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
1535037
label
1976/01/30 - Paul Myer, Steve McConahey, and Jack Veneman
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1535037
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1976/01/30 - Paul Myer, Steve McConahey, and Jack Veneman
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Meetings Files
subjects
Legislation
Revenue sharing
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1535037
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-01-31
month
1
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-01-01
month
1
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
6558fe58ae9e6c81
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 55, folder "1976/01/30 - Paul Myer, Steve
McConahey, and Jack Veneman" of the James M. Cannon 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 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 55 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
MEETING WITH PAUL MYER, STEVE
MCCONAHEY, & JACK VENEMAN
FRIDAY, JANUARY 30, 1976
JMC's OFFICE
2:30 p.m.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Materials for Presidential
Briefing on General Revenue
Sharing Renewal Legislative
Situation
Attached for your review are the materials I prepared
for the briefing which we will discuss at a meeting in
your office at 2:30 p.m. today. Please note that this
meeting has now been scheduled for Tuesday, February 3,
at 4:00 p.m., a time which both the Vice President and
Secretary Simon will be available.
cc: Steve McConahey
Attachments:
1. Presidential Briefing Paper
2. Proposed Agenda
3. Remarks of Paul Myer
4. Remarks of Jim Cannon
5. Chart
PLAN OF ACTION (to be presented by Jim Cannon)
1.
The President has initiated GRS renewal legislation and
we must ensure that this leadership posture is main-
tained. The enactment of GRS was a major breakthrough
in Federal-State relations. It represents the beginning
of a more rational, viable approach to Federal assist-
ance programs and the Administration is closely identi-
fied with the program. For this reason, the defeat of
GRS or a substantial modification of the program chang-
ing its basic philosophical character would be viewed
as a serious setback in the domestic policy area.
2.
Over the past six months our efforts have been directed
toward improving the climate for Congressional action
and getting the public interest groups on board. While
our assessment indicated that the Congress would not
act on renewal last year, Administration efforts were
focused on maintaining the President's initiative on
this issue and building a firm foundation for a major
effort this year.
3.
The public interest groups have begun to intensify their
efforts on behalf of your renewal legislation. Steve
McConahey and his Intergovernmental Relations staff are
working closely with governors, mayors and county
officials, both through their national organizations
and on an individual basis. Among our specific plans
in this regard is assuring that the President and Vice
monday
President will be speaking to those State and local
government officials who will be attending their
organizations' mid-winter meetings in Washington.
Additionally, the legislative representatives of their
national organizations are coordinating their lobbying
efforts with Max, Paul and Treasury staff to success-
fully move the bill from committee to the House Floor.
As a part of this effort, the public interest groups
are implementing plans to generate support in the
Congressional districts.
4.
We now plan to step up our activities in other key
areas. For example, the following mailings are being
considered:
to
A.
Letter to all Members of Congress from Secretary
Simon urging prompt action and enclosing more
detailed data than previously provided to them
ERAZO FORD LIBRAR
-2-
Markey Gurple
A.
(cont'd.)
on actual GRS payments under the existing program
and projected under the President's renewal bill
for all jursidictions in their Congressional dis-
tricts.
B.
Letter to various editors and newspapers through-
sample
out the country (possibly from Margita White)
seven
noting the consequences of delay or failure to
also
renew GRS and providing the data noted above for
puler
jurisdictions which their readers might find of
interest.
C.
Letter from the Vice President to governors,
11
mayors and county officials, urging them to inten-
sify their efforts on behalf of GRS renewal and
enclosing data similar to that noted above.
5.
In addition to our efforts with elected officials, we
plan selected mailings and, where appropriate, personal
presentations to other national and local organizations
encouraging support for GRS renewal. Every effort will
be made to develop the broadest possible support from
the business community (e.g. Chamber of Commerce) ; labor
organizations (e.g. building trades councils, Teamsters,
etc.) ; and community and citizen groups (e.g. League of
Women Voters). In addition to those actions taken by
the Vice President, Secretary Simon and other Treasury
officials, we will again encourage Cabinet and Sub-
Cabinet officials to use various opportunities pre-
sented to them to make the case for General Revenue
Sharing renewal.
FORD is LIBRARY 076835
PRESIDENTIAL BRIEFING ON GENERAL REVENUE
SHARING RENEWAL LEGISLATIVE SITUATION
PROPOSED AGENDA
1.
Opening comments by the President (see Brief-
in Paper for talking points) .
2.
Comments by Jim Cannon on purpose of briefing.
3.
Presentation of legislative status by Paul
Myer (5 minutes).
4.
Presentation of plan of action by Jim Cannon
(5 minutes)
5.
Discussion.
GENERAL REVENUE SHARING RENEWAL --
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE SITUATION
January, 1976
The President's proposed legislation to extend and revise
General Revenue Sharing (GRS) still faces an uncertain future
in the Congress. Our initial assessment of the legislative
situation in August, 1975 stated: "The question is not only
when, but if, the Congress will enact renewal legislation.
Further, renewal legislation may include substantial changes
in the existing program." While that situation has shown
marked improvement during the past six months, major substan-
tive and procedural problems remain as barriers to Congres-
sional action.
Opposition to both the program and the President's legis-
lation are found at strategic points in the legislative process,
particularly in the House. The nature of the opposition
closely parallels that expressed in 1972, reflecting philo-
sophical and parochial differences over the control and distri-
bution of Federal funds. Significantly, however, this
opposition on matters of substantive national policy and
Congressional procedure seems to have grown more intense.
Four key inter-related issues have been identified:
*continuing the existing GRS funding method as well as
level of funding as proposed by the President.
*formula modification, particularly the addition of a
"need" factor and the possible inclusion of some
"countercyclical" aid.
*more "strings" and controls with respect to the uses
of GRS funds; and
*civil rights and citizen participation, specifically
the use of some legitimate concerns in this area as a
screen for opposition to GRS.
Finally, floor consideration will probably be delayed
until after May 15, 1976, due to new Congressional budget
procedures and both the Budget and Appropriations Committees
will play major roles in the legislative process.
****
-2-
In the Senate, there is considerable bi-partisan and
diverse ideological support for GRS and the President's
renewal proposal. However, it is anticipated that the
Finance Committee will not mark-up GRS renewal legislation
until the House completes action. Senator Long believes
that given the uncertainty over what the House will do, the
Senate should await House passage and take appropriate
action to place Senate conferees in the strongest possible
position to maintain the concept and operation of GRS as
originally enacted. We agree with his assessment.
The GRS picture in the House is clouded. There are
dramatic differences between the climate and membership of
the House in 1972 and the present House. Opposition to
GRS is definitely more intense and located at strategic
points in the legislative process. In brief, the basic
facts are:
*Shift in jurisdiction to a new committee headed by a
hostile, partisan chairman and before a subcommittee chair-
man who is, while a supporter of the program, concerned
about House acceptance of any bill reported by his subcom-
mittee.
*The Committee's Democratic membership is void of any
strong GRS advocates and many Members have expressed serious
concerns or indifference.
*A 35% turnover in the House membership since 1972
(154 "new" Members). 40% of the Members who supported GRS
in 1972 on the critical Rule vote are no longer serving in
this Congress, and the vote margin among those still serv-
ing is only 8 (as opposed to 38). Approximately 50% of the
Republican Members who supported GRS are no longer in the
House.
*The appropriations Committee remains skeptical of GRS
and intensely opposed to the existing funding method. Chair-
man Mahon will seek to regain lost prestige on this issue and
Jack Brooks will do everything he can to help.
*The Democratic Leadership is either indifferent at this
time (Albert and O'Neill) or strenuously opposed to the pro-
gram (McFall, Brademas and P. Burton).
-3-
*Outside opposition groups consider, with some merit,
the "liberal" House as more receptive to their views.
*The Congressional Budget Act adds a new dimension to
the issue and will greatly complicate consideration.
In marked contrast with the Senate situation, the major
issues all represent serious legislative threats to GRS
renewal. Basic policy questions debated and resolved in
1972 are being revisited.
The overall situation remains volatile and while it is
unlikely that the House would fail to renew GRS, how, when
and in what form it is passed are major questions.
Obviously, no one looks toward a floor situation simi-
lar to 1972. Supporters of GRS will be on the defensive,
and there will be no protection in terms of as favorable a
rule. Further, it is not beyond reason to anticipate a wide-
open debate on the floor, regardless of what the committee
reports.
Clearly, absent the nature and scope of Congressional
support evidenced in 1972, we must finds ways of creating
an equally effective pro-GRS coalition in the House. The
success of this effort depends, in large part, on the ability
of the Administration and other GRS supporters to generate
public awareness and interest in the program's renewal.
****
At this point, I would like to briefly review the pro-
jected timetable and procedures for Congressional action on
GRS renewal legislation. The chart before you attempts to
graphically portray this information.