assistance.
Q
Is this bill now on the President's
desk?
CONGRESSMAN RHODES: It is.
Q
When is he expected to veto it?
CONGRESSMAN RHODES: He has until the 24th.
Q What is the price tag on that bill?
CONGRESSMAN RHODES: I don't think it is
possible to price it out. There are various
contingencies involved. The best estimate is around
$2 billion, I am told.
Q Are those the only three subjects that
you mentioned, the only subjects discussed?
SENATOR SCOTT: They are the only three
subjects, so questions on any other subjects would be,
actually, super arrogation. (Laughter.)
Q Who was the Judge in Washington you
were referring to?
SENATOR SCOTT: I don't remember his name.
He was referred to by one of the Members of the House, I
believe, in the meeting today, and someone said, as
I recall it, there were 72 cases without a single jail
sentence -- one went to jail out of 72. I don't know
what he did to offend that judge.
Q
Why is he against registering guns?
SENATOR SCOTT: The President didn't say why
he was against it, but I believe that as a Member of
Congress he had long held that same position that
legitimate owners of guns are not the criminals involved.
MORE
- 5 -
Q
Legitimate owners of the kinds of weapons
which do not figure generally in crime; it is not like
these short guns, particularly in cities.
Q
LBJ said he couldn't understand. You know,
if you register for fishing licenses and so forth, what
is the real objection?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think the real objection is
the very great fear which is expressed constantly in
Pennsylvania by thousands of people, that it would lead
to strong government interference into their rights
under the Constitution to bear arms, and would lead under
certain kinds of governments to a seizure of citizens'
weapons and that it does not serve a purpose of crime
prevention.
Most of the people who write me, for example,
would favor increasing penalties and new criminal statutes
imposing additional penalties for crimes committed with
a weapon. They are for law enforcement, but they are
very fearful that a strong and authoritarian-minded
government someday might seize the citizen's means of
defending himself against a form of tyrannist oppression.
Q
Do you believe that? Are you against
the registration yourself?
SENATOR SCOTT: I think it could happen.
Q
Are you against registration?
SENATOR SCOTT: I am against registration of
guns for legitimate owners, yes, but I would not be
against the so-called Saturday night special sort of
thing. I would think if properly drawn we could have
such legislation. That is my personal opinion.
Q
Senator, the subject of the latest
endorsement of the Vice President didn't come up today,
I guess?
SENATOR SCOTT: No, the Vice President was there
and he and the President seemed quite happy with each
other. (Laughter.) I think there is a continuance of
a joyful and cherished situation.
Q
I notice all that joviality this morning.
What is the cause of that?
SENATOR SCOTT: Everybody likes each other, and
aside from that, I think we have some reason to feel
that we are the only cohesive force in town. (Laughter.)
After all, there is a joke, you know -- the difference
between the new Democratic Members of the House and
the Boy Scout troop in that the Boy Scout troop is led
by adults.
MORE
- 6 -
Q
You have even lost all your attack. I
always expect you to come up here and slash at the
Democrats.
SENATOR SCOTT: We love most of them for their
mistakes. (Laughter.)
Q
This brings up a question, and I am not
exactly sure how to word it, but you say you didn't
talk about anything but these three subjects?
SENATOR SCOTT: That is right.
Q
The country is facing this energy crisis,
for months now, all year. There have been weekly trips
down to the White House by the Republicans and by the
bipartisan leadership. They come out and say that things
are looking good, we are on the same track, we are going
to get this thing worked out.
Here we are. Not a thing is worked out in
energy. Are you ever going to get anything done on
the Hill?
SENATOR SCOTT: My dear interlocutory friend,
I would point out that practically every meeting we
have held has been on energy. There are times when
you do have to veer and take other subjects up. All
our other meetings seem to have been on energy or foreign
policy. We have not said all is well. We have said
the President has a program for energy.
I have said several times now that Congress has not
produced enough energy to light a five-watt bulb. It
is true. I know in the Senate they are desperately
searching for an energy bill, any energy bill to put
on the calendar next week. Almost anything as an
excuse will do, but no energy legislation is being
enacted for one reason -- that is the Congress has
not got the guts to demand sacrifices from the American
people.
You will not conserve energy. You will not
find alternative sources of energy without being prepared
for sacrifices, and I am prepared to vote for them.
Q
What will be the outcome of this if they
are not prepared? They are in control.
SENATOR SCOTT: I think the public has to
summon its patience, if not its tolerance, and realize
that behind the green curtain they brought this disaster
upon themselves. They elected an uncontrollable landslide
of ebullient but ineffective would-be legislators who
have fallen flat on their faces, collectively, and in
many cases individually. The thump has been heard
throughout Washington.
MORE
- 7 -
Q
Congressman, what is the state of the aid
to Turkey situation in the House now?
CONGRESSMAN RHODES: Actually, there appears
to be no action in the House at all on the subject. There
have been various meetings. We could discuss that, too,
because we have many times. But thus far there is no
sign of any movement. The majority seems to just be
content to rock along on this as they appear to be
rocking along on a lot of other subjects that are of
importance to the country.
Q
Was this recent announcement by Turkey
this morning -- do you think that will make any difference
on Capitol Hill?
CONGRESSMAN RHODES: I can't really be sure.
I don't know what will impress these people. I have not
been able to find the formula yet.
SENATOR SCOTT: They better take that announcement
from Turkey very seriously because action is imminent.
Q
Gentlemen, the President is giving a speech,
even as we speak now, on the economy. He is saying
that the recession is at an end. The indicators indicate
this?
SENATOR SCOTT: It is pretty much indicators,
right.
Q
What are you getting from back home? Do
you think the recession is over? Do you think the people
really believe the recession is over?
SENATOR SCOTT: I would say my mail shows
an increasing number of people feel we are bottoming
out. They are thinking in terms of the future and,
hopefully, of a better future. The stressful note
is lessening in the mail that I am getting and the
three-month indicators are working.
I told the leaders of Japanese industry last
October -- and I met with almost all of the heads of
Ibotsu -- I thought we would start coming out of the
recession in June or July in the following year -- that
is now -- and the people would recognize that about
September. I still think that estimate is on target.
CONGRESSMAN RHODES: There seems to be a great
resurgence of consumer confidence, at least in the mail
I get. I don't know whether it has made itself manifest
in the retail sales figures, but my feeling as to the
reaction of my people in my own district is that they do
feel that the recession has bottomed out.
FORD
THE PRESS: Thank you, gentlemen.
LIBRARY
END
(AT 10:05 A.M. EDT)