Museado / NARA Collection grf-0039 — Collection grf-0039
Recent Folios
Login Register
English español (Spanish) magyar (Hungarian)

Survos folio item chat

Back to Revenue Sharing (10)

Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page
doc
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
16988430
label
Revenue Sharing (10)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988430
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16988430
sourceUrl
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988430
contentType
document
title
Revenue Sharing (10)
citationUrl
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988430
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
U.S. Congress. 1789-
Legislation
Presidential messages
Revenue sharing
iiifBase
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988430.pdf
thumbnailUrl
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988430.pdf
largeImageUrl
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988430.pdf
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
url
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988430
naId
16988430
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-07-31
month
7
year
1976
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
url
https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988430.pdf
mediaId
e80ba968890db044
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 30, folder "Revenue Sharing (10)" 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 Gerald Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 30 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library THE WHITE HOUSE REQUEST WASHINGTON April 2, 1976 LIDRARY MEMORANDUM FOR: THE PRESIDENT FROM: JIM CANNON Jul FRIEDERSDORF m.f. SUBJECT: Status Report: General Revenue Sharing The House Government Operations Subcommittee has completed the first phase of its mark-up. Congressman Fountain has directed the staff to draft a clean bill which reflects the Subcommittee's tentative substantive decisions. Representatives from the Treasury Department will participate in the actual drafting. The Subcommittee plans to resume mark-up next Wednesday, April 7, 1976, and expects to report a bill to the full committee just prior to the April 15 recess date. Since their first critical decisions to provide for a shorter, no-growth program dependent upon annual appropriations, the Subcommittee decisions have either endorsed your recommenda- tions or been generally consistent with your conceptual objectives. In summary, the Subcommittee bill would: * extend the program for 3 3/4 years with funding frozen at its present level; * subject funding to annual review by appropria- tion committees; * retain the present distribution formula; * tighten the definition of eligible recipients (in effort to delete some smaller, single- purpose governments) * delete present priority expenditure categories; * strengthen enforcement of nondiscrimination pro- visions; and -2- - * improve present reporting and citizen parti- cipation requirements. Myer THE WHITE HOUSE REQUEST WASHINGTON April 2, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR JIM PAUL CANNON MYER FROM SUBJECT: Status of House General Revenue Sharing Mark-up The House Government Operations Subcommittee has completed the first phase of its mark-up. Fountain has directed the staff to draft a clean bill which reflects the Subcommittee's tentative substantive decisions. Representatives from the Treasury Department will participate in the actual drafting. The Subcommittee anticipates resumption of mark-up next Wednesday, April 7, 1976, and expects to report a bill to the full committee just prior to the April 15 recess date. Since their first critical decisions to provide for a shorter, no-growth program dependent upon annual appropriations, the Subcommittee decisions have either endorsed the President's recommendations or been generally consistent with his concep- tual objectives. In summary, the Subcommittee bill would: * extend the program for 3 3/4 years with funding frozen at its present level; * subject funding to annual review by appropria- tion committees; * retain the present distribution formula; DERALD FORD LIBRARY * tighten the definition of eligible recipients (in effort to delete some smaller, single- purpose governments); * delete present priority expenditure categories; * strengthen enforcement of nondiscrimination pro- visions; and -2- * improve present reporting and citizen participation requirements. It is possible that the Subcommittee will adopt a compromise with respect to the duration and method of funding of the pro- gram when they meet next week. This has been the subject of considerable private discussion, and I will have a paper on this matter for your review on Monday. myer THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON April 6, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR AGNES WALDRON Pa JIM SHUMAN MARGARET EARL FROM PAUL MYER SUBJECT: Revised General Revenue Sharing Data (as of April 5, 1976) On April 5, 1976, the Treasury Department distributed an additional $1.5 billion payment to the 50 States and 37, 441 eligible units of local government. This regular quarterly payment covers the period of January 1, 1976-March 31, 1976, and brings the total of General Revenue Sharing payments to date to $25.1 billion. Attached for your information are summary tables of this payment data by State. CC: Jim Cannon Jim Cavanaugh Attachment FORD LIBRARY Y GERALD MAGE OFFICE OF REVENUE SHARING NUMBER OF RECIPIENTS PAID THIS QUARTER INDIAN TRIBES & STATE CODE ALASKAN NATIVE COUNTIES MUNICIPALITIES TOWNSHIPS VILLAGES TOTALS ALABAMA 1 66 396 463 ALASKA 1 9 81 28 119 AMIZONA 1 14 68 17 100 AMAANSAS 1 75 459 535 CALIFORNIA 1 57 412 36 506 COLORADO à 62 248 2 313 CONNECTION 1 32 148 181 DELAWARE 1 3 54 58 DIST OF COLUMSIA 1 1 FLORIDA 1 66 378 2 447 GEORGIA 1 158 501 660 HAWAII 1 3 1 5 IDAHO 1 44 188 5 238 ILLINOIS 1 102 1,25. 1,424 2,777 INDIANA 1 91 543 987 1,622 1044 1 99 936 1 1,037 RANSAS 1 105 596 965 3 1,670 KENTUCKY 1 119 380 500 LOUISIANA 1 m 62 292 1 356 * MAINE 1 16 22 471 2 512 MANYLAND 1 23 148 172 MASSACHUSETTS 1 12 39 312 364 MICHIGAN 1 83 529 1,211 4 1,828 MINNESOTA 1 87 844 1.773 11 2,716 MISSISSIPPI 1 82 278 1 362 MISSOUPI 1 114 838 320 1,273 MUNTANA 1 56 125 7 189 NEHHASKA 1 93 511 422 3 1,030 NEVADA 1 16 17 14 48 NEW HAMPSHIRE 1 10 13 215 239 NEW JEHSEY 1 21 331 232 585 NEW MEXICO 1 32 93 22 148 NEW YORK 1 57 615 925 6 1,604 NUMTH CAROLINA 1 100 455 1 557 NORTH DAKOTA 1 53 329 1,328 4 1,715 UHIO 1 88 921 1,307 2,317 OKLAHOMA 1 77 514 24 616 GREGON 1 36 235 4 276 PENNSYLVANIA 1 66 1,010 1,542 1 2,620 RHODE ISLAND 1 GERALD FORD LIBRARY 8 31 40 SOUTH CAROLINA 1 46 246 293 SOUTH DAKOTA 1 66 295 887 8 1,257 TENNESSEE 1 93 315 409 TEXAS 1 254 974 2 1,231 UTAH 1 29 204 4 238 VERMONT 1 12 55 235 303 VIRGINIA 1 95 226 2 324 WASHINGTON I 39 265 18 323 WEST VIRGINIA I 55 225 281 *ISCONSIN 1 72 573 1,263 10 1,919 *YOMING 1 23 87 2 113 NATIONAL TOTALS 51 3.041 18,155 15,998 245 37,490 OFFICE OF REVENUE SHARING PAGE 271 DISTRIBUTION OF QUARTER PAY INDIAN TRIBES & ALASKAN NATIVE STATE NAME STATE COUNTIES MUNICIPALITIES TOWNSHIPS VILLAGES TOTALS $ $ % $ $ $ ALAMAMA 8,488,993 6,231,673 10,700,653 25,421,319 ALASKA 764.132 641.613 777,239 18.681 2,201.665 ANIZONA 5,437,550 4,019,932 6.203.174 729,630 16,390,286 AHKANSAS 5,541,114 5,884,484 5,056,845 16,482,443 CALIFORNIA 54,934,544 62,908,587 46,973,764 45,072 164,861,967 COLORADO 5,762,672 3,894,938 7,675,653 9,568 17,342,831 CONNECTICUT 7,125,496 7,222,024 7,029,056 21,376,576 DELAWARE 1,675,966 1,969,870 1,140,614 4,786,450 DIST OF COLUMNIA 6,662,242 6,662,242 FLORIDA 16.722.636 16,366,317 17,073,734 6,015 50,168,702 GEORGIA 11,117,632 12,327,394 9,941,115 33,386,141 HAWAII 2,319,136 1,228,158 3,410,113 6,957,407 IDAHO 2,107,367 2,390,807 1,801,830 22,137 6,322,141 ILLINOIS 26,811,514 11,538,112 16,101,356 7,275,307 61,726.289 INDIANA 10,735,037 7,391,513 11.273.415 2.803,472 32,203,437 TOWA 6,904,851 8,030,840 5,775,910 2,992 20,714,593 KANSAS 4,846,728 4,749,398 4,471,517 489,774 5,957 14,563,374 KENTUCKY 9.152,700 7,727,822 8,831,858 25,712.380 LOUISIANA 11.395,012 8,845,300 13,997,926 1,405 34,239,643 MAINE 3,389,103 466,240 2,802,863 3,559,259 5,251 10,222,716 MARYLAND 10,511,829 12,942,079 8,089,341 31,543,249 MASSACHUSETTS 17,206.030 1,934,308 18.503.010 13,977,688 51.621,036 MICHIGAN 22,247,437 13,600,944 26,824,868 4,102,054 7,220 66,782,523 MINNESOTA 11,070,621 12.022.856 8,721,801 1,347,343 89,466 33,252,287 MISSISSIPPI 8,003,108 10,359,254 5,318,874 10,438 23,691,674 MISSOURI 10,190,713 6,893,675 13,069,070 428,343 30,581,801 MONTANA 1,976,124 2,637,400 1.171.154 144,039 5,928,717 NEHRASKA 3,512,749 3,517,152 3,285,739 206,887 18,427 10,540,954 NEVADA 1,225,466 1,554,915 878,456 15,434 3,674,271 NEW HAMPSHIRE 1,672,006 434,128 1,542,257 1,372,243 5,020,634 NEW JERSEY 16,540,166 11,385,273 14,275,872 7,416,429 49,617,740 NEW MEXICO 3,353,694 2,953,152 3,123,121 473,506 9,903,473 NEW YORK 59,933,132 26,553.169 79,861,936 12,819,041 45,018 179,212,296 NORTH CAHOLINA 12,938,183 14,136,498 11,705,613 41,449 38,821,743 NORTH DAKOTA 1,604,837 1,689,061 1,064,718 395,331 51,767 4,805,714 OHIO 21,608,304 13.910,369 25,212,233 4,137,043 64,867,949 FORD OKLAHOMA 5,863,667 3,848,786 7,768,908 109,879 17,591,240 OMEGON 5,555,968 4,180,474 6,928,085 18,182 16,682,709 PENNSYLVANIA 28,062,494 15,662,749 30,496,095 10,007,204 94 84,228.636 GERALD RHODE ISLAND 2,285,294 3,155,894 1,414,681 6,855,869 SOUTH CANOLINA 7,396,174 8,055,660 6,869.185 22,321.019 SOUTH DAKOTA 2,105,377 2,246,129 1,472,906 267,238 208,975 6,300,625 TENNESSEE 9,771,053 8,027,066 11,492,974 29,291,093 TEXAS 25,754.203 19,821,896 31,598,134 2,925 77,177,158 UTAN 3,103.721 2,984,722 3,154,742 63,680 9,306,865 VERMONT 1,638,546 35,373 1,116,355 2,122,645 4,912,919 VIRGINIA 10,690,132 8,289,824 13,090,836 461 32.071,253 WASHINGTON 7.710,894 6,827,338 8,534,702 63,110 23,144,044 WEST VINGINIA 5,586,241 4,023,260 4,663,731 14,273,232 WISCONSIN 13.379.243 12.974,508 11.703,576 2,044,052 40,780 40,142,159 WYONING 835,479 1,176,667 468,955 25,437 2,506,538 NATIONAL TUTALS 535.235.510 401,291,683 546,394,744 83,215,090 2.276,995 1,568,414,022 OFFICE OF REVENUE SHARING RECIPIENTS PAID TO DATE INDIAN TRIRES & ALASKAN NATIVE STA STATE NAME STATE COUNTIES MUNICIPALITIES TOWNSHIPS VILLAGES TOTALS s $ $ $ $ $ ALAH ALAMAMA 140.627.044 105,283,564 176,141.946 422,052,554 ALAS ALASKA 11.138.024 9,075,000 12,845,285 598,925 33,657,234 ARIZ AWSZONA 84.307,136 66,566,459 94,046,502 9,274,942 254,195,039 ARKA AHKANSAS 91,551,054 94,308,059 75,309,407 261,168,520 CALI 716,006,375 588.820 2:668,966.476 CALIFORNIA 889,625,416 1,062,745,865 COLO COLUMADO 8,669,479 62,100,124 115,201,682 164,150 266,135.435 CONN CONNECTION 107,679,644 113,746.481 101,771,654 323,197,779 DELA DELAWARE 28,174,562 28,506,445 18,921.894 75,602,901 DIST 111.001.733 111,001,733 DIST OF COLUMBIA FLOR FLOHIDA 249.084,111 225,939,278 272,669,797 91,646 747,784,832 GEOR GEORGIA 175,524,141 201,447,304 149,413,293 526,384,738 HAWE MAPAII 36.952,190 18.621.297 55,283,079 110,855,566 IDA 369,848 101,128,182 IDAHO 33,706,705 38,729,081 28,322,548 ILL ILLINOIS 427,876,369 190,337,627 438,869.03 112.743,574 1,169.826.602 IND INDIANA 176.268.248 120.121.733 189,493,365 42,893,022 528.776.368 IOWA IOWA 116,790,380 135,882.346 97,716.133 51,056 350,439,915 KANS KANSAS 79,806,578 80,746,811 70.160,756 8,626,939 35,172 239,376,256 KEN RENTUCKY 155,488,843 118,149,402 136,366,531 410,004,776 LOU LOUISIANA 192,529,756 153,443,646 224,504,208 25,656 570,503,266 MAIL 154,930,176 MAINE 51,632,432 6,912,364 42,716,146 53,486,898 182,336 MAR MARYLAND 166,192,432 195,767,487 136,609,331 498,569,250 MAS MASSACHUSETTS 266,339,600 30,566,001 297,730,773 205,386,969 800,023,343 MIC MICHIGAN 355,467,954 209,085,124 437,146,148 64,779,291 115,775 1.066.594,292 MIN MINNESOTA 167,904,058 179,735,987 135,255,469 20,529,240 1,034,998 504,459,752 MIS MISSISSIPPI 140.136,163 171,032,855 94,320,765 180,733 405,670,516 MIS 158,162,495 104,951,399 204,061,664 7.022.502 474,198.060 MISSOURI MON MONTANA 32.829,305 43,654,665 19,615,647 2,388,089 98,487,706 NER NERRASKA 59,241.021 58,982,095 55.518,859 3,710,324 258,573 177,710,872 NEV NEVADA 18.605,375 23,330.641 13,586,948 286,782 55,809,746 NEW - NE- HAMPSHIRE 26,754,213 7,014,886 25,244,848 21,308,322 80.322,269 NE. NEW JERSEY 263,060,657 183,445,342 232,818,023 110,063,487 789,387,509 NEW NEW MEXICO 54,281,729 43,869,906 53,019,167 7.631,645 158,802,447 NEW 541,188 2,813.231,315 NEW YORK 938,340,865 404,921,906 1,270,528,566 198,898,790 NOS NORTH CAROLINA 213,035.201 229,817,670 196,446,649 501,028 639,800,548 NOT NORTH DAKOTA 31,648,503 32,694,132 21,120,525 8,175,088 1,258,445 94,896,693 OH OMIO 336,186,596 213,320,842 393,801,409 65,231,651 1,008,540,496 OKI OKLAHOMA 93,769,051 67,454,285 118,367.279 1,696,522 281,287,137 OR OREGON 84.191,748 63,946,023 104,178,074 274,572 252,590,417 Pt 441.475.118 248,794,640 491,322,712 143,391.256 682 1,324,984,408 PENNSYLVANIA RH RMODE ISLAND 37,448,586 52.994.404 21,902,731 112,345,721 so SOUTH CAROLINA 117,602,767 121,905,867 107,150,711 346,659,345 SU SOUTH DAKOTA 36,393,249 41,798,181 23,126,531 5,087,039 3,016,873 109,421,873 TE 476.292.498 TENNESSEE 157,940,605 135,969,282 182,382.611 Tt TEXAS 399,985.730 299,737,686 498,P20,237 75,378 1,199,619,031 UT UTAH 49,443,013 48,845,651 49,154,692 879,229 148,322.585 VE VERMONT 24,027.616 574,980 16.535.583 31.032,549 72,170,728 VI VINGINIA 166,795,555 124,662,225 209.492.782 7,551 500,958,113 WA WASHINGTON 121.259,478 108,396.2A3 133,086,234 3,401 1,036,588 363,781,984 wt WEST VIRGINIA 104.318.936 64,548,636 74,910.267 243,777,939 w l WISCONSIN 211.108.331 208,481,442 180,302,664 33,190.875 647.820 633.731,132 WY WYOMING 15,065,421 21,798,738 7.889.371 443,572 45,197,102 Ni NATIONAL TOTALS 8,537,445.214 6,408,121,262 8,864,173,403 1,259,235.602 33,658,594 25.102.634,075 Revenue Sharing THE WHITE HOUSE INFORMATION WASHINGTON April 8, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT FROM: JIM CANNON June MAX FRIEDERSDORF m.f. SUBJECT: Status Report: General Revenue Sharing The House Government Operations Subcommittee today reversed its earlier decision to subject General Revenue Sharing to the annual appropriations process and voted to redesign General Revenue Sharing as a 3 3/4-year entitlement program. While there is little practical difference under the Budget Act between the entitlement approach FORD LIBRARY and the combined authorization-appropriation method of funding proposed by the President, the Democratic Members advocating this amendment stressed that it was a satisfactory response to charges that the current funding provision by-passed the traditional Congressional appropriations process and circumvented newly-established Budget Act procedures designed to control long-term spending actions. Although the Republican Members voted for this amendment, they established an excellent record for future reconsideration of the President's proposal in the full committee. Prior to the adoption of this entitlement amendment, the Subcommittee rejected, on a straight party roll call vote, the President's proposal, and a Drinan amendment by voice vote. -2- The Subcommittee will not meet again until Monday afternoon, April 12, 1976. Brooks urged the Subcom- mittee to complete its mark-up prior to the Easter Recess in order to allow time for all Committee Members to study the bill and proceed to early con- sideration after the recess. If the Subcommittee does not reconsider today's action or get delayed over the controversial civil rights issue, it should be possible for them to report a bill by April 14. Attached is a complete record of all actions and roll call votes taken by the Subcommittee today. Attachment 1. Adopted Levitas amendment making General Revenue Sharing a 3 3/4-year entitlement program by a vote of 7-6: YEA NAY Fountain Mezvinsky Fuqua Jordan Levitas Burton Wydler Drinan Brown (proxy) English Steelman (proxy) Brooks Horton 2. Rejected Wydler amendment to adopt 5 3/4-year program with combined authorization-appropriation funding provision (President's proposal) by a vote of 9-4: YEA NAY Wydler Fountain Brown (proxy) Fuqua Steelman (proxy) Mezvinsky Horton (proxy) Jordan Burton Drinan English Levitas (proxy) Brookd 3. Rejected Drinan amendment providing that GRS be an entitlement program for 1 3/4 years with annual appropriations thereafter by voice vote. & FORD LIBRARY GRS THE WHITE HOUSE INFORMATION WASHINGTON April 8, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT FROM: JIM CANNON June MAX FRIEDERSDORF m.f. SUBJECT: Status Report: General Revenue Sharing The House Government Operations Subcommittee today reversed its earlier decision to subject General Revenue Sharing to the annual appropriations process and voted to redesign General Revenue Sharing as a 3 3/4-year entitlement program. While there is little practical difference under the Budget Act between the entitlement approach and the combined authorization-appropriation method of funding proposed by the President, the Democratic Members advocating this amendment stressed that it was a satisfactory response to charges that the current funding provision by-passed the traditional Congressional appropriations process and circumvented newly-established Budget Act procedures designed to control long-term spending actions. Although the Republican Members voted for this amendment, they established an excellent record for future reconsideration of the President's proposal in the full committee. Prior to the adoption of this entitlement amendment, the Subcommittee rejected, on a straight party roll call vote, the President's proposal, and a Drinan amendment by voice vote. GERALD 4. LIBRARY FORD -2- - The Subcommittee will not meet again until Monday afternoon, April 12, 1976. Brooks urged the Subcom- mittee to complete its mark-up prior to the Easter Recess in order to allow time for all Committee Members to study the bill and proceed to early con- sideration after the recess. If the Subcommittee does not reconsider today's action or get delayed over the controversial civil rights issue, it should be possible for them to report a bill by April 14. Attached is a complete record of all actions and roll call votes taken by the Subcommittee today. Attachment FORD THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON April 9, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR Part PAUL O'NEILL FROM PAUL MYER SUBJECT: Entitlement Financing for General Revenue Sharing The funding provision of the current Act and the President's proposed legislation to extend General Revenue Sharing providing combined authorization- appropriation of funds over a long-term period has generated considerable opposition among many Mem- bers who otherwise support the revenue sharing concept and those Members who strongly oppose the program's continuation for other reasons. After rejecting the President's proposal, the House Sub- committee had tentatively adopted a short-term extension of the program's authorization only, making its funding subject to the annual appropri- ations process. The Subcommittee has now reversed that decision, voting to authorize continuation of General Revenue Sharing as a 3 3/4-year entitlement program. The entitlement financing amendment adopted by the Subcommittee was developed as a realistic approach to the highly controversial question of how General Revenue Sharing should be funded. The amendment does not substantially modify the basic tenets of the revenue sharing concept, but it does answer the argument of those Members who have charged that the existing funding provision by-passes the traditional Congressional appropriations process and circumvents the newly-established Budget Act procedures designed to control long-term spending actions. -2- One of the principle objectives of the Budget Act was to bring so-called backdoor spending within the scope of the appropriations process. The Budget Act (section 401) defines three types of "new spending authority" and sets forth their relation- ship to the appropriations process in order to promote more comprehensive and consistent control over spending actions. The Budget Act draws dis- tinctions between these types of spending legislation and establishes special, procedures for their consider- ation. With respect to new contract authority and borrowing authority legislation, such bills must contain a provision that funding is effective only to the extent or in such amounts as are provided in appropriations acts. However, the Budget Act established different procedures with respect to the third type of new spending authority, entitlement financing. As defined in the Budget Act (section 401 (c) (2) (C) ) , entitlement legislation provides temporary or perma- nent authority to make payments (including loans and grants), the budget authority for which is not provided for in advance by appropriation acts, to any person or government if, under the provision of law contain- ing such authority, the Federal Government is obligated to make such payments to persons or governments who meet the requirements established by such law. In recognition of the need to provide for long-term funding of certain Federal programs, the Budget Act FORD established specific procedures for consideration of legislation providing entitlement authority (section LIBRARY 401 (b) (1), (2) and (3) ) 135 First, since legislation providing entitlement authority could not become effective prior to the start of the new fiscal year, the Budget Act provides that such legislation would be fully subject to the reconcilia- tion process. Second, legislation providing entitlement authority would be referred to the respective Appropriations Committees if it would generate new budget authority in excess of the allocation made under the latest Congressional Budget Resolution for the new fiscal -3- year. Such legislation would be referred for no more than 15 days, with the Appropriations Committee auto- matically discharged from consideration if it has not reported during this period. The Appropriations Com- mittee may report the legislation with an amendment limiting the total amount of new entitlement authority; however, their jurisdiction extends only to the cost of the program involved and not to substantive changes. Further, entitlement financing does not violate either the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee or Rule XXI of the House. Appropriations Committee juris- diction was specifically rejected by the House-Senate Conference Committee on the Budget Act (the House- passed bill would have made all new entitlements effective only as provided in appropriation acts), except to the extent that entitlement authority is contained in annual appropriations acts (and therefore consistent with Rule XXI). Not only is legislation providing entitlement authority clearly recognized as a form of spending and within those provisions of the Budget Act designed to control long-term spending actions, the Budget Act specifically contemplates the application of the entitlement financing approach to legislation extending the General Revenue Sharing program. In fact, when stipulating certain exceptions to the Budget Act provisions for consideration of entitlement programs (e.g., Social Security), Section 401 (d) (2) specifically provides that the current Act authorizing General Revenue Sharing payments or legislation extending it could also be exempted from these procedures if Congress were so inclined. Based upon this analysis, it appears that the entitle- ment financing approach for General Revenue Sharing represents both an acceptable legislative and substantive resolution of the funding method issue. The approach is consistent with the Budget Act and the President's objective. While subject to the provisions of the Budget Act and the annual appropriations process, in practice, since these are entitlement payments which the Federal Government is obligated to make to eligible LIBRARY - -4- recipients, the annual process is pro forma and the results would be nearly identical to the funding provisions of the current Act and the President's renewal bill. Attached per your request is a copy of the entitle- ment financing amendment adopted by the Subcommittee on Thursday, April 8. As I noted in our phone con- versation, it does not address the level of funding or duration of the program issues. These matters are still open and will, be considered in full com- mittee. Attachment CC: Jim Cannon Max Friedersdorf Art Quern FORD LIBRARY EXTENSION OF PROGRAM AND FUNDING SEC. 4 (a) Section 105 of the Act is amended- (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) ; (2) by inserting immediately after subsection (b) the following new subsection: ' (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION FOR ENTITLEMENTS. -- "(1) IN GENERAL. -- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Trust Fund to pay the entitle- ment herinafter provided --- " (A) For the period beginning January 1, 1977, and ending September 30, 1977, $4,987,500,000; and " (B) For the Fiscal Years beginning October 1, 1977, 1978, and 1979, $6,650,000,000. "(2) NON-CONTIGUOUS STATES ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTS. -- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Trust Fund to pay the entitlement hereinafter provided -- "(A) For the period beginning January 1, 1977, and ending September 30, 1977, $3,585,000; and "(B) For each of the Fiscal Years beginning on October 1, 1977, 1978, 1979, $4,780,000." and (3) by inserting "; AUTHORIZATIONS" in the heading of such section immediately after "APPROPRIATIONS". --2 (b) (1) Section 104 (c) of the Act is amended -- (A) by inserting "or three-fourths" after "one- half"; and (B) by striking out "period of 6 months" and inserting in lieu thereof "period of 6 or 9 months, respectively". (2) Section 106 (a) of the Act is amended -- (A) by inserting "an entitlement" after "shall be allocated"; and (B) by inserting "and from the sums authorized under section 105 (c) (1) for succeeding entitlement periods" after "that entitlement period,". (3) Section 106 (c) of the Act is amended by striking out "section 105 (b) (2)" each place it appears and inserting in lieu thereof "subsection (b) (2) or (c) (2) of section 105". (4) Section 107 (b) of the Act is amended by redesig- nating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (7) and (8), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph: " (6) SPECIAL RULE FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1977.--In the case of the entitlement period beginning January 1, 1977, and ending Septem- ber 30, 1977, the aggregate amount taken into account --3 under paragraph (1) (A) for the preceding entitlement period and the aggregate amount taken into account under paragraph (1) (B) shall be three-fourts of the amounts which (but for this paragraph) would be taken into account. " (5) Section 108 (c) (1) (C) of the Act is amended by striking out "December 31, 1976," and inserting in lieu thereof "September 30, 1980," (6) Section 141 (b) of the Act is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following new paragraphs: " (6) The period beginning on January 1, 1977, and ending September 30, 1977. " (7) The one-year periods beginning on October 1 of 1977, 1978, and 1979." Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to these materials. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON April 9, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR Paul PAUL O'NEILL FROM PAUL MYER SUBJECT: Entitlement Financing for General Revenue Sharing The funding provision of the current Act and the President's proposed legislation to extend General Revenue Sharing providing combined authorization- appropriation of funds over a long-term period has generated considerable opposition among many Mem- bers who otherwise support the revenue sharing concept and those Members who strongly oppose the program's continuation for other reasons. After rejecting the President's proposal, the House Sub- FORD i LIBRARY 03 committee had tentatively adopted a short-term extension of the program's authorization only, making its funding subject to the annual appropri- ations process. The Subcommittee has now reversed that decision, voting to authorize continuation of General Revenue Sharing as a 3 3/4-year entitlement program. The entitlement financing amendment adopted by the Subcommittee was developed as a realistic approach to the highly controversial question of how General Revenue Sharing should be funded. The amendment does not substantially modify the basic tenets of the revenue sharing concept, but it does answer the argument of those Members who have charged that the existing funding provision by-passes the traditional Congressional appropriations process and circumvents the newly-established Budget Act procedures designed to control long-term spending actions. FORD USRARY of -2- One of the principle objectives of the Budget Act was to bring so-called backdoor spending within the scope of the appropriations process. The Budget Act (section 401) defines three types of "new spending authority" and sets forth their relation- ship to the appropriations process in order to promote more comprehensive and consistent control over spending actions. The Budget Act draws dis- tinctions between these types of spending legislation and establishes special procedures for their consider- ation. With respect to new contract authority and borrowing authority legislation, such bills must contain a provision that funding is effective only to the extent or in such amounts as are provided in appropriations acts. However, the Budget Act established different procedures with respect to the third type of new spending authority, entitlement financing. As defined in the Budget Act (section 401 (c) (2) (C) , entitlement legislation provides temporary or perma- nent authority to make payments (including loans and grants), the budget authority for which is not provided for in advance by appropriation acts, to any person or government if, under the provision of law contain- ing such authority, the Federal Government is obligated to make such payments to persons or governments who meet the requirements established by such law. In recognition of the need to provide for long-term funding of certain Federal programs, the Budget Act established specific procedures for consideration of legislation providing entitlement authority (section 401 (b) (1) (2) and (3)). First, since legislation providing entitlement authority could not become effective prior to the start of the new fiscal year, the Budget Act provides that such legislation would be fully subject to the reconcilia- tion process. Second, legislation providing entitlement authority would be referred to the respective Appropriations Committees if it would generate new budget authority in excess of the allocation made under the latest Congressional Budget Resolution for the new fiscal -3- year. Such legislation would be referred for no more than 15 days, with the Appropriations Committee auto- matically discharged from consideration if it has not reported during this period. The Appropriations Com- mittee may report the legislation with an amendment limiting the total amount of new entitlement authority; however, their jurisdiction extends only to the cost of the program involved and not to substantive changes. Further, entitlement financing does not violate either the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee or Rule XXI of the House. Appropriations Committee juris- diction was specifically rejected by the House-Senate Conference Committee on the Budget Act (the House- passed bill would have made all new entitlements effective only as provided in appropriation acts), except to the extent that entitlement authority is contained in annual appropriations acts (and therefore consistent with Rule XXI). Not only is legislation providing entitlement authority clearly recognized as a form of spending and within those provisions of the Budget Act designed to control long-term spending actions, the Budget Act specifically contemplates the application of the entitlement financing approach to legislation extending the General Revenue Sharing program. In fact, when stipulating certain exceptions to the Budget Act provisions for consideration of entitlement programs (e.g., Social Security), Section 401 (d) (2) specifically provides that the current Act authorizing General Revenue Sharing payments or legislation extending it could also be exempted from these procedures if Congress were so inclined. Based upon this analysis, it appears that the entitle- ment financing approach for General Revenue Sharing represents both an acceptable legislative and substantive resolution of the funding method issue. The approach is consistent with the Budget Act and the President's objective. While subject to the provisions of the Budget Act and the annual appropriations process, in practice, since these are entitlement payments which the Federal Government is obligated to make to eligible -4- recipients, the annual process is pro forma and the results would be nearly identical to the funding provisions of the current Act and the President's renewal bill. Attached per your request is a copy of the entitle- ment financing amendment adopted by the Subcommittee on Thursday, April 8. As I noted in our phone con- versation, it does not address the level of funding or duration of the program issues. These matters are still open and will, be considered in full com- mittee. Attachment CC: Jim Cannon Max Friedersdorf Art Quern FORD CIBRANT GRS The WaSHINGTON Star April 12, 1976 Mayors' Man Warns Democrats Associated Press the legislation before, the in 1972, is scheduled to ex, legislation as a way to get Congressional Democrats summer recess, revenue- pire Dec. 31. back at him. "It's all politi- who oppose the renewal of sharing opponents in the Ford is advecating a 5 3/4- cal and they don't know federal revenue sharing are House may be able to pres- year program that would how to get to Ford any being warned they may, sure the Senate into accept- expire on Sept. 30, 1982, other way," he said. "You hand President Ford a po- ing provisions that when fiscal 1982 ends. The have to remember this is litical plum this election revenue-sharing advocates program's opponents are the only spending program year if they delay extending feel would weaken the pro- seeking to limit any exten- the guy is asking for." the program. gram sion to-21 months, A short- At the height of the:1972 The legislation has ened program would give presidential campaign, strong bipartisan support in them the opportunity to Richard M, Nixon signed the Senate, and it is unlike- begin chipping away at the the federal revenue-shar- ly to become a political renewed program next ing law with an entourage issue there. January. when they would blockghaits THE WHITE HOUSE INFORMATION WASHINGTON April 14, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE PRESIDENT FROM: JIM CANNOM Jun SUBJECT: Support of Block Grants Attached is a copy of a letter jointly signed by Governor Andrus (D-Idaho) and Governor Evans (R-Washington) expressing to the other Governors of this country their support for your block grant proposals. In their letter, these Governors request that other chief executives help stimulate the dis- cussion and support for these proposals in order that they receive a due hearing and consideration by the Congress. The Governors' Conference has been extremely interested and cooperative in these block grant proposals. Governor Andrus has taken special effort to go beyond party line and to support a concept that he believes in very strongly. We are continuing to work with Governor Andrus and Governor Evans and their Human Resource Committee on a number of items, and I am hopeful that this continued cooperation will help move the block grants from their current stalemate position. FORD j LIBRARY GERALD National Govemars Robert D. Ray onference Governor of lowe Chairman 1150 Seventeenth Street N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)785-5600 March 29, 1976 Honorable (ALL GOVERNORS) Governor of Dear : We take this opportunity to express our mutual belief that Congress should shortly hold public hearings on the Administration's block grant proposals. During the past ten years we have all become painfully aware of the program and management conditions caused by federal categorical funding of human services. One of our biggest challenges in the next years will be revamping the intergovernmental funding and management of education and human services so that these services may become more responsive, realistic, and meaningful to recipients of the services as well as to the people who pay for them. While neither of us endorses all the specific details of the Adminis- tration's block grant proposals, we firmly believe it is important that the concepts be publicly discussed. Furthermore, we believe that Congress must be given a concise message that this is a direction in intergovernmental funding that Governors believe to be vital to the successful exercise of our joint responsibility for the funding and management of human service programs We are asking that you join us in communicating to our respective Congressional delegations and appropriate Committee chairmen our belief that hearings should be soon held for the purpose of discussing the concepts contained in the Administration's block grant proposals. The list of block grant proposals and the Committee to which they have been referred is attache for your reference. Through our united efforts we hope to impress upon Congress the necessity of addressing these issues promptly and directly. Sincerely, Cecil D. Andrus Daniel J. Evans Chairman, NGC Committee on Vice Chairman, NGC Committee on Human Resources Human Resources Dan Dear Governor Evans: I would like to thank you and Governor Andrus for your March 29th letter in which you expressed to your fellow Governors your joint support for the Administration's block grant proposals. 11 As I am sure you are aware, these proposals reflect the President's desires to improve the delivery of Federal categorical programs. Needless to say, there has not been overwhelming support shown for these proposals in the Congress. The support that you express in your letter and the support which your letter will hopefully create within the Governors' Conference are much needed and appre- ciated. I would like to again express my appreciation for your support and hope that it will, along with other efforts, generate a positive response in the Congress. Sincerely James M. Cannon Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs The Honorable Daniel J. Evans Governor of Washington Olympia, Washington 98501 FORD is LIBRARY GERALD USE HINGTON Dear Governor Andrus: I would like to thank you and Governor Evans for your March 29th letter in which you expressed to your fellow Governors your joint support for the Administration's block grant proposals. As I am sure you are aware, these proposals reflect the President's desires to improve the delivery of Federal categorical programs. Needless to say, there has not been overwhelming support shown for these proposals in the Congress. The support that you express in your letter and the support which your letter will hopefully create within the Governors' Conference are much needed and appre- ciated. I would like to again express my appreciation for your support and hope that it will, along with other efforts, generate a positive response in the Congress. Jan James M. Camon Sincerely, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs 100 The Honorable Cecil D. Andrus Governor of Idaho Boise, Idaho 83701 National Governors' Robert D. Ray Governor of lowa Chairman Conference Seventeenth Street N.W. Suite Steve 600 April 1, 1976 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)785-5600 .) wl Aue That To copy wr Mr. James Cannon Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs 2) The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Jim: miste I thought you might like to see a copy of the enclosed letter from Governor Andrus and Governor Evans to their fellow Jun Governors on the subject of the President's block grant pro- posals. Sincerely, Steve Stephen B. Farber Director Enclosure LISEARY GERALD FORD Cc; McConchey THE WHITE HOUSE Pul - WASHINGTON - April 15, 1976 Thanks lets you and I have a MEMORANDUM FOR: MAX FRIEDERSDORF JIM CANNON Shartegy FROM: PAUL MYER Ession. SUBJECT: Review of House Subcommittee Actions on General Revenue Sharing Renewal In On Wednesday, April 14, 1976, the House Government Operations Subcommittee completed markup of legislation to extend and revise the General Revenue Sharing program. A clean bill will be introduced and reported to the full Committee after the recess. During the final days of the markup, the Subcommittee reversed a number of earlier tentative decisions, taking actions which improved the bill. While it does not en- dorse the President's proposal, it is generally consistent with its basic principle and represents a good markup vehicle in the full Committee for purposes of strengthen- ing the bill further. In summary, the Subcommittee bill would: FORD & LIBRARY GERALD * extend the program's authorization for 3 3/4 years; * establish entitlement financing for the program, providing funds for the total authorization period; * freeze funding at its present level ($6.6 billion) specifically rejecting any annual increase; * retain the present distribution formula; * delete present priority expenditure categories and matching prohibition; - 2 - * strengthen scope and enforcement of non- discrimination provisions, however, providing that all administrative remedies be exhausted prior to court action; and * expand present, reporting, auditing and citizen participation requirements. I have asked Treasury to prepare a detailed analysis of the Subcommittee bill. Full Committee markup should begin shortly after the recess. Jack Brooks and the Subcommittee's liberal Democrats are not happy with the final bill. Brooks will clearly revisit all the major issues in Committee (i e , method of funding and civil rights) and liberals may seek to revise the distribution formula in some way. It is anticipated that the Committee will report a bill prior to the May 15 deadline. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON April 26, 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR: MAX FRIEDERSDORF JIM CANNON FROM: PAUL MYER SUBJECT: Summary and Analysis of House Subcommittee Action on General Revenue Sharing Legislation Attached for your information are two documents which summarize the House Subcommittee's action on General Revenue Sharing renewal legislation and compares the Subcommittee bill with current law and the President's proposal. The Subcommittee is scheduled to report a clear bill on Wednesday, April 28. The Full Committee should consider this item the following week. Attachment FORD LIBRARY Actions Taken by the Subcommittee Listed below are the major actions that have been taken by the Subcommittee concerning the General Revenue Sharing Program. The extent to which these actions deviate from the President's proposal is shown in parenthesis. 1. The program has been extended for 3 3/4 years. (The President's proposal would extend the program for 5 3/4 years.) 2. The level of funding will be kept at the present level of $6.65 billion annually. (The President's proposal would have increased that amount at 2.4 percent yearly for 5 3/4 years.) 3. The program will be funded through an entitlement mechanism. While this is not as insulated from Congressional dabbling as a joint authorization and appropriation, it has several advantages along the same lines. The Appropriations Committee would only have jurisdiction if the amount authorized by the legislative committee (in this case Government Operations) is greated than that approved by the Budget Committee. Then the Appropriations Committee would have 15 days in which to adjust the legislative committee's action. If they do not, the dis- crepancy must be reconciled on the Floor. The other major benefit is that since entitlements are specifically authorized in the Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974, there is no need for a special rule as there would be with a joint authorization and appropriation. 4. Participation in the program will be restricted to general requirements: purpose units of government that satisfy the following two (The President's proposal would have maintained the existing eligibility requirements to all general purpose governments.) a. levy taxes or receives intergovernmental transfers. b. performs two or more municipal type services from a specified list of such services. (It is not clear how many governments would be impacted by this. We suspect that it will not be many.) 5. unchanged. The formula for disbursing funds has been left basically (The President's bill had requested raising the 145 percent upper constraint to 175 percent.) FORD - 2 - 6. Priority expenditure categories have been eliminated. (The President's proposal would retain these categories.) 7. The prohibition against the use of revenue sharing monies for matching purposed has been eliminated. 8. States are required to maintain their local aid at a level equivalent to that of Fiscal Year 1976. 9. Construction projects using 25 percent of more revenue sharing monies must comply with the Davis-Bacon Act. 10. Non-discrimination provisions have been substantially strenthened to apply to all activities of a recipient government unless that government can show with "clear and convincing evidence" that General Revenue Sharing funds have been placed solely in a program that does not violate civil rights laws. The non-discrimination provisions have been expanded to include the handicapped, and aged in addition to race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Extensive hearing and compliance procedures are spelled out requiring time limits for investigations compliance, administrative procedure, and court actions. Private civil suits are permitted after the exhaustion of administrative remedies. 11. Citizen participation requirements have been strengthened. 12. Plan and actual use reports have been expanded to include comparative information on a jurisdiction's total budget and how revenue sharing funds relate to particular items in the budget. 13. All governments will be required to conduct an independent audit of General Revenue Sharing accounts. BASIC PROVISIONS CURRENT LAW PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL SUBCOMMITTEE DRAFT BILL (P. L. 92-512) H. R. 6558 Funding level $30.2 billion to be distributed $39.5 billion to dis- $24.9 billion to be distributed Jan. 1, 1977 Jan. 1, 1972 to Dec. 31, 1976. tributed Jan. 1, 1977 to Sept. 30, 1980. to Sept. 30, 1982. Funding 5 year trust fund. 5 3/4 year trust fund. 3 3/4 year entitlement. (Note: an entitlement Mechanism program is not the same as annual appropriations. Under the entitlement provision, the Appropria - tions Committee would only have jurisdiction if the amount authorized by the legislative committee (Covernment Operations) is greater than that approved by the Budget Committee. Under such circumstances the Appropriations Committee would have 15 days in which to adjust the legislative committee's action. If they do not, the dis- crepancy must be reconciled on the Floor.) Annual $150 million per year each No change. No increment. Funds are frozen at the 1976 Increment level of $6.65 billion. Eligibility All units of general purpose No change. To participate local government recipients must: government are eligible to 1) Be defined as a unit of general purpose participate in the program. government by the Census Bureau. 2) Impose taxes or receive intergovernmental transfer payments. 3) Provides "substantially" for at least two of the following services: police, courts and corrections, fire protection, health services, social services, recreation, libraries, sewage disposal and water supply, solid waste dis- posal, zoning or land-use planning, pollution abatement, roads, mass transit, and education. 4) Spend at least 10 percent of their total ex- penditure for two of the services or provide four of the listed services. Formula Money allocated by formula based No change. No change. Provisions on population, per capita income and tax effort. The maximum entitlement to local Raised to 175 percent. No change. government of 145 percent of the average statewide per capita entitlement. The minimum entitlement to local No change. No change. government of 20 percent of the average statewide per capita entitlement. No local government will receive No change. No change. more than 50 percent of its non- school revenues plus its inter- governmental transfers. Any general purpose government No change. No change. receiving less than $200 will not receive any money. States receive 1/3 of funds dis- No change. No change. tributed, local governments receive 2/3. Citizen Recipient governments must publish No change. Participation Recipient governments must hold public hearings planned and actual Use Reports in and Public on the proposed Use Report at least 7 days before the newspapers of general circulation. Hearing submission of the report to ORS. Requires assurance that there will No change. Recipient governments must hold a second hearing, at least be a public hearing or other method 7 days before the adoption of their budget, showing the by which the public may participate relationship of GRS funds to functional items in their in deciding how the funds are to budget. be spent. 30 days before the second hearing, the government must publish a summary of its budget and proposed Allocation of GRS monies must be in No change. Use Report in a general circulation newspaper. accordance with State and local law. Hearings must be at a place and time that "permits and encourages citizen participation." Reporting Law prescribes reports on amounts No change, Requirements Proposed Use Report must include comparative data and purposes of planned and actual on the use of GRS funds for the current and the expenditures. two previous entitlement periods and must compare them to items in budget. Proposed Use Reports must specify whether the use is for new expanded, a continuation of activity or tax stabilization or reduction. Actual Use Reports must be filed with ORS. Any differ- erences between planned and actual uses must be explained. Budgets and Use Reports must be available at principal government office and libraries. Budget Summary must be published in newspaper 30 days after adoption with explanation of changes between the proposed and actual Use Reports. Anti- Law contains strong anti-dis- Clarifies the Secre- Discrimination prohibited on basis of race, Discrimination crimination requirement. Secre- tary's authority to color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or Provisions tary's enforcement powers are invoke one or more handicapped status under any State or local pro- stated in general terms: to remedies where a reci- gram except where recipient can prove "with clear refer matter to Attorney General pient government is and gonvincing evidence" that program was not for functions provided by Title VI found to have used funded with GRS monies. of Civil Rights Act of 1964, or to revenue sharing funds take such other action as may be in a discriminatory Extensive hearing and compliance procedures are provided by law. fashion. This includes spelled out requiring time limits for investi- the authority to with- gations, compliance, administrative procedures, and hold all or a portion court actions. of entitlement funds due to the government Private civil suits are permitted after the and require repayment exhaustion of administrative remedies. of funds expended in a LIGHTHY discriminatory fashion. Matching Revenue Sharing funds may not be No change. Matching prohibition eliminated. Prohibition utilized to meet Federal grant matching requirements. Davis-Bacon Davis-Bacon (minimum-wage) applies No change. No change. Provision to construction projects using 25 percent or more of revenue sharing monies. Priority Local governments may use funds for No change. Priorities eliminated. Categories any capital projects but only for operating and maintenance expenses of programs in eight priority ex- penditure categories (public safety, environmental protection, public transportation, health, recreation, libraries, social services, for the poor or aged, and financial adminis- tration.) Congressional No general review of program No general review of the Secretary of Treasury must make an annual report. Review is required. program is required. Comptroller General is to review compliance. State mainten- States must maintain level of fund No change. State must maintain level of funds transferred ance of Effort transfers to localities as of to localities as of Fiscal '76. Fiscal '72. Auditing Recipient governments must use fiscal No change. Annual "independent" audit required of all State Requirements accounting and auditing procedures and local finances except where the cost of such audits that permit Federal government to audit. is disproportionately large in relation to CRS funds. Anti-lobbying No provision. Provisions No provision. No recipient governments may use directly or indirectly any GRS funds for "lobbying or to influence any legislation regarding the Act." OFFICE OF THE VICE president WASHINGTON, D.C. April 29, 1976 Jim Cannon - Attached from the VP. Dick Allison File S FORD LIBRARY OFFICE OF THE VICE president WASHINGTON April 27, 1976 The Vice President 1. Attached is your copy of the latest status report on revenue sharing. 2. Tomorrow the bill will be reported to the full committee, which is now scheduled to take it up next week. Orih Whim GERALD FORD LIBRARY THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON April 26, 1976 Sun MEMORANDUM FOR: MAX FRIEDERSDORF SUBJECT: Summary and Analysis of House you'd her JIM CANNON to FROM: PAUL MYER Subcommittee Action on General Revenue Sharing Legislation Attached for your information are two documents which summarize the House Subcommittee's action on General Revenue Sharing renewal legislation and compares the agreet a great on Subcommittee bill with current law and the President's proposal. The Subcommittee is scheduled to report a clear bill Wednesday, April 28. The Full Committee should consider this item the following week. Attachment bil FORD i LIBRARY GERALD Actions Taken by the Subcommittee Listed below are the major actions that have been taken by the Subcommittee concerning the General Revenue Sharing Program. The extent to which these actions deviate from the President's proposal is shown in parenthesis. 1. The program has been extended for 3 3/4 years. (The President's proposal would extend the program for 5 3/4 years.) 2. The level of funding will be kept at the present level of $6.65 billion annually. (The President's proposal would have increased that amount at 2.4 percent yearly for 5 3/4 years.) 3. The program will be funded through an entitlement mechanism. While this is not as insulated from Congressional dabbling as a joint authorization and appropriation, it has several advantages along the same lines. The Appropriations Committee would only have jurisdiction if the amount authorized by the legislative committee (in this case Government Operations) is greated than that approved by the Budget Committee. Then the Appropriations Committee would have 15 days in which to adjust the legislative committee's action. If they do not, the dis- crepancy must be reconciled on the Floor. The other major benefit is that since entitlements are specifically authorized in the Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974, there is no need for a special rule as there would be with a joint authorization and appropriation. 4. Participation in the program will be restricted to general purpose units of government that satisfy the following two requirements: (The President's proposal would have maintained the existing eligibility requirements to all general purpose governments.) a. levy taxes or receives intergovernmental transfers. b. performs two or more municipal type services from a specified list of such services. (It is not clear how many governments would be impacted by this. We suspect that it will not be many.) 5. unchanged. The formula for disbursing funds has been left basically (The President's bill had requested raising the 145 percent upper constraint to 175 percent.) SECRETA FORD CIBRARY - 2 - 6. Priority expenditure categories have been eliminated. (The President's proposal would retain these categories.) 7. The prohibition against the use of revenue sharing monies for matching purposed has been eliminated. 8. States are required to maintain their local aid at They fiel equivalent to that of Fiscal Year 1976. 5/16/m 9. Construction projects using 25 percent of more revenue sharing monies must comply with the Davis-Bacon Act. 10. Non-discrimination provisions have been substantially strenthened to apply to all activities of a recipient government unless that government can show with "clear and convincing evidence" that General Revenue Sharing funds have been placed solely in a program that does not violate civil rights laws. The non-discrimination provisions have been expanded to include the handicapped, and aged in addition to race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Extensive hearing and compliance procedures are spelled out requiring time limits for investigations compliance, administrative procedure, and court actions. Private civil suits are permitted after the exhaustion of administrative remedies. 11. Citizen participation requirements have been strengthened. 12. Plan and actual use reports have been expanded to include comparative information on a jurisdiction's total budget and how revenue sharing funds relate to particular items in the budget. 13. All governments will be required to conduct an independent audit of General Revenue Sharing accounts. BASIC PROVISIONS CURRENT LAW PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL SUBCOMMITTEE DRAFT BILL (P. L. 92-512) H. R. 6558 LIBRARY Funding level $30.2 billion to be distributed $39.5 billion to dis- $24.9 billion to be distributed Jan. 1, 1977 Jan. 1, 1972 to Dec. 31, 1976. tributed Jan. 1, 1977 to Sept. 30, 1980. FORD to Sept. 30, 1982. Funding 5 year trust fund. 5 3/4 year trust fund. 3 3/4 year entitlement. (Nòte: an entitlement Mechanism program is not the same as annual appropriations. Under the entitlement provision, the Appropria - tions Committee would only have jurisdiction if the amount authorized by the legislative committee (Government Operations) is greater than that approved by the Budget Committee. Under such circumstances the Appropriations Committee would have 15 days in which to adjust the legislative committee's action. If they do not, the dis- crepancy must be reconciled on the Floor.) Annual $150 million per year each No change. No increment. Funds are frozen at the 1976 Increment level of $6.65 billion. Eligibility All units of general purpose No change. To participate local government recipients must: government are eligible to 1) Be defined as a unit of general purpose participate in the program. government by the Census Bureau. 2) Impose taxes or receive intergovernmental transfer payments. 3) Provides "substantially" for at least two of the following services: police, courts and corrections, fire protection, health services, social services, recreation, libraries, sewage disposal and water supply, solid waste dis- posal, zoning or land-use planning, pollution abatement, roads, mass transit, and education. 4) Spend at least 10 percent of their total ex- penditure for two of the services or provide four of the listed services. Formula Money allocated by formula based No change. No change. Provisions on population, per capita income and tax effort. The maximum entitlement to local Raised to 175 percent. No change. government of 145 percent of the average statewide per capita entitlement. The minimum entitlement to local No change. No change. government of 20 percent of the average statewide per capita entitlement. No local government will receive No change. No change. more than 50 percent of its non- school revenues plus its inter- governmental transfers. Any general purpose government No change. No change. receiving less than $200 will not receive any money. States receive 1/3 of funds dis- No change. No change. tributed, local governments receive 2/3. Citizen Recipient governments must publish No change. Recipient governments must hold public hearings Participation planned and actual Use Reports in on the proposed Use Report at least 7 days before the and Public newspapers of general circulation. submission of the report to ORS. Hearing Requires assurance that there will No change. Recipient governments must hold a second hearing, at least be a public hearing or other method 7 days before the adoption of their budget, showing the by which the public may participate relationship of GRS funds to functional items in their in deciding how the funds are to budget. be spent. 30 days before the second hearing, the government must publish a summary of its budget and proposed Allocation of GRS monies must be in No change. Use Report in a general circulation newspaper. accordance with State and local law. Hearings must be at a place and time that "permits and encourages citizen participation." Reporting Law prescribes reports on amounts No change. Proposed Use Report must include comparative data Requirements and purposes of planned and actual on the use of GRS funds, for the current and the expenditures. two previous entitlement periods and must compare them to items in budget. Proposed Use Reports must specify whether the use is for new expanded, a continuation of activity or tax stabilization or reduction. Actual Use Reports must be filed with ORS. Any differ - erences between planned and actual uses must be explained. Budgets and Use Reports must be available at principal government office and libraries. Budget Summary must be published in newspaper 30 days after adoption with explanation of changes between the proposed and actual Use Reports. Anti- Law contains strong anti-dis- Clarifies the Secre- Discrimination prohibited on basis of race, Discrimination crimination requirement. Secre- tary's authority to color, religion, sex, age, national origin, or Provisions tary's enforcement powers are invoke one or more handicapped status under any State or local pro- stated in general terms: to remedies where a reci- gram except where recipient can prove "with clear refer matter to Attorney General pient government is and convincing evidence" that program was not for functions provided by Title VI found to have used funded with GRS monies. of Civil Rights Act of 1964, or to revenue sharing funds take such other action as may be in a discriminatory Extensive hearing and compliance procedures are provided by law. fashion. This includes spelled out requiring time limits for investi- the authority to with- gations, compliance, administrative procedures, and hold all or a portion court actions. of entitlement funds due to the government Private civil suits are permitted after the and require repayment exhaustion of administrative remedies. of funds expended in a discriminatory fashion. Matching Revenue Sharing funds may not be No change. Matching prohibition eliminated. Prohibition utilized to meet Federal grant matching requirements. Davis-Bacon Davis-Bacon (minimum-wage) applies No change. No change. Provision to construction projects using 25 percent or more of revenue sharing monies. Priority Local governments may use funds for No change. Priorities eliminated. Categories any capital projects but only for operating and maintenance expenses of programs in eight priority ex- penditure categories (public safety, environmental protection, public transportation, health, recreation, libraries, social services, for the poor or aged, and financial adminis- tration.) Congressional No general review of program No general review of the Secretary of Treasury must make an annual report. Review is required. program is required. Comptroller General is to review compliance. State mainten- States must maintain level of fund No change. State must maintain level of funds transferred ance of Effort transfers to localities as of to localities as of Fiscal '76. Fiscal '72. Recipient governments must use fiscal No change. Annual "independent" audit required of all State Auditing and local finances except where the cost of such audits Requirements accounting and auditing procedures is disproportionately large in relation to GRS funds. that permit Federal government to audit. Anti-lobbying No provision. No provision. Provisions No recipient governments may use directly or indirectly any GRS funds for "lobbying or to influence any legislation regarding the Act. "