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
4526468
label
Grand Rapids Roundtable, November 3, 1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4526468
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Grand Rapids Roundtable, November 3, 1972
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Speeches
subjects
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Education
Legislation
Welfare
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4526468
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1972-11-30
month
11
year
1972
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1972-11-01
month
11
year
1972
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
5c725e6fbe227912
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D34, folder "Grand Rapids Roundtable,
November 3, 1972" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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.
Digitized from Box D34 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
Excerpts from a Speech by Rep. Gerald R. Ford before the Grand Rapids Roundtable, 12
Noon Friday, Nov. 3, 1972.
The
record of the
92nd Congress was a spotty one, a mixed bag of
outstanding achievements and miserable failures.
On the deficit side one must count
Congress' tragic failure to
reform
the present scandalous welfare system.
Critics seeking political advantage have pointed to the tremendous expansion in
welfare
rolls in charges leveled against the Administration. The irony is
refused to enact
that it is these critics who
the Administration 's
welfare reform plan.
of course, welfare rolls have swelled. Under the existing program, enrollment
increased 147 per cent and total Federal, state and local costs tripled during the
Sixties. There was another 28 per cent increase in the rolls between April 1970 and
April 1971, bringing the total number of recipients to more than 10 million. This cost
more
than half a billion
dollars a month.
Now let me emphasize this: President Nixon's
welfare reform plan would have
reduced total welfare outlays by $700 million in its first year
of operation, and
those savings would have grown greater in future years.
The President S program would have drastically curtailed the growing food stamp
program, would have enabled
states to save money by cutting their own welfare
benefit levels, and would haveimposed strict Federal safeguards against welfare fraud.
Now the President S welfare reform program is dead. And whatever else happens to
welfare costs, you
can be sure that the Federal government
will
be stuck with
most of the bill and the taxpayer will be stuck with all of it.
The President's welfare reform
strategy was designed to get people off
welfare rolls and onto payrolls. It was a program of workfare in place of welfare.
It would have provided the poor with what they need most to get out of poverty--money.
It would have helped to hold families together, not drive them apart as the present
welfare system does.
The House passed welfare reform legislation twice. It died in the Senate. That
was tragic-for those on welfare and for all of the American people.
Let me also set the record straight in another respect--that of Federal
outlays PER FORD LIBRARY
for education and my own voting record on education bills.
-2-
In the eyes of the big spenders, my voting record on education is poor.
What are the facts?
I veted against the original Health-Education-and-Welfare Department bill passed by
the House
because it was $1.7 billion over the President S budget. And I later
voted against a revised H.E.W. appropriation bill because it was still $835.8 million
over the budget.
Is this unreasonable?
Is this
being hard-hearted with
education?
The President's budget request for the education items in the H.E.W. money bill was
25 per cent over the comparable 1969 level, and this does not include higher education
or a request this year for a billion-dollar program of emergency school assistance for
elementary and secondary education.
Ellementary and Secondary Education Act funds have grown by about one-third since
1969.
Vocational and adult education funds have nearly doubled. And the appropriation
for education for the handicapped has increased nearly 50 per cent.
Programs carried under the heading, "Educational Renewal," have grown more than
100 per cent since 1969.
There was no justification for the huge increases tacked onto the H.E.W. appropriation
bill in the House and in the Senate. So I voted against the bill, and I support the
President's veto of
this legislation.
In the nearly four years that President Nixon has been in office, the Administration's
budgets for the Office of Education have totalled $19.6 billion--a 32 per cent increase
over the $14.9 billion requested in the preceding four Presidential budgets.
Office of Education appropriations during the past three years come to $13.5 billion,
or a 17 per cent increase over the $11.5 billion appropriated during the last three
years of the Johnson Administration.
One of the blotches on the record of the 92nd Congress was its penchant for
excessive Federal spending. I opposed irresponsible spending measures. I am determined
that we must curb inflation and try to tave off a tax increase.
The H.E.W. money bill was a perfect example of the kind of Federal spending that
cannet be carried out without more taxes or inflation. This kind of spending ultimately
means a cut in the purchasing power of every American family-and in my book there is
no higher priority than
continued expansion of our purchasing power.
I am opposed to higher taxes, and I am opposed to higher prices. I favor expanded
funding for education, but in the
scale of my priorities the fight against
higher prices and higher taxes comes first.
#######