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
24200853
label
Office of Management and Budget - General (5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24200853
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Office of Management and Budget - General (5)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Office of Management and Budget. (07/01/1970 - )
Federal budget
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24200853
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-01
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-12-01
month
12
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
2baa45079c7fa2e2
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 36, folder "Office of Management and Budget -
General (5)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
mis
July 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
P.
Attached is correspondence between Chrysler and GSA concerning
GSA's interpretation and implementation of the Buy American Act.
Insofar as GSA and DOD have procurement regulations which
treat differently the same Canadian auto products, I believe it
would be appropriate for the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy to look into this issue. I do not favor one interpretation
over the other, but I do wonder whether the Federal Government
should have such inconsistencies in its procurement policy.
GERAL,
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
P.
Attached is correspondence between Chrysler and GSA concerning
GSA's interpretation and implementation of the Buy American Act.
Insofar as GSA and DOD have procurement regulations which
treat differently the same Canadian auto products, I believe it
would be appropriate for the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy to look into this issue. I do not favor one interpretation
over the other, but I do wonder whether the Federal Government
should have such inconsistencies in its procurement policy.
CERALD
?
ares
May 26, 1976
Mr. W. C. Hoffarth
General Services Administration
Federal Supply Service
Crystal Mall, Bldg. 4, Room 921
Washington, D.C. 20406
Dear Bill:
Chrysler Corporation continues to be quite concerned over certain
aspects of the Buy American Act, specifically as they apply to our
medium tonnage trucks built at our Windsor Truck Plant in Canada.
It would be greatly appreciated if you could clarify to us GSA's
rulings in certain areas of this Act which have posed a problem to
our company and are directly responsible for our failing to respond
to certain solicitations.
First, a clarification of the word "component" as used in the Buy
American Act is requested. It is Chrysler's position that truck
models assembled at the Windsor Truck Plant which contain more than
50% U.S. -manufactured parts and assemblies, which are subsequently
shipped to a domestic body builder for completion and whose value
exceeds 50% of the completed unit, should not be considered as a
single foreign-made component subject to a 6% penalty.
Secondly, an explanation of GSA's position that a complete unit,
manufactured at the Windsor Truck Plant and containing more than 50%
U.S. -made components, be subjected to a 6% penalty. Chrysler
Corporation's viewpoint is that such a vehicle should not be assessed
an additional 6% at the time of bid evaluation based on the fact that
the majority of parts, assemblies, and components are U.S.-produced.
Finally, Chrysler must take issue with GSA's apparent position that it
is more important where a vehicle is assembled rather than the per-
centage of domestically produced parts, assemblies, and components
used in the final unit. The basic intent of the Buy American Act
appears open to question when it is possible to have a vehicle assembled
domestically and containing 51% U.S. components considered a "domestic
end product" but yet have a Windsor-produced unit with 75% U.S. content
be considered foreign and subject to a 6% penalty.
FORD
GERALD
1100 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
GSA's rulings and interpretations concerning the Buy American Act
as set forth in the Federal Procurement Regulations not only serve
to restrict bidding but also appear to be in direct conflict with the
U.S.-Canadian Automotive Trade Agreement, one of the purposes of which
is to expand trade in automotive products between the United States
and Canada. In addition, the military (TACOM) accepts Windsor-built
vehicles, regardless of percentage of content, the same as domestically
produced vehicles with no penalty of any type imposed.
Your statements and clarifications regarding the foregoing points would
be of great assistance. Thank you for your continued cooperation.
Very truly yours,
F. R. Henderson
Manager, Federal Government
Vehicle Sales
FRH:msh
cc: Mr. Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Hon. William S. Broomfield
The Hon. Elford A. Cederberg
Mr. Calvin J. Collier
Chairman, Federal Trade Commission
FORD & 03RALD LIBRARY
1100 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
JUN 15 1976
Mr. F. R. Henderson
Manager, Federal Government Vehicle Sales
Chrysler Motors Corporation
1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, D. C. 20036
Dear Frank:
This is in response to your letter dated May 26, 1976, regarding
our position on the application of the Buy American Act to vehicles
assembled in Canada.
Canadian goods and other foreign items are being evaluated in
accordance with the Buy American Act as 1t is implemented by the
Federal Procurement Regulations, FPR Subpart 1-6.1.
Under FPR Section 1-6,101(a), the term, "Components" 1s defined
as "...articles, materials and supplies which are directly incor-
porated in end products". In the case of manufactured products
the Buy American Act is applied to the end product itself and
to the components directly incorporated in the end product, but
is not applied to the supplies that are used in the manufacture
of such component. Thus, an end product, in accordance with
1-6.101 (d), 1s domestic in origin if (1) it is manufactured in
the United States and (2) the cost of its components which are
manufactured in the United States exceeds 50 percent of the cost
of all its components.
If a completed vehicle is manufactured in Canada, it will be
considered foreign regardless of the percentage of its domestic
components or supplies. Similarly, if a component is manufactured
in Canada it will also be viewed as a foreign component regardless
of the percentage of domestic supplies which were used in manufacturing
the component.
In instances where your firm indicates that it will offer a vehicle
that is partially built in Canada, such as & cab and chassis, and
then shipped into the United States for mounting of a body or
other components and the value of the body or other components
1s less than 50 percent of the total cost of the completed vehicle,
the Buy American differential will be applicable because the
Canadian produced cab and chassis is a foreign component and the
value of the component exceeds 50 percent of the total cost of
the vehicle.
&
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
2
In regard to your statement that our interpretation of the Buy
American Act restricts competition, I cell to your attention
our previous conversations wherein you were advised that one of
your major competitors also builds its cab and chassis in Canada
and the Buy American differential is applied. The purpose of
our conversation, from my viewpoint, was an attempt to convince
your firm to bid its Canadian built vehicles to induce competition
since both bids would be evaluated equally as far as the Buy
American differential was concerned.
Further, we do not find that our application of the Buy Ameri can
differential to Canadian built vehicles is in conflict with the
United States-Canadian Automotive Trade Agreement of January 16, 1965,
(Congressional Record of January 22, 1965, Vol. III - Part 1, Page
1061). The agreement between the United States and Canada concerning
automotive products appears to be primarily directed towards the
liberalization of United States and Canadian automotive trade
through the alimination of customs duties and related tariff barriers.
In our opinion, however, nothing in the agreement nor in the
Automotive Products Trade Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1016), providing
for the implementation of the agreement, affords a basis for our
disregard of the provisions of the Buy American Act and Executive
Order No. 10582 in connection with automotive procurements. In
fact, we consider the "Agreement" as applying to normal commercial
trade rather than to Government procurements.
We are aware that the Department of Defense, particularly for
vehicles purchased for the military through TACOM, does not consider
Canadian built vehicles as foreign made items and therefore does
not apply the Buy American Act to them. However, the Department
of Defense and the General Services Administration are governed
by two separate sets of regulations, which are respectively, the
Armed Services Procurement Regulations (ASPR) and the Federal
Procurement Regulations (FPR). As stated in ASPR Section 6-103.5,
the Secretaries of the Department of Defense have determined that,
with certain exceptions, application of the Buy American Act
restrictions to Canadian goods would be inconsistent with the
public interest. However, the Administrator of the General Services
Administration has not made such a determination, and the FPR
treats Canadian goods as any other foreign goods (FPR Section
1-6.101).
We understand that you are seeking to obtain a similar implementation
of the Buy American Act under the Federal Procurement Regulations
through channels other than this office. II you are successful
in obtaining a change in our regulations, this office, of course,
a
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
3
will evaluate future offers in accordance with any such revision.
However, our present decision 1s as stated in the preceding paragraphs.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter please
contact us.
Sincerely,
(Signed) W. C. Hoffarth
W. C. HOFFARTH
Chief, Heavy Vehicles Branch
cc: Official File - Buy American Act
Reading File - FYPH
FY
FYP
LPO
FB
FV - Mr. Philip G. Read
FPP
WCH/14/76 :WCHOFFARTH :npb :16-78188 :6/14/76
CONCURRENCE:
LPO HDG 6/15/76
DATE
FYP H.G.Higden
DATE 6/15/70
FORD & 0ERALD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
July 26
400pm
Date:
Time:
FOR ACTION:
Dick Parsons
CC (for information): Jack Marsh
Ken Lazarus
Jim Cavanaugh
Robert Hartmann
Ed Schmults
Max Friedersdorf
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: July 27
Time: 930am
SUBJECT:
First 1977 Special Message under the Impoundment
Control Act of 1974
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
please return to judy johnston, ground floor west wing
Counsel's Office has no strong objection to this rescission proposal
but requests that the President be advised that Senator Hruska
(ranking Republican on the relevant Senate Appropriations Sub-
committee) has communicated his opposition to the proposal (copy
of letter attached). In view of Senator Hruska's position and the
absence of authority to reserve any of these funds due to the unique
nature of the Corporation, the proposal can only have symbolic utility --
there is simply no chance of Congressional acceptance of the proposed
rescission.
Ken Lazarus 7/27/76
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
FORD Libe
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
James M. Cannon
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
1976
SIGNATURE
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
James T Lynn
SUBJECT:
First 1977 Special Message under
the Impoundment Control Act of 1974
The first 1977 special message under the Impoundment Control
Act of 1974 is attached for your signature.
In the message, you propose rescission of $45 million appropri-
ated above your $80 million budget request for payment to the
Legal Services Corporation (LSC). The funds were appropriated
in the State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act, 1977 (P.L. 94-362).
The rescission proposal would, if accepted by the Congress,
have the following program effects: (1) prevent increased
grantee staff salaries, (2) prevent expansion of LSC's admin-
istrative staff, and (3) delay greater geographic coverage for
the program until evaluations are completed by LSC for all of
its existing legal services grantees. The proposed rescission
would also reduce outlays in 1977 by $40 million and 1978 by
$5 million.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that this proposal be transmitted to the Congress
not later than July 28, 1976. The timing of transmittal for
this proposed rescission has a special sensitivity. Our General
Counsel is of the opinion that funds appropriated for payment
to LSC (an independent, non-profit corporation) may not be
reserved by OMB. In order for the 45 day congressional considera-
tion period to be completed before the funds become available on
October 1, 1976, the proposed rescission must be transmitted
before the beginning of August.
Attachment
FORD
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
In accordance with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974,
I herewith propose rescission of $45 million in budget
authority appropriated for payment to the Legal Services
Corporation.
Approval of this rescission proposal will reduce Federal
spending by $45 million over 1977 and 1978. The proposed
rescission would prevent unneeded expansion of Legal Services
Corporation activities and delay greater geographic coverage
until program evaluations are completed.
The details of the proposed rescission are contained in
the attached report.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
sano
CONTENTS OF SPECIAL MESSAGE
(in thousands of dollars)
Rescis-
Budget
sion #
Item
Authority
Other Independent Agencies
Legal Services Corporation
R77-1
Payment to the Legal Services
Corporation
45,000
Summary of Special Messages
for FY 1977
(Amounts in thousands of dollars)
Rescissions Deferrals 1/
First special message
45,000
1/ Deferrals for fiscal 1977 cannot be proposed until October 1,
1976, in accordance with section 1013 of P.L. 93-344.
Rescission Proposal No:
R77-1
PROPOSED RESCISSION OF BUDGET AUTHORITY
Report Pursuant to Section 1012 of P.L. 93-344
Agency
Legal Services Corporation
New budget authority
$125,000,000
Bureau
(P.L. 94-362 )
Other budgetary resources
Appropriation title & symbol
Total budgetary resources
125,000,000
Payment to the Legal Services
Corporation - 8160501
Amount proposed for
rescission
$ 45,000,000
OMB identification code:
Legal authority (in addition to sec. 1012):
31-22-0501-0-1-751
Antideficiency Act
Grant program
X
Yes
No
Other
Type of account or fund:
Type of budget authority:
X
Annual
X
Appropriation
Multiple-year
Contract authority
(expiration date)
No-year
Other
Justification
A rescission of appropriation authority under Section 1012 of the Impound-
ment Control Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) is proposed for $45 million for the
Legal Services Corporation (LSC) The funds for LSC were appropriated in
the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act, 1977 (P.L. 94-362).
For fiscal year 1977 LSC requested, independent of the Administration,
a $60.3 million budget increase (above the $80 million Administration
request) primarily to fund higher grantee attorney salaries and adminis-
trative expenses and expand the legal services programs' geographic
coverage. The Administration's budget request for LSC was made in the
context of other competing priorities within the 1977 Budget.
This rescission for the additional amount appropriated over the Budget
reflects the following considerations:
(1) In its first year of existence (1976) the Corporation received
a 29% increase in its appropriation level over the previous
year's funding for the legal services program. The 1977 add-on
represents another 35% increase over the 1976 appropriation.
(2) Factors which should reduce the 1977 funding level below the B.
FORD
Prior to 1976, the legal services program was administered QUEALO by
1976 appropriated level include:
the Community Services Administration.
2
(a) One-time costs in 1976 which will not need to
be incurred in 1977, such as start-up organiza-
tional costs, special projects (e.g., back-up
center study), and non-recurring supplemental
funding for certain grantees.
(b) Savings which should be achieved in 1977 by
directly conducting activities formerly
handled by back-up centers.
(c) Reduced administrative costs for grantees due
to the greater availability of well-qualified
lawyers in the labor market.
(3) Administrative overhead costs are projected by LSC to rise
by over 80% in only two years at a time when reductions in
such costs for regular Federal agencies have been urged by
the President and within the Congress.
(4) Consideration by the Congress should be given to other sources
of legal services for those who cannot afford private counsel.
For example, under authority of Section 308 of Title III of
the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, $1,125,000 of
fiscal year 1977 funds have been reserved for the development
of State level legal services activities for the aging. In
addition, legal services programs can be sponsored by State
and local governments through the Social Services (Title XX)
and General Revenue Sharing programs. Private sponsorship
of legal services (e.g., State and local legal aid societies,
foundations, donated legal assistance, reduced fees for low
income clients, etc.) should also be reviewed before major
funding increases are approved for LSC.
(5) The Administration has urged that prior to any significant
expansion of the legal services program, LSC evaluate its
existing legal services grantees. Such evaluations, subject
to public comment and review, should use standardized criteria
and appraise grantees' quality, determine their needs, and
assess the resources available from alternate providers.
Furthermore, LSC's mandated studies on the existing staff-
attorney program and alternative methods of delivery of
legal services should also be completed in fiscal year
1977 before additional programs are funded.
FORD
3
Estimated Effects
This rescission proposal for $45 million will prevent increased
grantee staff salaries and an expansion of LSC's administrative
staff. Greater geographic coverage for the program will be
delayed until evaluations based on standardized criteria are
completed by LSC for all of its existing legal services grantees.
Outlay Effect (estimated in millions of dollars)
Comparison with President's 1977 Budget:
1. Budget outlay estimate for 1977
82.8
2. Outlay savings, if any, included in the budget
outlay estimate
-0-
Current Outlay Estimates for 1977:
3. Without rescission
125.7
4. With rescission
85.7
5. Current outlay savings (line 3-line 4)
40.0
Outlay Savings for 1978
5.0
Outlay Savings for 1979
-0-
R77-1
4
RELATED AGENCIES
Legal Services Corporation
PAYMENT TO THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Of the funds appropriated under this head in the Departments
of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act, 1977, to enable the Department
of the Treasury to make payment to the Legal Services Corpora-
tion to carry out the purposes of the Legal Services Corpora-
tion Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-355), $45,000,000 are rescinded.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
7/26/76
TO: JIM CAVANAUGH
Robert RDL D. Linder
OMB
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 27, 1976
Dear Roman:
This is in response to your letter of July 22, relating to the
Fiscal 1977 appropriation for the Legal Services Corporation.
Pursuant to your request, the President has been apprised of
your opposition to a rescission of the $45 million appropriated
above the $80 million budget request. Additionally, I wanted
to advise you of the fact that due to the unique nature of the
Legal Services Corporation, OMB has not reserved and does
not intend to reserve any of the funds appropriated to the
Corporation, an independent, non-profit entity. Thus, even
assuming a rescission proposal under the Impoundment
Control Act of 1974, the full appropriation will be available
to the Corporation, absent affirmative Congressional action,
as of October 1, 1976, the first day of the new fiscal year.
I shall arrange to have you informed as soon as a decision is
reached on the rescission proposal.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Thil
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Roman L. Hruska
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
cc: Max Friedersdorf - For Direct follow-up when decision is
reached on the rescission proposal.
Jim Lynn - FYI
JOHN L. MCCLELLA ARK., CHAIRMAN
warrans. MAGNUSON, WASH.
MILTON R. YOUNG, N. DAK.
JOHN =. STENNIS, MISS.
ROMAN L. HRUSKA, NEBR.
JOHN D. PASTORE, R.L
CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J.
PURCEPT C. AYRD. W.VA.
HIRAM L. FONG, HAWAII
vvo.
EDWARD W. BROOKE, MASS,
MONE
MARE MATTIELO 0173.
Minited States Benate
28, WIS.
TED ALASKA
MONTOYA, N. MEX.
CHARLES NCC MATHIAS. JR., MD
DANIEL K. INCUYE, HAWAII
RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, PA.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C.
HENRY BELLMON, OKLA.
BIRCH SAYH, IND.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, MO.
LAWTON CHILES, FLA.
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, LA.
WALTER D. HODOLESTON, KY.
July 22, 1976
JAMES R. CALLOWAY
CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
Mr. Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Phil:
It is my understanding that the President may recommend
rescission of $45 million from the Fiscal 1977 appropriation for the
Legal Services Corporation. This would mean a proposed reduction
from $125 million to $80 million.
Your good offices were most helpful in the recent decision
not to propose a rescission of the Corporations $4.3 million Fiscal 1976
supplemental appropriation. I am again asking your assistance to head
off this latest action.
As the ranking Republican member of the responsible appropria-
tion subcommittee, I have given careful attention to the Corporations
request. I know the board chairman personally and have consulted
carefully with him regarding the program's plans and funding levels.
Although I had reservations about the authorizing legislation, I am
convinced that the program is operating responsibly within the law.
The $125 million appropriation has my support. It is a responsible
level for the forthcoming fiscal year.
Although I understand the difficult budget priority choices
facing the President, I do not believe this proposed rescission is
constructive. I do hope my concern will receive careful consideration.
With kind personal regards,
Sincerely,
Roman L. Hruska
is
FORD
United States Senator
Nebraska
GERALD
RLH:dpj
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGION
LOG NO.: OMB
Date:
July 31, 1976
Time:
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information):
Jim Cannon
Max Friedersdorf
Jack Marsh
Phil Buchen
Alan Greenspan
Dave Gergen
Bob Hartmann
Jim Lynn
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Tuesday, August 3
Time: 10 A.M.
SUBJECT:
Brent Scowcroft memo 7/31/76 re
Defense Budget Message
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
I favor the middle option of forwarding a message
that outlines only a more limited supplemental.
T.W.B.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Jim Connor
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
MEMORANDUN
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
ACTION
CONFIDENTIAL - GDS
July 31, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
BRENT SCOWCROFT
B
SUBJECT:
Defense Budget Message
Jim Lynn has forwarded to you the attached defense budget message
asking Congress for a $2. 4 billion reinstatement of deleted FY 1977
programs, a $1. 1 billion cut of those unrequested funds added by the
Congress, and $1. 4 billion in additional funding to cover legislative
inaction on our various defense economy proposals and a new request
for recruiting funding.
I strongly support the programs for which funding is requested, but I do
believe I should point out the possibility of some political difficulties
which could be created by the all-inclusive aspect of the message in its
present form. Therefore, in weighing your decision, I believe you should
consider the following factors.
There are two general public perceptions of the defense budget -- the
positive aspect of security and the negative element of high costs.
Based upon the FY 1977 Defense Authorization Bill which you recently
signed, we are on particularly strong ground on both of these aspects.
The defense budget provides for important improvements in U.S. military
capability across the board, in land, sea, and air forces for strategic and
general purpose roles. This argument is solid even given the changes made
in certain programs (most notably shipbuilding) by Congress. For the first
time in almost a decade, you have (in FY 1976 and FY 1977) increased our
annual real dollar investment in national defense.
On the cost side, we have taken steps to save over $3 billion next year
alone and $23 billion in the next five years through various economy
measures. To the extent that Congress fails to act on that portion of these
items requiring new legislation, we have a strong argument to take to the
public as to Presidential budgetary restraint and Congressional inaction
and perpetuation of inefficiency.
CONFIDENTIAL - GDS
WHM 5/8/00
GERALD
CONFIDENTIAL - GDS
2
We will maintain this dual position of strength whether or not there is
a budget supplemental. Turning to the supplemental itself, I am con-
cerned that its net results could turn out to be negative, While there is
no doubt we are on strong ground in this message regarding such program
as the AEGIS ships, the inclusion of virtually all the items cut from the
original request ($2. 4 billion out of approximately $2. 9 billion) may aliena
borderline supporters in Congress. This package would seem to constitute
a degree of argument with legislative budget adjustments unprecedented in
recent history. By strong implication we are saying that all our requests
were critically important and none of the Congressional action was tolerab
in other words, it is a 100 percent insistence on our judgment. This
potentially antagonistic implication is reinforced by the message's challeng
that Congress additionally delete the $1. 1 billion in programs added to our
original request or accept responsibility for their cost implications when
added on top of our own large reclama.
A resubmission of this size and at this time could hamper our otherwise
strong position that Congress has not exercised fiscal constraint and is
risking renewed inflationary trends. You have told Congress and the
public that the defense economies we proposed are critical and must be
acted upon now in order to allow savings in FY 1977. You have already
sent the Congress a strong message on this in your signing statement for
the FY 77 Defense Authorization Bill.
Conversely, limiting your reclama to the really critical items -- the
AEGIS ships (DDG-47 destroyer) and the CSGN Nuclear Strike Cruiser
advanced procurement funding--would highlight your ongoing and forceful
actions to continue to improve our military capability. It would dramatize
your position on strengthening capability and at the same time reduce the
negative aspects of budget size. In sum, it may be that to include restor-
ation of the many other small program cuts is not worth the potential
political price.
RECOMMENDATION
That you indicate your decision on the attached budget supplemental messag
Approve the message (sign the message at Tab A)
Forward a message outlining a more limited supplemental
(AEGIS and economies).
Defer sending a message.
CONFIDENTIAL - GDS
OMB
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 6, 1976
Dear Mr. Andersen:
This is in response to your letter of July 15 regarding
the proposed Omaha Federal Office building.
As you know, the Office of Management and Budget is
charged with the responsibility of reviewing such
proposals. Accordingly, I have referred your letter
to that office for a substantive response. I under-
stand OMB conducts a careful and detailed review of
such proposals, which takes some time. However, they
have assured me that they will proceed diligently on
this matter.
Thank you for your expression of interest in this
proposal, and please give my personal regards to
Jim Paxson.
Sincerely,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
Mr. Harold W. Andersen
President
Omaha World-Herald
World-Herald Square
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON D.C. 20503
AUG 5 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: PHILIP BUCHEN
FROM:
DANIEL P. KEARNEY
SUBJECT:
Public Inquiry - Harold W. Andersen
We received a letter similar to the attached from Mr. Andersen
directly. We have prepared a reply, a copy of which is also
attached. Since Mr. Andersen has gone to the trouble of
sending at least three letters on this subject, we thought
that a more satisfactory response from his point of view
would be to send the one substantive response from OMB, and
acknowledgement responses from the other persons to whom he
has written directly. For your convenience, we have attached
an acknowledgement response for your signature.
Attachments
#251 ADLES
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 26, 1976
plearmy
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PAUL O NEILL
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
)
Could you please advise me on
the attached?
Attachment
Omaha Chorld-Berald
The Newspaper of the Midlands
HAROLD W. ANDERSEN
World-Herald Square
President
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
July 15, 1976
(402) 444-1000
Mr. Philip W. Buchen
White House Counsel
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. Buchen:
I have written James Lynn and Richard Cheney to ask their help in
expediting an Omaha federal office building. At the suggestion of Jim
Paxson, known to you through his efforts to preserve President Ford's
birthsite here in Omaha, I write to ask if you, too, could help to move the
office building project along quickly.
In April, the General Services Administration sent to OMB a prospectus
for a $27,000,000, 321,000-square-foot federal office building and a
$3,600,000 refurbishing of an existing federal office building. GSA had
established a strong need for the project and assigned it a high priority.
For many years The World-Herald has spearheaded efforts to revitalize
downtown Omaha. We believe that the proposed office building is a crucial
part of a major downtown rebuilding effort, stimulated mostly by the private
sector, that could arrest the spread of urban sprawl.
The proposed federal office building would fulfill a demonstrated
need for space for federal agencies. It would also complement the community's
efforts to redevelop the city's core.
Anything you could do to help would be appreciated very much.
Sincerely,
Hand W.
HWA:DK
Harold W. Andersen
is
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF management AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
Mr. Harold W. Andersen
President
Omaha World-Herald
World-Herald Square
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Dear Mr. Andersen:
Thank you for your letter of July 15 to the Director
concerning the proposed Federal office building in
downtown Omaha.
We are presently evaluating the General Services
Administration's prospectus for this project. We
recently requested and received additional data from
GSA to assist us in this assessment. The information
you supplied in your letter on construction activity
in the private sector provides an additional set of
facts which will be helpful.
We appreciate your interest in this proposal as
President of Downtown Omaha, Inc. Thank you for taking
the time to inform us of your views.
Sincerely yours,
Acting Director
11.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Omaha
The
Newspaper
of
the
Midiands
JCGET
CORRESPONDENCE to:
HAROLD W. ANDERSEN
World Herald Square
President
MAN
Control Reply for 10pl
MR. Vegrney Omaha,
Nebraska 68102
July 15, 1976
(402) 444-1000
Mr. James T. Lynn
Not Due Date:
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Info Copies:
0416 7-30
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. Lynn:
I write to ask for your help in expediting a new federal office building
in downtown Omaha.
The Omaha World-Herald, for many years, has spearheaded efforts to
renovate the downtown area. I know the Ford Administration shares this news-
paper's hope that by revitalizing the nation's central cities, the country can
slow the flight of business to the suburbs and the resultant urban sprawl, with
its adverse effects on energy efficiency, affordable housing and environmental
health.
As president of Downtown Omaha, Inc., an organization of 175 businessmen,
professional people and downtown property owners dedicated to economic development
and promotion, I have taken a special interest in a handful of highly justifiable
construction projects.
The private sector has shown its confidence in the downtown area by
investing more than $120,000,000 since 1965. In the last few weeks, firm plans
have been made for a $14,000,000, 120,000-square-foot state office building and
education center; a $20,000,000, 350,000-square-foot utility company office
building; a 200,000-to-300,000-square-foot office building combined with a
1,000-car parking garage; and a $1,500,000 addition to the convention center.
The prospects for substantial development that would arrest downtown
deterioration are very bright.
We were encouraged to learn that in April the General Services
Administration sent to the Office of Management and Budget a prospectus for a
$27,000,000, 321,000-square-foot federal office building to be built in downtown
Omaha, together with a $3,600,000 refurbishing of an existing federal office
building. GSA had concluded that there was a demonstrated need for the project.
We understand that GSA gave it a very high priority.
The progress of this project through the federal establishment has not
kept pace with the pressure on GSA to find first-class space for several
government agencies. Recently the Missouri River Division of the Army Corps of
Engineers set in motion a move from downtown to a suburban location. GREAT
LIBRARY
Mr. James T. Lynn
July 15, 1976
Page Two
With GSA having publicly announced plans for a new federal office
building in February, 1975, owners of older downtown buildings realize that leases
with federal agencies would be short-term. Therefore, these owners cannot
justify the expense of modifying their buildings for GSA's unique specifications.
If your office could expedite the federal office building, it would not
only be fulfilling a demonstrated need for space, but it would also be playing a
key role in supporting the private redevelopment of our city's core.
We would appreciate anything you can do.
Harrld Sincerely, Harold W. W. Andersen ankrea
HWA: DK
FORD is OFRATO LIBRARY
OMB
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 7, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: BARRY ROTH
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
T.
SUBJECT:
CIA BUILDING
At your request, I did talk to Tony Lapham on
August 3rd about either cutting down the cost
of the proposed project or having his office
render an opinion that, because funds for the
project have already been appropriated, no
prospectus for the building is required. I
assume he will get back in touch with either
you or me on the matter. So that your file is
complete, I enclose the Ogilvie memorandum to
Jack Marsh.
Attachment
FORDO is GERALD LIBRARY
m
B
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 11, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DON OGILVIE
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
T.
Attached is a copy of a memorandum sent to
me by John E. Murphy, Deputy Administrator
of the Agency for International Development.
I would like to arrange a meeting next week
on this subject and would appreciate your
being able to attend. I have also sent a
copy of this to Assistant Attorney General
Scalia and will ask him to participate also.
Attachment
OMB
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 17, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DAN KEARNEY
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN P.W.B
Attached is a recent letter to me from
Judge Noel Fox to which is attached a
letter written to him by Cal Collier
when he was Associate Director for
Economics and Government.
I would appreciate your responding to
Judge Fox with a copy to me.
CC: William Seidman
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 17, 1976
Dear Noel:
After receiving your letter concerning
the court space situation in the new
Federal Building in Grand Rapids, I
immediately passed it on to Mr. Daniel
Kearney, Cal Collier's successor. I
have asked him to respond directly to
you, and he will keep me informed.
Sincerely,
They Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Noel P. Fox
Chief Judge
United States District Court
Western District of Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49502
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 29, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIMCONNOR PHIL BUCHEN
BK
FROM:
BOBBIE KILBERG
THROUGH:
PHILIP BUCHEN P.
SUBJECT:
Quadrennial Commission Report
The Counsel's Office approves Jim Lynn's memo on
the above subject.
However, we would suggest that Peter Peterson's
press conference not be held at the White House
in order to assure that the press clearly under-
stands that the President has not studied or
committed himself to the Committee's recommendations.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
CTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
te: November 29, 1976
Time:
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information):
FYI-Bill Nicholson
Phil Buchen
Alan Greenspan
Jim Cannon
Jerry Jones
Max Friedersdorf
Ron Nessen
Jack Marsh
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Time:
COB Today
SUBJECT:
James T. Lynn memo, 11/29/76 re
Quadrennial Commission Report
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Jim Connor
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
NOV 29 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
James T. Lynn
SUBJECT:
Quadrennial Commission Report
The Quadrennial Commission on Executive, Legislative,
and Judicial Salaries has been operating for several
weeks, and it is clear that the members are doing a
commendably thorough and conscientious job under the
chairmanship of Peter Peterson. They have completed
their public hearings and are now drafting their report.
During this process, the Chairman will be touching base
with key Congressmen and perhaps others. The Commission
is planning to review a first draft within the next few
days and is hoping to have its final meeting on
November 30, with delivery of the printed report shortly
thereafter.
If you concur, Chairman Peterson wants to release the
formal report as soon as it has been delivered to you.
He would like to be able to hold a press conference and
commence, in earnest, a public education compaign con-
cerning the desperate need to do something about execu-
tive and judicial compensation. For this purpose, he
really will need to be free to use the Commission's
report.
We believe it is in your best interests to let the report
go public in advance of submitting your own executive
salary recommendations in the budget. Mr. Peterson is
willing, and it would seem preferable, to let the expected
controversy focus on him for a month or more before you
make your recommendations. Of course, if asked, you
probably would want to indicate your continued support
for some adjustment without committing yourself to any-
thing very specific. This provides time for you to better
gauge public and media reaction and to consult with the
congressional leadership on your recommendations. Chairman
Peterson would expect to do what he can to enlist under-
standing and support both prior to and after your decision
and up to the point of congressional action on your recom-
mendations.
2
The main argument for withholding a report such as this
would be to give you time to review it and formulate a
position before its release. In this case, there seem
no compelling reasons for doing SO. On the contrary,
because of the great interest in the subject, there is
strong likelihood of leaks or damaging speculation if
the report is not released. We believe it best that the
Commission's findings and rationale be made available,
along with their actual recommendations. Otherwise,
congressional and other opponents are likely to take
advantage of the opportunity to begin cricizing the
recommendations without the counter-balancing effect
of the Commission's findings. In short, there are serious
risks in delay, with little or nothing to be gained.
It would be appropriate and useful for you to receive
the report personally from the Chairman and, perhaps
the entire Quadrennial Commission of nine. This could
be followed immediately by a meeting of the Chairman
with the press in the White House. Pete Peterson or
Ron Nessen could emphasize that you have not studied
or committed yourself to the Commission's recommendations.
Since Peterson needs an answer by the Commission's next
meeting on the 30th, I plan to inform him that I believe
this general approach will be acceptable to you, unless
you advise me otherwise before the 30th.
OMB
January 14, 1977
Dear Congressman Fisher:
After carefully considering your request that the
President seek by Executive Order to extend the
coverage of 5 U.S.C. Section 6103(c), we have
come to the conclusion that it would be inadvisable
for the President to attempt to go beyond the
expressed intent of Congress.
You mentioned that an earlier Executive Order issued
just prior to the 1973 Inauguration date may consti-
tute a precedent for extending the application of the
statute. However, on careful analysis of the situation
at that time, we find that such Executive Order attempted
to meet circumstances not covered by the statute, namely
where the Inauguration Day came on a Saturday when most
Federal employees were not regularly scheduled to work.
The Order at the conclusion of Section 1 specifically
provided that the statute remained applicable to
employees who were regularly scheduled to work on
January 20, 1973, and therefore would not almon or
expand the effect of the statute for the day
specified in the statute.
I trust this explanation clarifies our views under
the present statutory situation. Possibly you will
want to have the statute amended prior to the next
Inauguration Day.
Sincerely,
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
The Honorable Joseph L. Fisher
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
,
Jack Marsh, Dick Cheney,
bec: Bill Nichols
Paul O'Neill, Ed Preston
No'D
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 12, 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR:
WILLIAM NICHOLS
FROM:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
T.
SUBJECT:
Request from Congressman Fisher
that the President Issue an
Executive Order for January 20,
1977
Attached at TAB A is a copy of 5 U.S.C. Section 6103.
Congressman Fisher calls attention to the fact that
subsection C of that statute omits Loudoun and Prince
William Counties and certain cities in the Washington
area where Federal employees are entitled to a holiday
on Inauguration Day. He points out that this discrep-
ancy was corrected by Former President Nixon with
Executive Order 11696 at TAB B.
The Congressman is requesting that a similar Order be
issued by President Ford applying to January 20, 1977.
In view of the short time available, I would appreciate
your early decision on whether to recommend such a step
and your proceeding to provide for assurance of such an
Executive Order if it is acceptable to the President.
Attachments
CC: Jack Marsh
Jim Lynn
Dick Cheney