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
1672666
label
Big Government
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1672666
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Big Government
citationUrl
collections
Michael Raoul-Duval Papers
Election Campaign Files
subjects
Government regulation
Presidential campaign, 1976
Regulatory reform
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1672666
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-09-30
month
9
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-03-01
month
3
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
65da63aa8dec5093
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 12, folder "Big Government" of the Michael
Raoul-Duval Papers 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. Michael Raoul-Duval 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United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives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.
3
Big Gout.
Govt.
THE FORD ECONOMIC POLICIES-
A COMPASSIONATE STRATEGY FOR JOB CREATION
1. The recession recently experienced by all industrial
countries demonstrated that inflation by undermining
confidence, destroys jobs. This happens because con-
sumers hold back on purchases, inventories accumulate,
production is slowed, and managers defer investment
in plant and equipment.
2. The President's strategy for reducing unemployment
and creating new jobs has been to rebuild confidence
by showing that inflation can be curbed through reducing
the rate of increase in government spending and demon-
strating, by the courageous exercise of the veto power,
that government has the will to resist politically
appealing but non-essential claims on national resources.
3. Government spending for public service jobs not only
reaches the wrong people but can never be more than a
stop-gap at best because a job that would not exist but
for public subsidy is by definition a "non-productive
job" that will last only as long as the subsidy is
available. The use of public money to provide non-
productive jobs is bound over the long run to be infla-
tionary--thus risking job destruction rather than con-
tributing to job creation. To the extent that federal
funds are used to create productive jobs, those funds
supplant expenditures that would otherwise be made by
other levels of government or by the private sector.
4. The only effective means, therefore, of achieving
full employment is to set the economy on a course of
sustainable growth that will generate enough new jobs
every year to employ the people newly entering the job
market. The only adequate job creation policy is thus
a comprehensive capital formation policy. Nor can the
failure of private investment to create new jobs be com-
pensated for by government programs. The direct subsidy
of jobs will not work for the reasons set forth above.
5. The higher the chronic level of unemployment and under-
employment, the more impossible becomes the task of coping
with such social problems as welfare dependency, drug
abuse, and crime. Unless the economy is able to provide
an adequate number of decent jobs, the able-bodied welfare
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
recipient, the rehabilitated addict, and the discharged
offender have nowhere to go. Welfare costs mount,
crime increases, and public spending soars. Infla-
tionary pressures are renewed, confidence again deter-
iorates, and unemployment grows even worse. Expectations
toward government are disappointed and alienation is
reinforced.
6. Sound economic policies and compassionate social
policies are thus inseparably linked.
ELR
TORD LIBRARY "di GENALD
April 16, 1976
4/20 7 p.m.
letter -
Site
Big Govt.
usue is not just A Govt. it all
big institutions
- levels of alrandtron has gone
up in '72 '75 = to last
20 years. key is to big
size.
- RR Giggest line
"Whing to has defended they
against inflation"
- when indititions get too beg
me people in then don. +
care about citizens only
about the institution.
- No redress in case of big
institution ; can't communicete
w/ it.
- ad hos pressure groups
pop up.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
11
fear of came has alot to
do w/ this.
Tetter P2
People are turning out
)
P doem't have to support
all Fed. institutions
IDEA: Small hre little guy'
bell of mights.
II
Key CAN'T get
HookeD WITH
BIG BUSINESS
should support tough
anti-tust position.
GLRAID FORD LIBRARY
file
WM. L. RUTHERFORD
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4801 PROSPECT ROAD
PEORIA HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS
61614
AREA CODE 309
TELEPHONE 688-6631
March 23, 1976
Dear Mike:
It was a great pleasure visiting with you at the Bond's nice
evening and I hope I did not take advantage of your time.
I enclose several pages from our local paper showing local
publicity on the problem of the "Federal Octopus".
Also is a copy of my letter that substituted for my appearance
at a hearing the night we visited.
The local hospital is trying to find the specific regulation citations
to some problems so your effort in verification is reduced. An example
is the new requirement that no hospital patient may be more than 30 feet
from a stair. That will cut out over 20% of the beds in our rehabilitation
center! ! What's more, a stair is of utterly no use tomost of our patients
like people in traction, an iron lung, a respirator, etc. They could not
be carried out, much less make use of the stair with their own efforts or
any help that anyone could reasonably expect.
On a somewhat similar complaint about a congressional proposal
on an income tax change I enclose copy of letter to Phil Crane I hope will
be helpful.
I am most grateful to think there is anyone in Washington even remotely
interested in a citizens concerns. I can imagine the pressures on your time
and energy and the number of windmills one could chase down there. If even
a few of our details assist your efforts, we are most appreciative of the privilege.
I will get more to you very soon.
Best wishes,
Bill
FORD is LIBRARY 02RALD
Wm. L. Rutherford
WLR:aw
Enclosures
FORD
Whitburn Motor Co.
RBC has SEEN
Ford
NORTH HIGHWAY 51
TELEPHONE 536-4543
MERCURY
MERRILL, WISCONSIN 54452
It' "Big Feb Govt" March
22, 1976
Mr. Richard Cheney
Denal
Assistant to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Dick:
Thanks so much for your hospitality.
One thought that I've had that I didn't pass along
to you when we talked is that I would strongly recommend
that the President, in the coming weeks, reiterate the call
he enunciated earlier for less government regulation of
small business. Every time we open themail, we find new
requirements, forms, regulations, reports, guidelines, and
other government restrictions to conform to and deal with.
The President's promise to turn this trend around was
very well received when it was made, and I am sure that
this is the kind of statement that will, in fact, turn
votes in the business community.
You might consider appointing a commission this spring
composed of small- and medium-sized business people who
would make recommendations concerning specific government
paper work requirements that might be eliminated.
Very best regards!
Sincerely,
Aar
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
Gerald Whitburn
le
PRODUCTS OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY
March 18, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: DICK CHENEY
FROM:
JIM CAVANAUGH
SUBJECT:
Some Thoughts on Big Government
After talking with a number of people in recent
weeks, including Jerry Jones, Paul O'Neill, and
people outside of government, I think we can now
identify what the major problems are that taxpayers
have with the way their government functions. What
I have attempted to do below is to set forth the
six areas of concern, state what I perceive to be the
President's positions or stands, and provide suggested
steps or actions that could be taken to highlight the
President's position. The areas are:
1. Bigness
Problem: The taxpayers equate bigness in
government with lack of control and accountability
of government workers, and the development of
make-work projects to continue to justify not only
bigness but increases in federal employment.
Agree
Disagree
The President's Position: The President is
against unnecessary and unrestrained growth in
the size of the federal government. He wants to
cut back on the current size of government.
Agree
Disagree
Proposed Actions:
a.
Seek opportunities to point out the President's
FY 77 budget decisions on the size of
federal employment.
have
Approve
Disapprove
have in or
cuts
GERALD R. LIBRANY FORD
-2-
b.
Have Ron Nessen indicate at a press briefing
that the President was concerned about a
recent Wall Street Journal article indicating
there were 112 people engaged in public
relations at the Federal Energy Administration
and that the President had asked Frank Zarb
about the accuracy of this article and how
he can justify 112 people being involved in
public relations.
Approve
Disapprove
C. In speeches across the country, the President
could encourage citizens to send people to
Washington who are committed to reducing
bureaucracy, instead of continuing to elect
officials who are committed to building it.
Approve
Disapprove
d. The President should send a memorandum to
the departments and agencies which would be
made public, asking them to review their
Lyna
current organizations and give him recommendations
by July 1 on how they could be made more
efficient and effective. We could then release
one report per week during the summer and early
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
fall.
Approve
Disapprove
e.
Consider development of another Hoover
NO more
Commission to study the organization of the
government.
Approve
Disapprove
2. Illogical Foolishness
Problem: There are numerous examples of illogical
foolishness which equate in the taxpayers' mind
with waste, inefficiency, and a government that
really doesn't know what it's doing. A recent
example is the James J. Kilpatrick article about
the OSHA inspector telling a hospital that they must
-3-
use plastic bags in trash containers for
cleanliness, and an HEW inspector telling the
same hospital that they must not use plastic
bags because of a fire hazard.
Another example of foolishness is OSHA indicating
that the temperature inside the tents of
sheepherders in Montana must be 68 degrees.
Agree
Disagree
?
The President's Position: The President feels
Regulatory all et
Peners 29,
aignoff. navo 5 dry
that actions taken by agencies or individuals
employed by agencies of the federal government
reguing
which are illogical or foolishness must be
stopped immediately.
n Agree
Disagree
A
Proposed Actions:
We should continue to look for these kinds of
examples and when they occur react quickly and
firmly by having the President, through phone
calls or memos, ask the appropriate agency head (s)
for a report on their actions and what they are
going to do to stop this foolishness in the future.
Approve
Disapprove
3.
Red Tape and Paper Work
Problem: The public perceives red tape and paper
Postage
work as the bureaucrats trying to be smarter than
the average guy who is attempting to obtain
assistance or help from the federal government.
Complicated and lengthy forms coupled with
multiple approvals and reviews by various
departments, agencies, and sub-agencies lead to
public frustration and outrage. Many citizens
have the feeling that they just can't deal with
the red tape and paper work demands of the federal
government.
Agree
Disagree
FORD i LIBRARY 918410
-4-
The President's Position: The President is for
reducing unnecessary paper work and wants to cut
red tape. Recently the President directed the
heads of departments and agencies to effect a
10 percent reduction in federal paper work this
year.
Agree
Disagree
NO 10% to Solution
Proposed Actions: Two weeks ago the President
signed and released a memorandum to the heads of
departments and agencies directing them to effect
a 10 percent reduction in paper work. This received
some press play around the country, but we need to
a
hit it again.
a. Invite Tom Steed and Frank Horton of the
Federal Paper Work Commission down for a
meeting and photo opportunity with the President
and Jim Lynn in the Cabinet Room. Jim Lynn
would then do a press briefing on the actions
the President has directed be taken to reduce
federal paper work.
Approve
Disapprove
b.
At the next Cabinet meeting, stack up at the
end of the Cabinet Room table copies of all
the reports the President has been required
to send to Congress during the last twelve
months. We should do a photo opportunity of
the meeting, and Ron Nessen could brief on
FORD LIBRARY i GERALD
the strong direction and orders that the
good
President gave members of the Cabinet to work
with the Congress to reduce the number of
reports that he is required to submit at
taxpayer expense.
Approve
Disapprove
C.
The President could visit a small town and
idea
receive from the mayor and town council a
good
briefing on the problems that small towns have
in dealing with federal bureaucratic requirements.
The President could then direct his staff to
-5-
take action immediately to ease the
requirements on small towns.
Approve
Disapprove
d.
The President could visit a state capital
and meet with the governor and department
idea
heads to receive a briefing from them on
problems of red tape and dealing with the
good
federal government, and direct his staff to
take whatever administrative actions are
possible under law to effect reforms.
Approve
Disapprove
4.
Waste (Either Real or Perceived) in Government
wint
Problem: The taxpayers' view of government waste
is that it takes more money out of their pockets.
hix
"Johnny Six-pack" gets concerned when he pays his
tax bill on April 15 and then picks up his paper
Key
and sees that the federal government is paying a
group of students to watch pornographic movies
and smoke marijuana, or that the Department of
Transportation has a $27,000 "representation fund"
to entertain people at the Jockey Club.
identhond. Very (Resend) 6
Agree
Disagree
&
The President's Position: The President is opposed
to waste in government and is taking strong steps
get
to do whatever is necessary to stop it.
Agree
Disagree
Jeny patiented Review citizen
Proposed Actions:
a.
Ron Nessen should say at his next briefing
that the President recently saw a news account
on the HEW-financed study on marijuana at the
University of Illinois and immediately called
Secretary Mathews to express his concern and
ask for a report.
ck. Forumo Rocky
Approve
Disapprove
wentry
-6-
b. The President could ask for the same type
of report from Secretary Coleman on their
"representation fund," and when he receives
the report he could direct the Secretary to
reduce the size of the fund or eliminate it.
Approve
Disapprove
5. Harsh Attitudes
Key
Problem: Harsh attitudes reflected by employees
of the federal government in their dealings with
the public have got many taxpayers convinced
that they do not have the ability to impact on
their government. All this leads to a perception
that the government is the master rather than the
servant of the people. This is true in some agencies
true?
more than others, with IRS having perhaps the
worst reputation of dealing with the public.
Agree
Disagree
The President's Position: The President disapproves
of any unwarranted actions by civil servants that
lead to the conclusion that government in fact is
the master and not the servant of the people. He
is fed up with those individuals in the federal
establishment who aren't willing to give people
GERALD P. LISERVA FORD
or organizations they deal with courteous,
straightforward, and prompt answers to their
questions and problems.
Agree
Disagree
Proposed Actions:
a. Review out-of-town papers to find examples of
alleged cases of harsh treatment of individuals
and organizations and check them out for
accuracy. If accurate, the President should
phone or send memos to members of the Cabinet
expressing his concern and asking for a report
which includes what constructive steps will be
taken to prevent such actions in the future
and how the federal employees involved will be
reprimanded.
Approve
Disapprove
-7-
b.
Consider proposing reforms in the Civil
Service structure so that civil servants
aren't guaranteed lifetime jobs without
any relation to their ability to perform.
This could be launched in a positive way
when the President vetoes the Hatch Act
Amendments.
Approve
Disapprove
6. Self-Serving Public Officials
Problem: There is a feeling by some that the
government and its officials can't be trusted and
that crookedness exists. This translates into
a feeling that government serves those who pay
and that the system is rigged against the average
citizen. Recent examples that have come to the
public's attention are the HUD mortgage scandals
in Chicago and Los Angeles and the grain export
fraud scandals in New Orleans.
Agree
Disagree
The President's Position: The President wants
federal officials and employees to follow his own
high standards of honesty and integrity.
Agree
Disagree
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Proposed Actions:
At a Cabinet meeting, preferably in the next six
to eight weeks, the Counsel's Office should
distribute standards of conduct and the executive
order which is given to all members of the White
House staff. The President could then comment to
the Cabinet on the importance of ensuring that all
the officials appointed by the President are
reminded of the standards they are expected to
follow, and that the President expects the Cabinet
to take firm action where the standards of conduct
are violated or where there is a violation of law.
Approve
Disapprove
-8-
Conclusion
Frankly, it's been a little tougher to get a
handle on this area as compared to the work in
the agriculture area. Another key difference is
that this effort is going to take sustained work.
There are also additional ideas that are worth
considering. Jerry Jones has suggested that we
Calinet official?
might consider setting aside three or four hours
of the President's time every week or perhaps every
two weeks for him to review citizen-type "case work"
problems that people are having dealing with the
federal government and to personally get involved in
working out these problems with members of the Cabinet.
He did this as a member of Congress representing Grand
Rapids from the legislative branch perspective, and he
may wish to do it now as the head of the executive
branch. I think this has great possibilities for
getting people's attention in the bureaucracy that
the President does want to see the government serve
the people better, more effectively, and more
efficiently.
One of the keys to making all of this work is to
continue to be alert to problems as they occur and
have a quick mechanism of calling them to the
President's attention.
We should spend some time with Red Cavaney and the
importat sem
Advance staff so that they will spot stories in local
communities that fit into one of these areas where
action can be taken.
We will also have to work with Ron Nessen and the
News Summary people so that they will call news stories
in out-of-town papers to our attention for possible action.
In summary, I think we can do something with this
program. It will take a sustained effort. It will
take the cooperation of a lot of people who may have
ideas, and it will require the President to be very
firm with departments and agencies as they step out of
line.
GERALD R. LIGRAMY FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILES
FROM:
MIKE DUVAL
SUBJECT:
ANTI-GOVERNMENT STRIKE FORCE
This is a reminder note of an idea I had to establish an
anti-red tape strike force. This would be done at the
Federal level by taking some very, very good attorneys
(probably from the litigation divisions of Justice),
augmenting them with some economists and people with
regulatory experience. We would provide leadership with
someone who could provide a good strategy (such as John
Snow from DOT) and turn them loose trying to cut Federal
red tape. This could either be done by going to department
to department, starting a watershed and moving down to the
field, or it could be done city to city.
This is something the President could order, it would have
high visibility and could end up doing a heck of a good
job.
BIG GOVERNMENT
A. y.
govt -no longer of people ; instationalized)
people feel impotent ;
pet
- can't communicate
cun
VAC Speech
- on TOP of this Is what
govt. doing to people ;
- largely a Communication
public ; can't comments
because too big. no one
can decide ) function of
govt is to serve the people
P has Constitutional
to reporat people
problem Service : j Cevil
i. legislation to restructure
Covs. too impersonal because
its too big
Only people can serve people
must de-inetitutoralize
P very good at dealing w/ people
should get involved
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
NOTES CONCERNING THE "BIG GOVERNMENT" ISSUE
In general, it has received a low priority ranking from
the American public. "Government getting too big" is
ranked as one of the top three national issues by only
14% of the people. (Note: This is based on the December
survey.)
Of the total sample taken, it only ranks 6%.
Note Xerox pages 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 of the blue book.
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 19, 1976
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL SEIDMAN
ED SCHMULTS
FROM:
STEVE McCONAHEY
Sem
SUBJECT:
Regulations Review
It is my understanding that the regulatory reform effort is
beginning to focus on the regulations of the Federal depart-
ments and independent agencies. Given the fact that these
regulations have a major impact on state, county and local
government, I would like to raise the intergovernmental
dimension of regulation reform and offer some suggestions
on the approach to this problem.
Two of the Administration's major themes have been the re-
duction of excessive government, and the return of essential
decision authority to state and local governments. The block
grant initiatives, revenue sharing, the regulatory reform
legislation are existing actions in support of these themes.
However, there has not been to date a sustained government-
wide effort to overhaul the maze of burdensome regulations
that prescribe to state and local officials how Federally-
supported programs are run. In most instances, these regulations
increase the cost of Federal assistance programs, complicate
their administration, and impose unwanted features. To many
governors and mayors, the burden of these regulations seems to
outweigh the benefits of the programs.
Based on our intergovernmental perspective, and on the observa-
tions that state and local officials have made on other White
House or agency reviews and studies, I offer the following
recommendations for the next phase of regulation review:
1. Focus the review effort on regulations surrounding
Federal assistance programs.
The majority of agency administrative regula-
tions deal with Federal public assistance programs
and largely affect the delivery of such diverse
services as health care, income support, food
stamps, job training assistance, and housing.
- 2 -
FORD i GERALD LIBRARY
These are highly visible programs that impact
on the great majority of the American people.
The regulations for administering these programs
are, in many cases, adversely affecting the
ability of state, county and local governments
to deliver the needed services. As stated in a
recent National Journal article:
"
overly detailed administrative
regulations in many areas not only
fail to achieve their purposes but
fail precisely because of the bur-
dens they place on state and local
management.
"
My review of the "targets of opportunity" being
reviewed by the EPB suggests a continued focus on
regulations affecting the private sector and the
consumer.
As an alternative, I believe we must focus the major
portion of our efforts on the domestic assistance
program regulations - if we do not, we will be over-
looking one of the major contributing factors to
excessive government and bureaucracy.
2. Provide full-time, sustained White House oversight
of in-depth, priority agency reform efforts.
The regulatory reform effort to date has been
essentially the work of a Domestic Council review
group coordinating specific legislative projects
and monitoring agency regulation activities. The
performance of the departments and agencies in re-
viewing their own regulations has been, however,
uneven and sporadic. Moreover, because of the
focus of the work to date, and because of limited
resources, the review group has not been able to
devote full time to this effort. Given the unique
management and bureaucratic problems associated
with the regulation of domestic programs, I believe
that we must approach this reform effort quite dif-
ferently than our approach to date.
The problems we are trying to overcome have a
staying power that historically outlasts the
life of any task force or review group.
- 3 -
LISRARY GERALD R. FORD
The most contemporary and startling example
of this is what is happening to the CETA program:
where sound and well-established legislative and
administrative simplification and reform is being
eroded through the gradual reimposition of old
administrative practices and rules.
If we are to move beyond identification of reform
opportunities to the actual implementation of im-
provements, I believe there must be two types of on-
going oversight:
(a) Full-time White House Oversight. Tough
and experienced White House management
of this effort will: give the effort a
clear Presidential mandate; signal this
mandate to the departments and agencies;
respond to the criticism of state and local
officials, who will give the effort full
support if they perceive the effort to be
a priority; and, insure the objectives are
achieved in a timely and visible manner.
(b) Agency Participation and Commitment. The
agencies must feel the pinch and be held
accountable for the progress of this ef-
fort. A critical element of real reform
is in-depth agency involvement. Histori-
cally, the White House has been ineffective
by itself in imposing from the outside the
type of reform needed here. It requires
agency commitment and full participation.
One suggestion is the use of the Under
Secretaries as the officials charged with
in-house oversight, and who would work
closely with and under the White House
oversight official (s).
3. Provide for input from and participation by state,
county and local officials.
No group is more aware of the problems from excessive
Federal regulation than those charged with the day-to-
day administration of the regulated programs. More-
over, these officials collectively represent an
effective force to help marshall support for these
reforms, particularly where legislative adjustments
are required. The participation of state and local
officials is essential, both substantively and politically.
- 4 -
At the same time, we must avoid a "mess chart"
situation with a tangled maze of ongoing reform
efforts. Already a number of agencies have
initiated regulation review efforts, including
HEW, Treasury, FEA and EPA. Secretary Mathews,
for example, has initiated three task force ef-
forts with the New Coalition, two of which pertain
to regulations. Secretary Simon has initiated
selective projects with the National Governors'
Conference (NGC). Most recently, Jim Lynn com-
mitted to respond to priority management and
regulation issues identified by the NGC.
For these reasons, I recommend that this effort
include the following elements:
Inputs from state and local officials
to help focus the effort (perhaps
through an advisory committee, with
members like Governor Dan Evans).
Coordination and encouragement of
reform work presently underway in
the agencies, thereby avoiding du-
plication of efforts.
Channeling of inputs from state and
local officials, and their public
interest groups, to avoid overloading
their capacity to respond.
Summary
The achievement of the President's goals of reducing big
government and rebalancing federal-state relations requires
that we focus much of our regulatory review effort on public
assistance programs, and that we directly involve the officials
responsible for the administration of these programs in the
departments and agencies. We must have strong, full-time and
sustained commitment both at the White House and at the top
leadership of the agencies. And, we must orchestrate the
various efforts now underway to maximize the input from state
and local officials.
- 5 -
Given the intergovernmental charter of my office, I am
available to provide whatever assistance I can to achieve
these objectives. I consider this a problem area of the
utmost urgency, one that we can make quick and visible
progress with, and which, if properly approached, will
measurably accomplish the President's commitment to re-
duce the burden of the Federal government.
I would like to have an opportunity to discuss this memorandum
with you.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SERVIS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
April 21, 1976
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
FROM:
James T. Lynn
SUBJECT:
Management Initiatives
The purpose of this memorandum is to get your guidance
on a plan of action intended to both (a) improve management
of the federal government and (b) increase public awareness
of your interest and actions in this area.
You have undertaken a wide range of actions that are
directed at better management in the broad sense. Certainly
block grants, deregulation, food stamp reform and the like
all make good sense from the standpoint of efficient management.
But there are many other important management initiatives --
more of the "three yards and a cloud of dust" variety --- which
are not presently perceived as having a strong Presidential
push and which the Congress and the press are increasingly
turning into news events.
Some examples are so-called "sunset" bills to limit
virtually all programs to a four year life and require
"zero-based" budgeting before renewal, bills to require economic
impact statements, bills to require evaluation provisions in
all new laws, bills to make all new regulations or modifications
of regulations subject to one-House veto procedures; bills for
more "sunshine" in regulatory agency deliberations, bills
directed at mission-oriented budget presentations, bills
attempting to define procurement contracts versus grants, and
Congressional and media interest in costs of such things as
federal employee travel and audio and visual facilities and
public affairs generally.
I think it is important that we work out promptly a
plan for you to take the lead, and be perceived as taking the
lead, on such of these kinds of initiatives as make sense.
Although most of what needs to be done can be directed by OMB
and the Domestic Council, the effort requires your personal
attention (1) to get the proper priority signal to the depart-
ments and agencies, (2) to develop the proper recognition by
the public that you care about these nitty, gritty but
-2-
important tasks, and (3) to give you yet another whole area
to weave into your various presentations -- speeches, inter-
views, Q's and A's, etc. -- as illustrative of the kinds of
things you think need to be done and are ordering done - to
make the federal government leaner, less burdensome and more
responsive to the Nation's needs.
I think the best utilization of your time to carry
this out would be to have, within the next thirty days or so,
a "no-nonsense, very businesslike and somewhat extended
session with heads of the Cabinet Departments and of the big
agencies (GSA, FEA, ERDA, VA) that would be billed as and
actually be devoted to better ways to manage. You'll remember
that sometime ago you had a "working dinner" with the Cabinet.
I propose that we build on that concept. The session could
begin in mid-afternoon and extend into the evening, with a
working dinner fitted in.
So as to produce as much momentum out of the meeting as
possible, my top people and I would meet with each agency
head in advance of the meeting to review the agenda of topics
to be covered at the meeting, determine how far along the
agency is on each topic and explore possible further initi-
atives to be taken.
Also prior to your meeting, we would furnish briefing
materials to you, including background on each of the topics
to be covered at the meeting as well as a plan of action for
follow-up that you would announce at the close of the meeting.
An oral briefing might also be advisable.
Although other topics for the meeting will surely come
to mind between now and the meeting, I suggest the following
be included in the "inventory" from which the meeting topic
will be selected:
(1) Plans for reopening, on a priority list basis,
old programs for complete reexamination as to whether they
are being run as well as possible.
(2) As part of such priority reviews, republishing for
comment existing regulations as if the programs involved
were new.
(3) As part of such reviews, holding public hearings.
(4) The use of Executive Office task forces to assist in
such reviews on a selective basis as heretofore approved by
you,
-3-
(5) Progress on the paperwork problem including
systematic ways to review better the burden imposed by old
and new paperwork requirements, including, on a selective
basis, inviting comments and holding hearings in advance
of each renewal and each proposed new paperwork burden.
(6) Plans for program impact evaluations on a priority
list basis, e.g., evaluating how well the program is accom-
plishing its objectives.
(7) The extent to which the inflation impact statement
concept is working and whether we should be moving from
impact statement concepts to something broader, like a
decision-makers checklist. See Tab A.
Service
(8) Surveying middle management structures to ferret
out "layering," e.g., assistants to assistants, assistants
to Deputies, etc.
(9) "Grade creep," e.g., the tendency of average General
Schedule grades to move up over time in ways that aren't
justified. (This is very costly.)
(10) Identification of and training and advancement
opportunities for personnel having management promise.
(11) Improving productivity measurement and extending
such measurement to functions not presently covered, as a
means of judging both managers and individual staff performance
and improving productivity.
(12) Expected results from the current effort to cut
travel expense.
(13) Expected results from the Task Force report on
audio-visual expense.
(14) Plans for holding down overhead costs, including
systems for routine, critical examination of program overhead
rates.
(15) Modernizing agency cash management practices to
reduce the amount of borrowing Treasury has to do to meet
Government-wide cash needs.
(16) Upgrading audits, particularly of intergovernmental
programs, to assure public accountability for tax dollars.
(Consider "audit committees" of the type used so extensively
in industry.)
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
-4-
(17) Plans for making accounting systems more responsive
to management needs.
(18) Advantages and disadvantages of Regional Offices.
(19) Use of the private sector more and "in house"
personnel less to carry out government programs.
(20) The need in each agency for a policy and management
unit that reports directly to the Secretary, does not have
programmatic responsibility, has enough expertise to give the
agency head and the heads of programs first-rate advice on
policy and management matters free of programmatic biases and
follows through to see that policy and management objectives
are carried out.
(21) Selecting priorities from among the long list
of things that might be attempted and using the management-by-
objectives system to ensure that the priorities get accomplished.
At the close of the meeting you would issue instructions
as to follow-up. Subject to refinement between now and the
meeting, I have in mind the following:
-- Instructions to each agency head to (1) choose
from the topics covered at the meeting those that require the
most attention in his or her shop and look like they have the
most promise, (2) develop through the MBO system a reasonable
course to show results on such selected topics during the
remainder of 1976 and, separately, through the balance of
FY 1977, and (3) within 60 days report to the President,
through OMB, on the foregoing and (4) similarly report every
thirty days thereafter on progress made and obstacles en-
countered.
-- Instructions to OMB to help the agencies develop
such plans, including distribution of such follow-up detailed
instructions as are necessary and working the plans into the
Fall budget review.
-- Instructions on the selective use of the previously-
approved Task Force approach.
-5-
This would not be a one-shot splash. With your strong
interest demonstrated, the issuance of your instructions
and follow-through monitoring by OMB and others in the
Executive Office, the agencies will give this management
work a higher priority and we should be able to demonstrate
and announce real progress with regular frequency between
now and the end of the year. Frankly, drawing on our
experience with your meetings with the regulatory agencies,
it would be even more effective if you were willing to state
at the close of the meeting, that you intend to have a
follow-up meeting within three or four months to receive
oral reports from each agency on the progress they have
made to date on their plans. The prospect of having to
explain progress or lack thereof to you, face-to-face, would
be a powerful stimulus. I also have in mind that a detailed
report to the public issued immediately after the second
meeting would heighten public understanding of the steps
taken since the first meeting and of your personal leadership
in these matters.
If you approve of these initiatives, we will work with
Dick Cheney, Jim Cannon, Ed Schmults, et al. to pull together
the necessary details.
Decision
Approve
Disapprove
See me
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
4/29
Mike FYI
Foster
FORDO LIBRARY & GERALD
BigGovernment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 29, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FOSTER CHANOCK
For:
FROM:
STEVE McCONAHEY
Dick and I talked about this issue when I met with
him about two weeks ago. I though he might be
interested in this.
We are developing a specific proposal taking into
consideration the Schmults and Lynn proposals.
Attachment
GERALD R. TORO
April 22, 1976
Big Government
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CAVANAUGH
TIM AUSTIN
FROM:
STEVE McCONAHEY
SUBJECT:
Opportunities for the President
From my observations and discussions with state and local
leaders and their organizations, I would like to identify
three areas where I believe the President has before him
real political opportunities, but where we have not currently
succeeded in taking full advantage of them.
1. Big Government
The President has a long and clear record in opposition
to excessive Federal Government. He has spoken about
paperwork and delays, he has spoken about returning
decisions to the local level, and he has offered leg-
islative remedies in many cases. But it is my sense in
talking with state and local officials that his message
is not being received clearly by the public. In fact,
I have received some reactions that the White House has
neglected the management and control of the bureaucracy.
I think we should consider several specific steps to
reemphasize the President's position:
At the National Level:
A
Issue a Presidential statement on the management
and control of Federal Government and what he is
doing to review and improve its management.
B.
Conduct a special meeting with the Cabinet to
stress this mandate and order the attention of the
Secretaries to specific improvements.
C.
Elevate the management side of OMB, and initiate
a clear plan for more resources in this area and
more attention to specific management improvements.
D.
Consider establishing a new "Hoover Commission" to
review Federal Government operations in this bi-
centennial year.
-3-
E.
Increase the public's awareness of the Federal
Paperwork Commission and indicate specific prog-
ress that has been made.
F.
Arrange for an interview with the President by
U.S. News and World Report or some other widely
distributed magazine to discuss the problems of
management and his strong feeling about controlling
the bureaucracy. An article in Readers' Digest
might be another alternative.
At the Local Level:
A.
The President should meet with local officials
during his campaign trips to discuss his action
plan and to identify, specific problems that have
affected the local community, and indicate what he
is doing to correct such conditions.
B.
Restate in his speeches wherever be goes what he
is doing to control big government. He could dis-
cuss the management plan and Cabinet activities
suggested above.
These actions would gain support both among the public
and among elected officials.
2.
Base Closings
A number of significant realignments of Defense instal-
lations have tentatively been announced. The timing of
these announcements does pose some difficult problems,
particularly given the fact that the new procedure
being used requires the identification of "targets" as
well as "alternatives" for reductions. These multiple
targets, as well as the increased openness of the
process, will make the base closing issue extramely
political for the next six to nine months. While this
poses certain risks, I think it offers an opportunity
for the President to identify at positive program to
help these locations transition through their adjustment
period. I think the President should emphasize his
support of the Economic Adjustment Committee, which is
organized to help cities and localities transition
through the readjustment period. He could cite examples
of successes that have occurred throughout the country.
More importantly, I think he should consider identify-
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
-3-
ing special funds earmarked for these communities where
reductions will occur. Presently, most agencies and
communities feel that they will have to reallocate
existing money. A special transition program would be
well received and turn at sensitive problem ánto a
possible plus.
3.
Urban Strategy
Continued good news on the aconomic front has softened
the economic plight of many cities. However, there are
several cities where the economic improvements will not
overcome the severe problems of employment and decay.
While some of the other candidates have referred to the
problems of the city, it has been a low key issue. I
believe the President could take the initiative and
make a positive statement on his programs for the
cities. Undoubtedly, it will not be enough in the eyes
of major city mayors, but it will be a statement that
will offset criticism that the Administration does not
have an active policy with regard to the nation's
cities. I believe we should develop a program even if
only in concept - or merely identifying a group to
develop a strategy. The President could do this
without jeopardizing his position of forcing cities to
deal with their own problems without massive new Federal
funding. The Domestic Council is now considering an
urban statement. I recommend the timetable for this be
shortened such that by convention time, Labor Day or at
the Annual Convention of the U.S. Conference of Mayors
(June 26331) the President could offer a comprehensive
statement on his strategy for the cities.
FORD
&
GERALD
LIBRARY
FilaBuy Doct.
5/4/76
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Election: Comment
C-6
have broad conservative support. Any presidential candidate
for the Republicans, the national minority party, needs to at-
tract Democrats and independents to win the general election.
The Ford campaign continues to insist that Mr. Reagan is
an extremist candidate whose crossover support is limited to
defectors from the George C. Wallace camp. But the President's
campaign aides acknowledge that they are now in for a rough 10
days as Mr. Reagan pursues his "Sunbelt" strategy in Tuesday's
votes in Georgia and Alabama.
Also disturbing for Mr. Ford must be the singular lack of
impact his extensive campaigning here appeared to have on the
Texas electorate. He drew the crowds, but not the support.
The President's strategists now also must question the
wisdom of swapping campaign body blows directly with Mr. Reagan.
If the heated Texas campaign is any guide, such tactics seem
to carry a considerable danger of self-inflicted injury to Mr.
Ford's incumbent image.
Texas proved that Mr. Ford's decision to switch his
attention last week to Jimmy Carter as the likely Democratic
candidate, before definitively knocking out Mr. Reagan, was a
premature and unwise, if not overly arrogant, switch of priorities.
-- (5/3/76)
Texas' Anti-Washington Message Comes in Loud, Clear
(By Lou Cannon, excerpted, Washington Post)
Texas voters in both parties have sent President Ford a
loud and clear message that the label "Washington" is more likely
to be a political liability than an asset in 1976.
The victory for Carter gave him seemingly unstoppable
momentum as he aims for a first-ballot nomination at the Demo-
cratic National Convention in New York City.
Reagan's lopsided victory over Mr. Ford wrecked the
President's emerging strategy of concentrating on Carter while
pretending that the Republican presidential contest has already
been decided. It virtually guaranteed that the former California
governor will carry his fight all the way to the GOP convention
in Kansas City.
The dual victories of Carter and Reagan also raised new
doubts about the style and strategy of the President's campaigning
and appeared to give respectability to an old Reagan argument that
he is more electable than Mr. Ford.
Election: Comment
C-7
Ever since he launched his presidential candidacy, Reagan
has been contending that he has "a better chance for victory in
November than does the President. Reagan points out that he
twice won big victories in the California governor's race by
attracting the votes of Democrats and Independents.
In contrast, he says, Mr. Ford is identified in the minds
of most voters as the long-time House minority leader of a
political party that now commands the allegiance of only 20%
of the electorate.
The combination of Mr. Ford's Republican identification
and the voters' demonstrated preference for "anti-establishment"
themes make it unlikely that Mr. Ford can win in the fall, in
Reagan's view.
The "crossover voting" was a major element of Reagan's
victory here Saturday, although the former governor also swept
traditional Republican precincts. The Ford strategists much
prefer to face Reagan in states where crossover voting is pro-
hibited. They tacitly acknowledge that Reagan is much more likely
to draw Democratic votes, particularly from former supporters of
Alabama Gov. George Wallace, than is Mr. Ford.
Other doubts were raised by the President's performance in
Texas. The most serious of these concerned Mr. Ford's switch in
tactics from an above-the-battle incumbent to a gut-fighting can-
didate who mocked Reagan's acting career, called him "simplistic"
and "superficial" and in some appearances compared him to a donkey.
Reagan was angered by these comments but heeded the advice of his
strategists and kept his temper.
It was the opinion today both of Reagan's national advisers
and of his Texas campaign managers that Mr. Ford's slashing attack
backfired. Midland Mayor Ernie Angelo, a Reagan co-chairman in
Texas, said that Mr. Ford's comments about Reagan were "unpresi-
dential and very defensive."
The Texas campaign also exposed serious weaknesses in Mr.
Ford's speaking style, which has long concerned his strategists
at the President Ford Committee. When the President spoke last
Thursday at a suburban convention center near here, a deputy White
House press secretary breathlessly estimated the size of the crowd
at 6,500.
"Which count is that?" a reporter asked. "The crowd at the
beginning or the crowd at the end?" The reporter's question was
based on the observation that crowds have a habit of turning out
in goodly numbers for Mr. Ford's carefully promoted political
Election: Comment
C-8
rallies. But after some of these onlookers have seen the
President, and particularly after they have heard him speak,
they frequently start moving toward the exits.
Mr. Ford's television commercials in Texas tried to
circumvent his reputation for dullness by showing many "action"
pictures of him and by using a minimum of excerpts from his
speeches. But the President campaigned in Texas the entire
final week before the primary, and he may have made more of
an impression on the voters than did his television spots. -- (5/3/76)
Reagan's Big Need Now
(By R. W. Apple Jr., excerpted, N.Y. Times)
Ronald Reagan inflicted upon President Ford yesterday the
worst trouncing ever suffered by an incumbent in a Presidential
primary. However atypical Texas may be, however dubious it may
be that the former California governor can repeat his performance
elsewhere, the magnitude of Mr. Ford's defeat in Texas will in-
evitably have an impact on the course of the contest for the
Republican Presidential nomination.
The Texas results all but insure a fight that will spill onto
the convention floor, probably accompanied by the kind of disrup-
tive attacks and counterattacks that the Republicans, as a minority
party, usually strive to avoid.
In the minds of a few Republican leaders, a minority of a
dozen or so canvassed by telephone today, the Reagan sweep has
rekindled the belief that the former governor has an outside
chance of taking the nomination away from Mr. Ford. That kind
of talk has not been heard outside the circle of Reagan diehards
since the New Hampshire primary.
In a way, he is now in the position where Jimmy Carter, the
former Governor of Georgia, found himself some weeks ago: he must
prove more than a regional appeal, especially in one or more of the
industrial states with big blocs of delegates.
Tuesday's Indiana primary becomes the test of Mr. Reagan's
ability to establish momentum as a result of his Texas victory.
Polls taken in the state several months ago gave Mr. Ford a 25-point
lead, but Thomas S. Milligan, the State Republican Chairman, said
last week that he expected the President to win by only 10 points.
Mr. Ford's biggest advantage, he said, was the state's traditional.
support of an incumbent.
Several Indiana Republicans said today that they were no longer
sure that the President would win, and the Reagan staff was reported
File
THE WHITE HOUSE
By
WASHINGTON
May 7, 1975
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR
JIM CANNON
THROUGH:
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
MIKE DUVAL Wite
SUBJECT:
GOVERNMENT "RED TAPE"
I suggest you read the attached letter from Mr. Terry.
It makes an excellent example of what government "red
tape" (Federal, State and local) is doing to a small
businessman.
I think it's likely that this will become a major part of
the President's domestic record during the '76 election.
He has a good opportunity to develop a theme of making
government responsive to the needs of people. We must
get on the "anti" side of the "anti-government" issue.
It would be enormously useful if we could document this
kind of government interference in the private sector,
especially as it impacts small businessmen and individual
consumers. We should try to document specific cases,
covering the broadest range of industries and businesses
and geographic regions of the country.
I have some specific ideas in this regard and would like
to discuss them with you as soon as possible.
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 7, 1975
Dear Mr. Terry:
The President has asked me to respond to your thoughtful
letter concerning Federal, State and local government
regulations.
The President has spoken out very strongly against over-
regulation by the Federal government. He has stated that
many Federal regulations, in fact, increase the cost of
doing business throughout the country and thus, ultimately,
the cost that consumers must pay. The benefits that the
Nation is receiving from many of the Federal regulations is
far less than the cost imposed by the government regulators.
The President has ordered a massive review of all Federal
regulations and he has also met with State governors and
other officials concerning the impact of State and local
regulations.
One of the steps that the President has taken at the Federal
level to correct this problem, is requiring all agencies to
prepare "Inflationary Impact Statements" prior to issuing
any Federal regulation in the future. This is designed to
determine what the ultimate cost of that regulation will be
to consumers and businessmen.
We will follow up on the specific points you make in your
letter to the President. It is essential that all of us in
the Executive Branch carry out the President's desires to
cut unnecessary Federal "red tape" and make it easier for
businessmen, such as yourself, to conduct your own affairs.
Sincerely,
Michael M.R.I.D Raoul-Duval
Associate Director
Domestic Council
Mr. N. W. Terry
H. M. Terry Company
Willis Wharf, Virginia 23486
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
Telephone: GIlbert 2-6251
Established 1903
H. M. TERRY CO.
Planter and Packer of
SEWANSECOTT OYSTERS
Willis Wharf, Virginia 23486
mo
April 30, 1975
President Gerald Ford
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
This is a new experience for me to write to the President of the Unite
States, but your recent news comments and your account in the papers
yesterday in which you state you favor fewer rules on business, prompts
me to exoress my opinions and to also congratulate you on being the first
in many years to speak out on this matter. We hear so much from labor on
how they are being mistreated and how the business man is playing havoc
with the economy and the cost of living that it is heart warming to hear
the President speak out in favor of business and what controle is doing
to it and the cost of living.
Please let me convey to you some of the things that I have been pleadi
with Congressman Downing and Senator Byrd about for some time, and I hate
to say, with very little results although Congressman Downing is responsi
and apparently tries.
In 1913, my Father opened an oyster shucking plant at this stand after
having been in the oyster growing business since 1903. There were many ye
of hard work and competition, hurricanes, diseases and so on, but he
mad it finally. The business grew, not into big business but a profitable
small business with employment for about sixty people. In 1936, I came
home and associated myself with my Father in this business. We expanded
enough to make it profitable for both of us and through the years, we hav
run the business on that basis until the late 1940's when my Father
retired and my Brother came home from the Service and joined me. Everythi
seemed lovely and we both had great ideas of one of our Sons eventually (
ing home to join the business and continue its operation. However, things
h ave changed and while my three Sons are now spread all over the Country,
one in Georgia, another in Guam in the Navy, and another in Texas, we fir
we are rapidly being put out of business by not one, but numerous governn
Agencies and there is no possibility of either of them ever continueing V
this business. This is true of all the small seafood businesses in my are
on the Del-Mar-Va peninsula.
About three years ago, we were advised suddenly that in two weeks, we
had to have an application for a permit to operate our business in the
hadds of the Army Engineers since the EPA had declared all the seafood ir
distry a critical industry and we were polluters. This was done without
ever having any study made or any facts on the matter. Hurriedly, we all
rushed to comply and as a result of this regulation, it cost us nearly
fifteen hundred dollars for the Engineers fees, a biological lab to do al
t he required testing, and this does not include the còsts involved here i
travel, communications andmothers. The permits were never processed and
delivered until late in December 1974. Now we come under new regulations
by the EPA that will be enforced by our State Water Control Board who hav
already setablished offices in Kilmarnock, Virginia for the purpose of
policing the seafood industry only. These new requirements will cost us
many dollars in compliance if we can comply since all of our effluent now
has to be monotered and this requires the services again of a commercial
biological lab. In addition, new facilities required are not only
unworkable, but are expensive and there is no moderation when it comes
to the EPA. They are dictators with unlimited a thority who, van put us C
of business any time the so desire.
Now the EBA is bad, and I question if we can live with it. However,
we still have more and worse. Now FDA has come out with a new manuel they
call Better Manufacturing Practices which just about put the lid on. We
as an industry have been protesting through all the political offices
and other groups we can think of and a copy of a letter just received from
Congressman Downing in answer to his protest to FRA just about tell him
where to go and what he can do. More dictators with dictatorial powers
that I am sure our Constitution never intended that they should have. I a
advised by our State Shellfish Sanitation Department that if they enforce
these new regulations, our plant will be closed because it does not compl
ith their reules and regulations. However, there is nothing the matter wi
our plant other than some years of usage on it, but it is not suitable fc
the instalátion of some of the more exagurated equipment they desire. Sinc
we have bacterial standards that we have to maintain, and have maintained
them for years, and since we do not want to fail to comply with these
standards because to do so means a bad product and a bad product means a
great loss to we feel that the important thing is to keep these
standards and to protect the consumer. The inaugeration of all these new
things will not change these standards and neither will it improve the
p roduct we are putting on tte market. What it does do is to put more smal
business out of business, increase the cost many fold to the consumer,
discourage the consumption of our product, and eventually take a fine
and healthful product off the market when all we hear is that in the next
seberal years we are going to be hardpressed to feed our Americann
people. I propested a couple of years ago to one of the FRD people that
were here inspecting my plant when his suggestion was that I burn this
place down and build a new one. I advised that is was regulations like th
that were putting the little fellow out of business and his reply was tha
there are too damn many small businesses in the country today anyway. I
was of the impression that it was the small businesses that made this
Country what it is today but that apparently is not the thinking of FDA.
Virginia has two Counties on the Del-Mar-Va Peninsula being approximat
seventy five miles long and being bounder on the east by the Atlantic Oce
and its tributaries and on the west by Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries
Since its early settlement, the production of seafood has been one of its
big industries and carried a heavy load as far as the economic impact
is concearned because it was a high employment business during the winter
months when agriculture was more or less dormant. Then finally came welfar
and we felt the sting on our labor force since many found it more relaxir
and profitable to stay home, have babies and draw welfare checks, food sta
and medical sssistance. However, we felt that we could cope with that
and do the best we could with what was left. That situation continues to
grow worse instead of better and we find, in spite of the great unemploym
crisis, we cannot get labor to do the job. Yet we still feel that as far
as this goes, we have a fighting chance. Then we have the elements like
hurricanes that destroy our oyster beds. We have the predators that kill
ourmoysters, we have the pollution from the twons and cities, and all the
we still feel we can cope with. We dont look for a handout but when we
are damaged, we borrow from the bank and try again, but the regulations a
restrictions being put on us by Government Agencies are now more than we
can cope with.
n 'In 1936 when I became active in this business, there were at least a
hundred oyster businesses in these two counties I have mentioned. I
hesitate to stagger a guess at the number of people they employed or
the payroll they had. The competition was sharp and all of us were in
there plugging to put up a better product at the cheapest possible price
and to keep our customers happy. Today, I doubt that there ate twenty fiv
oyster businesses left and the remainder have their backs against the wal
and are on shakey grounds. In my own town, there used to be five oyster
b usinesses and one of the largest in the country. Today they have convert
some of their properties to camping facilities and have no further
interests in the seafood business. Out of the five, there are two of us
left and we are in the position that we do not know if we will be able
to operate again after this season choses in the next week or two. The
insecurity we live with now is enough to break a mans back and it hits
us at a time when we dont know what to do, for I am sixty years old, stil
healthy and still not in a position to retire. Therefore, what is the
alternative? I either have to close down and look for a job, which is not
going to be easy at my age and after all these years, or do I try to
continue to beat my brains out and scrape out a living here, probably in
violation of some regulation that will eventually put me in jair or cost
so much in penalties that my small holdings will have to go to satisfy th
I still have not mentioned OSHA, State Shellfish Sanitation, Virginia
Marine Resources Commission, local regulations and rules that we have to
live with. It has gotten to the point that none of us are capable of
understanding all the regulations and how to comply with them and this
is a National disgrace.
I could go on and on, but I know your problems are mountainous to
mine and I do not envy your job. However, your recent declarations
kindle a small spark of hope among us and we prey each day that you will®
be successful in your demands and get some of these Agencies off our back
and let us operate our businesses again.
We really dont think that all these Agencies are aware of what they dc
actually. One of the greatest problems all of us have is that all the pec
that are telling us how to run our business know absolutely nothing about
in the first place. Even in our State of Virginia, our Marine Recourses
Commission who set the rules and regulations with regards planting ground
taxes, seed availability and so on have a regulation that only one persor
from the seafood indastry may serve on the Commission, so we end up
with attorneys, doctors and people from the mountains that know absolutel
nothing about the industry, sitting up there making the rules for us to
live by.
Hopefully, Mr. President, you will find the time to read this letter,
even though I will be greatly surprised if you do. I realize your many
problems and lack of Congressional cooperation, but it is past time that
some of us from the sticks get through to you and others that things are
going on that should be corrected before it is too late and this business
of putting all the small businesses on the rocks is one of them. I feel t
you need to know what is going on from some of us that are carrying the 1
and not exagurated ideas from the many uninformed agencies with too much
power and authority. Should you read this letter and find that you would
be intereited in more information, I stand ready to give you facts and
figures that possibly might surprise you.
Thank you for listning, and hopefully you will be seccessful in your
desire to to overhaul many federal business regulations.
Sincerely
Thoughts for a Presidential Letter on Improving the Quality
of Government
-
I am today directing the start of a Federal-wide effort
to improve the quality of government.
-
This government belongs to the American people. As
stewards of that government, we have to begin doing a better
job for them.
-
Over the next few months, I intend to be personally
involved in the design and putting to work of a government-
wide program to give the people of this country a better
return on the investment they make with their Federal taxes.
-
There are
major goals of this effort which I
expect each Department and Agency head to focus on immediately:
The government must become more productive.
a. Look at mission versus what we are doing --
eliminate the inapppropriate.
b. Look for productivity improvement opportunities
in everything we do.
The government must be less intrusive and interfere
less in the personal and business affairs of the
American people.
a.
Regulatory reform
b. Paperwork reduction
FORD LIBRARY &
2
C. Government as a business competitor -- Post
Office, TVA, Railroads, Printing, ADP, office
space, etc.
Government must be more accountable to the American
people.
a. Public hearings on issues before decisions.
b. Improved public information.
C. FOIA and Privacy
d. Advisory committees
e. Better books and reporting on what we spend.
Government must be more effective.
a. MBO's
b. Program evaluations
C. Organizational assessment -- mission VS. structure.
d. Quality control and measurement statistics -
quality indicators.
e. Block grants, program combinations.
Government must be more responsive to people.
a. Client - Responsible / consumer-sensitive -- who
pays bills.
b. Improve turnaround time of government services,
contracts, inquiry.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
3
C. Affirmative Action, EEO.
d. Small business, minority enterprise.
Government must be more economical in its day-to-day
operations:
a. Organizational layering.
b. Space cost.
C. Internal paperwork - records retention.
d. Travel.
e. Audio-visual.
f. Autos and airplanes.
g. Housing for employees.
h. PIO staffs.
1. Legal and accounting.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
j. Communications.
k. Grade creep.
-
I am asking the Director of the Office of Management and
with senior agency management officia is,
Budget to arrange for a series of informal sessions some of
which I will participate in, to initiate planning, review of
ongoing activities and the setting of Department and Agency
objectives and timetables in support of the above goals.
- I ask that you provide the highest priority to this effort
in your organization and that you join with me in a compre-
hensive program to better the quality of the Federal government
by making it more efficient, responsive and accountable.
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
May 13, 1976
UNTIL 12 NOON (EDT)
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEET
AGENDA FOR GOVERNMENT REFORM ACT
The President is sending to Congress today the proposed
"Agenda for Government Reform Act" which would establish
a timetable for the President and Congress to make com-
prehensive and fundamental changes in Government regulatory
activities which affect the American economy. The legislation
would:
-- Require consideration of the views of the American
people who want solutions to our regulatory problems.
-- Require an analysis of the costs and benefits of
Government regulatory activities.
-- Commit the President to develop and submit major
reform proposals to Congress no later than the end
of January in each of the next four years.
-- Encourage more effective Congressional oversight
of the operations of Government and commit Congress
to act on needed reforms each year.
The purposes of this legislation are to: eliminate excessive
regulatory constraints on the economy; develop better, less
costly ways to protect public health and safety; reduce
federal paperwork requirements; eliminate excessive delay;
and streamline the costly regulatory bureaucracy.
BACKGROUND
In October of 1974, President Ford launched a major program
of regulatory reform. Since that time, significant adminis-
trative improvements have been achieved. A reduction in
Government-imposed paperwork requirements has been accomplished.
Major regulatory agencies have been asked to reduce delays,
increase reliance on market competition, and improve consumer
access to regulatory decisions.
In addition, legislation has been enacted to repeal fair
trade laws, increase competition in the securities industry,
and eliminate outdated railroad regulation. The President
has also submitted legislative proposals to improve regulation
of our airlines, motor carriers, and financial institutions.
The President will continue to stress the need for adminis-
trative improvements and to request Congressional action on
pending reform proposals. The legislation he is submitting
today builds upon and complements his earlier efforts and
charts a specific course for the second phase of regulatory
reform over the next four years.
more
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
2
PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION
1.
To encourage broad scale public participation in seeking
practical solutions to complex regulatory problems. A
fundamental re-examination of regulatory practices will
foster increased public understanding of how the system
works and how it affects individual Americans. And it
will provide an opportunity for individuals in all walks
of life to voice their concerns and register their ideas
and suggestions for realistic reform.
2.
To focus attention on the cumulative effect Government
actions have on individual sectors of the economy. The
results of this legislation would be to provide a better
understanding of both the objectives and effects of
regulatory actions --- thereby laying the foundation for
lasting, commonsense solutions to our regulatory
problems. Also, this legislation would permit the
American people to make more informed trade-offs between
desirable regulatory goals such as environmental protection
and energy conservation.
3.
To minimize the costs which Government programs impose
on taxpayers and the general economy. Paperwork require-
ments, unnecessary program duplication, costly delay and
burdensome compliance requirements multiply the cost of
Government intervention often without providing commen-
surate benefits in return. The legislation would help
identify the cumulative costs of Government activities
which must be borne by all Americans.
4.
To require the President and Congress to act on concrete
reforms according to a specific schedule. This legislation
would commit both the President and Congress to cooperate
in the development and implementation of needed reforms
according to a systematic, agreed-upon schedule. Close
cooperation between Congress and the Executive will encour-
age the public to work in concert with their Government to
build a more rational regulatory system.
NEED FOR OVERALL REFORM
In general, each time a new national problem is identified,
a new Federal program or agency is established to address it.
Often, because solutions must be found quickly, new policies
or organizations are created without sufficient attention to
their indirect economic effects, or to the overlap and
duplication which may result.
Once established, these programs and agencies strongly
resist change. Even where regulations are having a negative
effect or are competing with other national objectives, the
"status quo tends to prevail. Generally, regulatory problems
are caused not by a single regulation but by the cumulative
effect of many Government regulations. Business, labor, and
consumers find it difficult to become actively involved in
changing a system that is confusing, overlapping, and complex.
The American economy is divided into many sectors. Government
regulatory activities affect these sectors in different ways
and to varying degrees. For example, environmental regulations
have a greater impact on the transportation industry than they
do on the financial community and small businesses often feel
the effects of Government proportionately more than large
corporations do. Each industry faces its own unique regulatory
problems. And presently, the cumulative effects of Government
regulatory activites on any given industrial sector are unknown.
more
3
TIMETABLE FOR REFORM
The Agenda for Government Reform Act would establish a
four-year program of fundamental reform. Each year, the
President would assess the cumulative effects of Government
regulatory activites on major economic sectors and develop
legislative proposals for change along the following agency
lines (example only):
Year
Sectors of the Economy
Agencies Considered for
Legislative/Administrative
Action
1977
Transportation &
National Highway Traffic
Agriculture
Safety Administration, DOT
- transportation industry
Federal Maritime Commission
including water carri-
Animal and Plant Health
ers and pipelines
Inspection Service, USDA
- crop and livestock
Agricultural Marketing
production
Service, USDA
- forestry
U.S. Forest Service, USDA
- fishing
Interstate Commerce Commission
Civil Aeronautics Board
1978
Mining, Heavy Manufactur
Mine Enforcement and Safety
ing and Public Utilities
Administration, Department of
-- pulp and paper indus-
the Interior
tries
Environmental Protection
- chemicals
Agency
-- petroleum refining
Federal Energy Administration
- rubber/plastics
Federal Power Commission
- stone/glass/concrete
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
automobiles
- primary metals
-- fabricated metal
.. machinery
- electric, gas, sanitary
services
1979
Light Manufacturing and
Occupational Safety and Health
Construction
Administration, Department of
- housing and other
Labor
construction
Food and Drug Administration,
- general contractors
Department of Health, Educa-
- special trade
tion, and Welfare
contractors
Department of Housing and
- food processing
Urban Development
- textiles
Equal Employment Opportunity
- lumber & wood products
Commission
wa printing & publishing
Consumer Product Safety
Commission
1980
Communication, Finance,
Securities and Exchange
Insurance, Real Estate,
Commission
Trade, Services
Department of the Treasury
- banking, credit &
Federal Trade Commission
insurance
Federal Communications
- real estate
Commission
- broadcasting
wholesale & retail
trade
- business & personal
services
more
4
ORGANIZATION OF THE REFORM EFFORT
The agenda begins with areas where significant analysis has
already been done so that recommendations can be developed
quickly.
The White House will coordinate the efforts in each of the
four areas. Once the President's proposal is passed:
Basic research and public participation in
developing major issues will begin simulta-
neously in each of the areas.
Public hearings will be held in all parts of
the country to assure that the President has
the best thinking available.
Each year, the President will submit specific
legislative proposals to Congress for action
and provide a report to the Congress and the
American people on the nature and extent of
Government intervention in the economy, in-
cluding an analysis of the costs and benefits
of regulatory activities.
The President will direct agencies to make
administrative improvements where necessary.
Where regulatory activities affect a wide range of industries
environmental regulations or occupational health and safety
standards, for example it may be desirable to defer recom-
mendations for any fundamental changes until a number of
different sectors have been examined. The agenda identified
in this legislation takes this into account and postpones
major recommendations on cross-cutting regulations until
sufficient data is available. Thus, although analysis of
the effects of OSHA regulations on the transportation and
agricultural industries will begin in the first year,
major recommendations for any fundamental changes in these
areas may not be made until after the President has con--
sidered their impact on mining, construction, and manufacturing.
Each year, the President is required to submit reform recom-
mendations to Congress by the end of January. These recom-
mendations are then reviewed by the appropriate Congressional
committees. If the House and Senate have not acted on reform
legislation by November 15, the President's proposals become
the pending business on the floor and remain so until acted
on by each House.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 2 sets forth the findings of the Congress and the
purposes of the Act. It points out that although the
American economic system was founded on the principles
of market competition and minimal Government intervention
in the private sector, the Government's role in the
economy has grown over the years. In many cases, its
regulatory responsibilities have become confusing, over-
lapping and contradictory. The direct and indirect costs
and benefits of regulatory activities are not clear.
Accordingly, the purpose of the legislation is to achieve
positive and lasting reform of Federal regulatory activi-
ties with increased public participation, more effective
Congressional oversight and systematic Presidential action.
more
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
5
The bill would require the President to develop legislative
reforms every year for the next four years. It would require
Congress to act on these reforms without delay.
Section 3 defines the specific terms used in the legislation
including agency and Federal regulatory activity.
Section 4 specifies the sequence in which reform proposals
are to be developed. The timetable is described in detail
above in this fact sheet. This section requires that each
Presidential proposal include among other things an identi-
fication of the original purposes of the regulatory activity
under review, an assessment of the effectiveness of the
regulation, and specific recommendations for reform, elimi-
nation or continuation of the particular regulatory activity.
Section 5 explains Congressional responsibilities under the
Act. It specifies that reform proposals be referred to
appropriate committees in the House and Senate and would
require Congress to act on reform legislation by November 15th
of each year. If the two Houses of Congress should fail to
do so ; the President's reform proposals would become the
pending business of the House and Senate and remain so until
acted on by each House.
AGENDA FOR GOVERNMENT REFORM
SECTORS
(Examples of
OF THE
Agencies
TIMETABLE
ANNUAL RESULTS
considered for
ECONOMY
Legislative &
Administrative
1977
1978
1979
1980
Action)
RECOMMENDATIONS
Transportation & Agricul-
ture, e.g.,
Legislative
- transportation industry
DOT
Proposals to
including water carriers
FMC
CONGRESS
and pipelines
USDA
- plant and livestock
industries
- forestry
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mining, Heavy Manufacturing
and Public Utilities, e.g.,
Interior
- oil and gas extraction
EPA
Administrative
- petroleum refining
FEA
Actions to
6
- electric utilities
FPC
AGENCIES
- iron and steel industries
- chemicals
- automotive industry
RECOMMENDATIONS
Light Manufacturing and
HUD
Construction, e.g.,
HEW
GERALD
- food processing
EEOC
American
R.
- printing
CPSC
People on
- textiles
FORD
OSHA
Report to
Cumulative
- housing and other
Effects of
construction
Gov't on
LIBRARY
Communication, Finance,
RECOMMENDATIONS
the Economy
Insurance, Real Estate,
Treasury
Trade, Services, e.g.,
FTC
- banking
FCC
- broadcasting
SEC
- retail and wholesale
trade
- business and personal
services
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE
May 13, 1976
UNTIL 12 NOON (EDT)
Site
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
Our American economic system has been built upon
individual initiative and freedom to strive to achieve
our economic goals. In an increasingly complex society,
however, the role of government has been to assist in
the search for solutions to our National problems. But
in many cases, government imposed solutions have created
new problems and mandated excessive costs on our society.
Over the years, we have departed from the reliance on
individual initiative and consumer choice. We have
expanded government's role and created a rigid system
which has become less able to respond to changing conditions.
The growth of government expanded rapidly in the
Depression era. New government agencies were created to
resolve our economic and social problems -- to help reduce
unemployment, to stabilize financial markets, and to protect
failing businesses. As a result of a proliferation of such
government agencies since then -- all designed to solve an
increasing variety of problems -- we have come to expect the
Federal Government to have all the answers -- more and better
housing -- an efficient transportation system -- improved
health care -- and equal opportunities in the job market.
In our compassionate desire to solve urgent human
problems, we have given the Federal Government the power
to regulate more and more of our economy and our way of life.
Over the years, regulation has been considered an inexpensive,
easy answer to some very complex problems. Now, we are
beginning to realize how high the costs are of what appeared
to be the easy solutions of the past.
Federal programs and bureaucracies have grown
geometrically. In the last fifteen years 236 depart-
ments, agencies, bureaus and commissions have been
created while only 21 have been eliminated. Today we
have more than a thousand different Federal programs,
more than 80 regulatory agencies, and more than 100,000
government workers whose primary responsibility is to
regulate some aspect of our lives.
My Administration has made the reform of government
regulation one of its highest priorities. We have
initiated a national debate on the role that government
regulation should play in our economy. In the past year,
we have achieved the most significant and comprehensive
progress toward reform in three decades. At the same time
we have moved toward a more open and vigorous free market
in which consumers have available a wider range of goods
and services to choose from and where businessmen have a
greater opportunity to run their own businesses.
more
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
2
For example:
--We have reversed the trend of paperwork growth and
reduced regulatory delays.
--We have repealed the Federal fair trade laws which
created artificially high consumer prices.
--The Senate has passed the Financial Institutions Act
which is the most sweeping reform of banking regulation
in over 40 years.
--We have increased civil and criminal penalties for
antitrust violations to insure that competition flourishes.
--We have interjected competition into the setting of
stock brokerage fees for the first time since the major
stock exchanges were established almost 200 years ago.
--We have reduced the amount of ICC regulation of railroads
for the first time since the creation of that agency in
1887, and have proposed comprehensive and long overdue
reforms of airline and motor carrier regulation.
These are important steps, but they are only a beginning.
We need a better understanding of the combined effects of all
government regulatory activities on our economy and our
lives. We need to eliminate contradictions and overlaps.
We need to abolish outdated and unnecessary regulation. We
need to strengthen the effectiveness of Congressional
oversight of government operations.
To meet these needs, I am today submitting the Agenda
for Government Reform Act which would establish a four-year
action program to work toward these goals. It would produce
comprehensive reforms to:
-- guarantee that government policies do not infringe
unnecessarily on individual choice and initiative
nor intervene needlessly in the market place.
-- find better ways to achieve our social goals at
minimal economic cost.
-- insure that government policies and programs
benefit the public interest rather than special
interests.
assure that regulatory policies are equitably
enforced.
This legislation would require the President to develop
legislative reform proposals by January 31 of each year,
and Congress would be required to act upon them. Such a
disciplined approach will help focus attention on major,
yet often neglected, aspects of government activities.
This Agenda will require the assessment of the cumulative
impact of government actions on major sectors of the economy
and build a rational basis for more informed trade-offs
between broad economic goals, such as more jobs and lower
prices, and specific regulatory objectives, such as cleaner
air and adequate rural services. And it will help identify
the hidden costs imposed on the economy by government
regulation.
more
3
This legislation is the product of joint Congressional
and Executive branch interest in seeking long term solutions
to our regulatory problems. Senators Charles Percy and
Robert Byrd have been leaders in pressing for comprehensive
reforms. In the House of Representatives, Congresswoman
Barbara Jordan and Congressman John Anderson have also
introduced systematic reform legislation. My legislation
addresses similar concerns. I look forward to working
with Congress to achieve our common goals.
Let me stress that this new program must not delay
reform efforts now underway. This new legislation is a
complement not a substitute for the on-going administrative
improvements and legislative proposals I have already
announced. My Administration will continue to press forward
with reduction of unnecessary and burdensome regulation
and elimination of government-imposed paperwork and red tape.
We will continue to make administrative improvements wherever
possible, and to obtain congressional action on proposals
for increased competition in regulated industries.
This is an ambitious program. But I believe it is possible
to make our regulatory system responsive to the concerns of
all Americans. They demand and deserve nothing less. I ask
the Congress to act quickly on this legislation so that
together we may begin to create a legacy of economic prosperity
for future generations.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 13, 1976.
####
A BILL
To Set an Agenda for Government Reform
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That this Act may be cited as the Agenda for Government
Reform Act
Section (a) (1). Whereas the American economic system
was founded on the principles of competition and minimal
government intervention in the marketplace;
(2) Whereas the federal government's role in the
national economy has grown through regulatory controls
designed to achieve economic objectives and to safeguard
public health and safety;
(3) Whereas the costs and benefits of federal
regulatory activities are not always understood and these
activities sometimes are confusing, contradictory, dilatory
or overlapping; and
(4) Whereas the Congress and the President are
responsible for the creation, oversight, and execution of
these federal regulatory activities and for insuring that
they are consistent with the achievement of other important
national goals.
(b) Therefore the Congress finds that it is in the
public interest for the President and the Congress:
(1) To examine systematically, with substantial
public participation, federal regulatory activities in
order to determine their impact on the nation's economy,
consumers, and taxpayers; and
(2) To eliminate excessive regulatory constraints
on the economy; develop better, less costly means of pro-
tecting public health and safety; reduce federal paperwork
requirements; eliminate unnecessary delay; and streamline
the regulatory bureaucracy.
(c) It is the purpose of this Act to achieve positive
and lasting reforms of federal regulatory activities through
increased participation by the American people, more effec-
tive legislative oversight by the Congress, and systematic
action by the President. To achieve these purposes, this
Act:
(1) Contemplates that the President will obtain
the views of concerned Americans on the Nation's regulatory
problems and their solutions;
(2) Requires an analysis of the costs and benefits
of government regulatory activities;
(3) Commits the President to develop major legisla-
tive recommendations in each of the next four years; and
(4) Commits the Congress to act on needed reforms,
provided that nothing contained herein should be construed
more
2
as indicating a Congressional intent to discourage or
forestall submission or consideration of any legislative
proposal dealing with federal regulatory activity at times
earlier than those prescribed in Section 4(a) of this Act.
Section 3. For purposes of this Act:
(a) "Agency" has the same meaning as provided in
Section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; and
(b) "Federal regulatory activity" means any systematic
action taken by the federal government or an agency thereof,
except by its powers of taxation, which may, directly or
indirectly, affect economic performance, prices or
employment.
Section 4(a). No later than the dates indicated below
in this subsection, the President shall submit proposals
containing the information described under Section 4(b)
with respect to such statutes and agencies as the President
elects to include in the following areas:
(1) By the last day of January 1978, the trans-
portation and agriculture industries. The proposal must
consider the activities of the Department of Agriculture,
the Department of Transportation, the Civil Aeronautics
Board, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal
Maritime Commission, and such other agencies as the
President may determine.
(2) By the last day of January 1979, the mining,
heavy manufacturing, and public utilities industries. The
proposal must consider the activities of the Department of
the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Federal Energy Commission, the Federal Power Commission,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and such other agencies
as the President may determine.
(3) By the last day of January 1980, the light
manufacturing and construction industries. The proposal
must consider the activities of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the Department of Labor, the Consumer Product
Safety Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and such other
agencies as the President may determine.
(4) By the last day of January 1981, the communi-
cations, finance, insurance, real estate, trade, and service
industries. The proposal must consider the activities of
the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Trade Commission,
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Small Business
Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and
such other agencies as the President may determine.
(b) Each proposal submitted by the President pursuant
to subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) An identification of the purposes intended to
be achieved by the enactment of legislation authorizing the
federal regulatory activity;
(2) An identification of the economic, technological,
social or other conditions determined by Congress to have
justified enactment of legislation authorizing the federal
regulatory activity;
more
GERALO, FORD LIBRARY
3
(3) An analysis of whether the federal regulatory
activity, as authorized and as implemented, has achieved its
intended purposes;
(4) An analysis of whether the purposes sought to
be achieved by the enactment of legislation authorizing the
federal regulatory activity remain valid goals in light of
present economic, technological, social or other conditions;
(5) An analysis of whether legislation authorizing
federal regulatory activity has complementary, duplicative
or conflicting purposes and effects;
(6) An analysis of whether the benefits of the
federal regulatory activity outweigh the costs;
(7) An analysis of any reasonable alternative means
of achieving the intended purposes of the federal regulatory
activity; and
(8) The President's recommendation for reform,
elimination or continuation of legislation authorizing the
federal regulatory activity.
Section 5. The provisions of this Section are enacted
by the Congress:
(1) As an exercise of the rulemaking power of the
House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and
as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of
each House, respectively, or of that House to which they
specifically apply, and such rules shall supersede other
rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith;
and
(2) With full recognition of the constitutional
right of either House to change such rules (so far as
relating to such House) at any time, in the same manner,
and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule
of such House.
(a) The President shall submit each proposal required
under Section 4 to the Congress and separately transmit such
proposal to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the President pro tempore of the Senate.
(b) Each proposal submitted under Section (a) shall
be referred:
(1) To the appropriate standing or special committees
of the House of Representatives having legislative jurisdiction
or oversight responsibilities with respect to the subject
matter of such proposal;
(2) To the appropriate committee or committees of
the Senate having legislative jurisdiction or oversight
responsibilities with respect to the subject matter of such
proposal; and
(3) To such joint committee as the Congress may
designate or establish for this purpose.
more
4
(c) The committees to which a proposal is referred
under this Section shall review such proposal and report
a bill approving or disapproving such proposal in whole
or in part, with such amendments as are deemed appropriate.
Such reports shall be joint reports if agreement between or
among such committees can be made with respect to any such
proposal (s), but otherwise shall be separate reports. In
the event that the Congress has failed to enact a bill, as
called for by Section 4 of this Act, by the 15th of November
of each specified year, then the proposal submitted by the
President in such year, pursuant to Section 4 of this Act,
shall become the pending order of business in the House of
Representatives and the Senate. It shall remain the order
of business until acted on by each House.
more
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Agenda For Government Reform Act
Section 2 - Findings and Purposes
This section details the Congressional findings and
articulates the purposes of the Act. It stipulates that
the American economic system was founded on a strong belief
in competition and minimal government intervention. It
recognizes that federal regulatory actions designed to
achieve economic, health or safety objectives have increased
over time, and that conflicts, overlaps, delay, or confusion
sometimes exist in government regulations. It states that
it is incumbent upon the Congress and the President to
examine and reform these regulations in order to make sure
that regulatory purposes remain valid and regulatory enforce-
ment is equitable and efficient.
The purpose of the Act is to achieve positive and lasting
federal regulatory reforms. To accomplish this, greater
participation by the American people, more effective
Congressional oversight, and more systematic actions by the
President are needed. The bill requires the President, in
each of the next four years, to submit specific proposals for
the reform of federal regulatory activities affecting certain
sectors of the American economy. His legislative proposals
would be accompanied by a report to the American people and
the Congress. The House and Senate would agree to consider
the President's proposals before the end of the year if they
have not enacted a reform bill earlier.
An important feature of this section stipulates that
the timetable set up by the legislation is not intended to
constrain in any way the President's right to propose or the
authority of the Congress to consider any regulatory legisla-
tion. If Congress and the President decide that regulatory
legislation is needed prior to the calendar laid out in the
Act, their immediate action on that legislation would not be
delayed by this bill. Of course, the President would continue
to implement administrative reforms affecting Executive
branch agencies.
Section 3 - Definitions
This section defines the terms "agency" and "federal
regulatory activity". The latter includes any systematic
action taken by the federal government, except through its
powers of taxation, which broadly impacts the American
economy, consumers, or taxpayers. A broad definition of
regulatory activity will allow the President flexibility to
recommend changes in many areas - e.g., statutes pertaining
to regulations. non-tax subsidies and credit assistance,
government procurement, etc.
more
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
2
Section 4 - Timetable for Reform
This section lays out the sequence of proposals which
the President will submit to Congress.
The legislation organizes the President's program around
major industries. By January 31 of each of the following
years, the President will submit proposals for reforms which
appear to him most critical in the following areas:
(a) By January 31, 1978 - The transportation and
agriculture industries. This includes all aspects
of the transportation system including water
carriers, pipelines, local and suburban transit
systems, transportation services, plant and live...
stock industries, etc. and other industries. As
a guideline, the President would examine at least
those industries described in major groups 1-9,
40-47 of the Standard Industrial Classification
Manual (SIC), 1972 edition.
In this area, the President would consider the
activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration in the Department of Transportation,
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in
the Department of Agriculture, the Federal Maritime
Commission, and any other agencies he deemed
appropriate.
(b) By January 31, 1979 - The mining heavy manufacturing
and public utilities industries. This includes
mining, oil and gas extraction, paper chemicals,
petroleum refining. rubber, concrete, primary
metals, machinery and transportation equipment,
electric, gas, and sanitary services and other
industries. As a guideline, the President would
examine at least those industries described in
major groups 10-14 26, 28-30 32-37, and 49 of
the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SIC),
1972 edition.
The President would consider activities of the Mine
Enforcement Safety Administration in the Department
of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Energy Administration, Federal Power
Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and any
other agencies he deemed appropriate.
(c) By January 31, 1980 not The light manufacturing and
construction industries. This includes food processing,
textiles and apparel, printing, measuring and controlling
instruments, construction, and other industries. As a
guideline, the President would examine at least those
industries described in major groups 15-17, 20-25, 27,
31, and 38-39 of the Standard Industrial Classification
Manual, 1972 edition.
The President would consider the activities of the
Food and Drug Administration in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration in the Department
of Labor, the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
National Labor Relations Board, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and any other agencies he
deemed appropriate.
more
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
3
(d) By January 31 1981 - The communications, finance,
insurance, real estate, trade and services industries.
This includes communications, banking securities and
commodities trading, the insurance business, and other
industries. As a guideline, the President would
examine at least those industries described in major
groups 48, 50-99 of the Standard Industrial Classifi-
cation Manual, 1972 edition.
The President would consider the activities of the
Treasury Department, the Federal Trade Commission,
Securities and Exchange Commission, Small Business
Administration, Federal Communications Commission,
and any other agencies he deemed appropriate.
Each yearly proposal must include analyses of relevant
federal regulatory activities and be accompanied by the
President's legislative recommendations for needed changes.
Section 5 - Congressional Review
This section states that Congressional agreements for
considering legislation are adopted as a change of rules in
the House and Senate. It requires the President's legisla-
tion to be referred to the appropriate committees in the
House and Senate, and to any joint committee established or
designated for the purpose.
The committees would have until no later than November 15
of the year in which the proposal was originally submitted to
report out and enact regulatory reform legislation. If at
that time a bill had not been enacted, the President's original
proposal would become the pending business in each House and
remain the pending item until disposed of by each House.
The legislation does not request any authorization for
additional funds. Existing resources will be used to carry
out the reform agenda.
#
#
#
#
Mike Dural
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATE
STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 15, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR JTL
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
FROM:
JLM
SUBJECT:
Management Meeting
As I discussed with you on Wednesday after my meeting with
Bob Wallace, I have now touched base with the following
people: Paul MacAvoy, Mike Duval, Steve McConahey, Fernando
Oaxaca.
The following table describes who seems to be doing this at
the present time:
1. Review of independent
Ed Schmults, Stan Morris;
regulatory commissions
short-term task force effort
to improve regulatory practices
in selected agencies; proposed
new legislation -- See Tab A.
2. Review of regulatory
Paul MacAvoy has picked three
activities within line
agencies and has begun an
agencies
"interaction" between agency
lawyers and outside lawyers ---
See Tab B.
3. Review of regulations
Steve McConahey of the Domestic
governing delivery of
Council with about four staffers
Federal funds to State
is looking into ways to simplify
and local agencies
this activity; he is providing
us with his plan for action -
See Tab C.
4. Energy Organization
Kasputys and Mitchell are
heading a review of current
Federal energy and natural
resources organization -- See
Tab D.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
2
5. Philosophy of why
Mike Duval -- in his role as
President is con-
Special Counsel to the
cerned about these
President -- is trying to put
matters
something together.
I would think it would be helpful to have somebody to try to
tie the above efforts together not only to avoid duplication
of effort but also to make sure we get some results that we
can talk about in the months ahead.
With respect to the need for a management program in the
areas generally set forth by your memorandum to the President,
I believe that the following categories might make sense.
1. Evaluation
The President could, through OMB, require every program
in the Federal Government to undergo a quadrennial
evaluation. Evaluations could be divided into two
kinds: whether the activity makes any sense at all
and, assuming the activity makes sense, is the pro-
gram achieving its objectives. Each such evaluation
would have to meet certain criteria set out generally
by OMB which would vary with the type of program. For
example, all grant programs to States for planning
would have to meet certain criteria for evaluation.
Such a directive would possibly be prepared within a
month and would require people both from OMB and the
agencies. Beyond that, Fernando has located certain
studies which are nearing completion that could be used
as examples of what the President is now doing.
2. Consumer Responsiveness
With respect to about ten highly visible items -- such
as passports, mortgage insurance, tax refunds, etc. --
where the Federal Government impacts individuals as
consumers, it might be possible to establish performance
standards which are tougher than the processing times,
for example, that are in effect now -- and that are
achievable over the weeks ahead. This could be part
of a larger -- HUD like -- type of agency management
initiative involving MBO's, personnel evaluation,
matrix organization improvements, management informa-
tion system, negotiated targets, etc. We might even
add some show-biz -- like returning application fees
if the standards aren't met.
FORD LIBRARY & OERALD
3
3. Attacking Frills
Here I think we should identify a few visable areas
where savings might occur. Travel, audio-visual,
paperwork reduction would be candidates.
4. Assistance and Grant Program Improvements Through
Substantive Regulation Revision
Examples here are like what is done with the food
stamp area. Perhaps a survey of OMB examiners would
uncover other fertile areas. Perhaps overlaps with
what Steve McConahey is doing.
The President's meeting with agency heads might well begin
with a briefing about the activities on the above table.
Beyond that, perhaps we should shoot for specific assign-
ments in the four areas raised above.
Attachments
THE WHITE HOUSE
TabA
WASHINGTON
April 21, 1976
A
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
EDWARD SCHMULTS
SUBJECT:
Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Legislation
Issue
On February 4, you met withPmembers of the Domestic Council
Review Group and Senior Staff regarding the current status
and future directions of the regulatory reform program.
We discussed a two part implementation plan to maintain and
build upon our present momentum. Part one involved the
7
creation of a short term task force effort to improve
regulatory practices in selected agencies. While we have
run into some personnel problems, now largely resolved,
= separate memorandum on this effort will be submitted to
longo
you shortly.
Part two of the plan was to broaden the scope of the present
regulatory debate by undertaking a fundamental reexamination
of the Federal regulatory system and setting forth a
comprehensive calendar of reform for the next four years.
This memorandum outlines in greater detail how such a
program might be implemented, requests your decision on
whether to submit legislation and recommends an announce-
ment be made shortly.
Background
TO date, the regulatory reform program has concentrated
primarily on specific targets of opportunity designed to
reduce government interference in the private sector.
In searching for new targets, however, we find that we
are faced with a number of difficult theoretical and
practical problems. Your success in formulating strong
budgetary, foreign affairs, defense and intergovernmental
relations policies has depended in part upon a clear
articulation of goals in each of these areas. Comprehensive
2
plans have helped explain your position on these complex
areas to the public and have provided a framework for
legislative and administrative decisions. A similar
framework is needed in the regulatory reform area.
The Proposal
We have in the OMB clearance process for agency comments
legislation which establishes a comprehensive regulatory
reform agenda for the next four years. It requires the
President to assess the impact that Federal regulations
and subsidies have on the private sector and to propose
by January 31, 1978-1931 a series of legislative
recommendations and administrative actions to reduce the
burden of unnecessary Federal intervention. It also
requires congressional consideration of these proposals
within a given period of time.
In order to develop the required Presidential proposals
an effort would be initiated late this year or early
next year. It would be under the general direction of
a Assistant to-the President appointed specifically
for this purpose and organized into four working groups
established to review specific segments of the economy:
- Transportation and Agriculture (including, at
a minimum, a look at such agencies as the ICC,
CAB, and the Departments of Transportation and
Agriculture)
- Heavy Manufacturing, Mining, and Public
Utilities Industries (including such agencies
as FEA, EPA, FPC and the Department of Interior) -
- Light Manufacturing and Construction Industries
(including such agencies as the EEOC, FDA, CPSC,
and the Department of Labor).
- Banking, Insurance, Real Estate, Communications,
Trade and Services Industries (including such
agencies as the SEC, FTC, FCC and the Comptroller
of the Currency).
FORD LIBRARY is CERALD
3
Chart 1, which appears at Tab A to this memorandum,
illustrates how the effort would be structured with the
working groups operating simultaneously. The percentages
on the chart indicate approximately how much of the total
effort would be devoted to the various segments in any
given year. It is estimated that approximately $2 million
per year and a full-time staff of 30 people would be
required to implement this program. Chart 2 (also at
Tab A) describes the specific timetable in more detail
and provides examples of the issues and agencies to
be addressed.
Each year, an inventory of Federal involvement would be
prepared to identify the extent to which Federal regulations
subsidies and other program requirements impact on a given
segment of the economy. From this information, major
issues would be identified and public hearings would be
held to obtain additional information on specific problems
and to develop greater public understanding. At the end
of each year, four specific products would be submitted
for Presidential review:
1. Specific legislative proposals.
2. Specific recommendations for administrative reforms in
the agencies.
3. A comprehensive report on the total impact of government
interventions in that segment of the economy to serve
as a basis upon which to justify the specific adminis-
trative and legislative recommendations.
4. A list of issues to be handed off to other working
groups for further study.
The President would review these products and submit the
report and appropriate legislation to Congress. He would
also issue instructions for administrative change.
Legislative recommendations each year would be referred to
appropriate committees of Congress for consideration. If
the committees had not reported legislation to the floor
by November 15 of the same year, the Administration's
legislative plan would become the pending order of business
on the floor. It would remain the pending item until
acted on by each House.
4
Discussion
There is increasing congressional interest in undertaking
a regulatory reform effort. Currently, a variety of bills
are being considered ranging from zero-based budget reviews
of all agencies to abolishing a number of major regulatory
agencies. Action on some form of legislation to require a
comprehensive analysis of existing Federal programs appears
likely at least in the Senate.
Legislation similar to the proposal outlined in this
memorandum has already been introduced in the House and
Senate by Senators Percy and Byrd, Representatives Jordan,
Anderson and others. However, this proposal differs in
several important respects:
1. In addition to focusing on agencies (which is primarily
the Percy-Byrd approach), our legislation would require more
attention to the cumulative impact of government interven-
tion on important sectors of the economy. This approach
would help reduce the congressional inclination to simply
"move the boxes", a problem recurrent in past studies of
the need for government reform. The proposed legislation
would address all important government programs and agencies,
many of which are not itemized in the existing congressional
versions.
2. The Administration bill recognizes the need for congressional
cooperation without attempting to mandate a constitutionally
questionable forcing mechanism as does the Percy-Byrd bill.
3. The proposed legislation gives the President the flexi-
bility to defer legislative recommendations on important
crosscutting issues until sufficient evidence is available
to -support them, e.g., OSHA regulations have an impact on
manufacturing industries as well as transportation. Under
this proposal, legislative recommendations for fundamental
changes in OSHA regulations could be deferred until a
number of industries had been examined.
C. Our proposed legislation would be somewhat broader in
scope, encompassing non-tax subsidies as well as regulation.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
5. F: cumulative review of Federal programs would result in
specific improvements in public policy formulation by
providing a basis for more informed trade-offs between
our broad economic goals, e.g. reduced inflation and
unemployment, and specific regulatory objectives such as
health and environment. By looking only at agencies, the
Percy-Byrd bill does not provide this perspective.
The proposed legislation represents a significant improve-
ment over the presentxcongressional proposals and we believe
it would demonstrate your continued leadership on this
important issue. The concerns that have been expressed focus
principally on whether a multi-year reform effort of this
magnitude is a feasible undertaking. It has also been
suggested that we concentrate on safety, health and
environmental problems in the first year. Finally, a
question has been raised as to whether or not new legislation
is required to initiate such an effort.
The Domestic Council Review Group feels that a comprehensive
effort is achievable, but only with sustained Presidential
interest and leadership. The task is admittedly large,
but we believe that it could be accomplished and if we
are ever to effect the future growth of Government, it
must at least be tried. We also believe it would be
unwise to start with safety and health issues because
our knowledge is weakest in these areas and additional time
is needed to build a persuasive case for reform. Also,
if the effort is perceived as simply a pro business
attempt to roll back existing safety and health regulations
(which is probable if we begin with these issues), its
chances for success would be bleak since strong opposition
would be encountered immediately.
Finally, we believe legislation is necessary in order to
assure continued congressional attention and support for
reform. It would also help to secure the necessary assistance
from the private sector, and the Federal Government agencies
because they would view the potential for action to be
much greater. Finally, without a strong proposal of our
own, we stand a good chance of losing the regulatory reform
lead to Congress.
6
We are persuaded that the prospects are excellent for broad
scale support of our proposal. We have talked with Senator
Percy and he intends to hold hearings on his bill before the
full Government Operations Committee in the middle of May.
The Chamber of Commerce has drafted a bill similar to our
proposal but would prefer to support an Administration bill.
The National Association of Manufacturers is also interested
in getting behind such a comprehensive effort. In developing
this legislation we have met with a number of people such as
Don Rice of RAND, Roy Ash, Bill Ruckelshaus, Irving Shapiro
of Dupont, Lloyd Cutler and Charles Schultze of Brookings.
Although they all had different views on how to organize an
effort like this, they were ananimous in believing such a
program was worth undertaking. We have incorporated many of
their suggestions. Finally, the issue was discussed at the
EPB and there was general agreement that such an effort should
be initiated.
Recommendation
That you submit legislation along the lines outlined above
and announce your decision as soon as possible.
Tab B contains a draft statement which could be used to
explain the need for a comprehensive program and indicate
your personal interest and support.
Approve
Disapprove
Other
FORD LIBRARY & GERVID
Chart 1.
TIMETABLE FOR COMPREHENSIVE REFORM PROGRAM
/
1977
1978
1979
1980
Sector lifransportation
and priculture (Princ.
Roas. 9.9. ICC, CAB,
USDA, DOT)
I
Deferred
/
60%
Recommendations
WHITE HOUSE/EPB
V
Sector delloavy lifg.,
(Prine. Recr. c.g. EPA,
1.21 X 0 1.1 (=) I: (:) X 1-1 4 (i)
COORDINATION AND
Rining, Public Utils.,
CONTROL
Reports
and
FINA Interior.)
( Initial Cuidance
CONGREN
20%*
70%*
Continuing Over-
Legis-
V
sight, Decisions
lation
Sector 3:Light Mfg. and
on Issues to be
Construction (Princ. Recs.
Deferred or De-
0.0. Labor, EEOC, FDA,
veloped Further)
CPSC)
15%*
20%*
70%
I
V
GERALD
Fortor 4:Banking, Real
?
Musto, Insurance, Trade,
Cormunications, Services
(Prine. Pecs. 0.9. 7. SEC,
LIBRARY FORD
yes, Comptroller
5%*
105*
30%*
J.00%"
00 the Currency)
*Approximate Percentuge of offort.
Timotable for Comprahonsive Roform Program
Principal Sectors of the Economy Investigated
Discussion
Transportation and Agriculture
Builds on the Administration's current work to evaluate and restructure
1.9., railroads, motor carriers, airlines,
the regulatory authorities of ICC, CAB, FMC. Would include analysis of
water carriers, pipelines, local and
major transportation subsidies (o.g., airlines, rails, and merchant
suburban transit systems, crop and 11.vo-
marino) and address problems of transportation safety (FAN, NHTSA, const
stock producers, and forestry.
Guard, etc.). Would also address major issues of farm policy, including
agricultural quotas, price supports and other subsidies (e.g., CCC, ASCS)
inspection and grading of products (e.g., APHIS). Work would begin on
issues of employment standards and health/safety concerns, etc. but major
recommendations on these would probably be deferred until later years.
Mining, Heavy Manufacturing and Public
Year two would address the environmental and safety issues associated
Utilities
with all uso of natural resources (c.g., MESA, EPA), and the major trade-
E.g., mining, oil and gas extraction, paper,
offs associated with environmental and energy related objectives (c.g.,
chemicals, petroleum refining, primary
FEA, EPA). The analysis would continue to build on employment safety
metals, electric, gas, and other public
data developed in your 1. It would also outline the government's energy
utilities.
policy beyond decontrol.
Light Manufacturing and Construction
Year three would probably produce most major legislative recommendations
E.g., food processing, textiles, apparel,
dealing with employment (health, safety, compensation standards, etc.)
printing, and construction.
and would address agencies such as OSHA, EEOC, Labor which tend to fall
disproportionately on small businesses. Consumer protection issues
(labeling, product safety, etc.) will also be considered as they are
promoted by agencies such as CPSC, FDA, ATF.
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Com-
Major issues addressed will most likely be competition between financial
menications, Trade and Service Industrics
institutions (e.g., FILLBB, FDIC, Comptroller), regulation of broadcast
2.9., banking, securities, insurance and
and communications services (FCC), the trade practices and the adequacy
other financial services, broadcast and
of public disclosure (e.g., SEC, Federal Reserve, FTC) and the government's
communication services, wholesale and retail
role in distribution and trade.
trade, legal services, etc.
GERALD
?
FORD
LIBRARY
Message to Congress
Some years ago President Eisenhower closuently warned
Americans of the potential dangers inherent in the
growth of the industrial military complex. Today, I
would warn of the dangers of the growth of a different
system-the ever growing system of government regulations.
Starting even before 1776, the American way was to rely
on individual initiative and freedom as a way of providing
for our economic needs. Over the last several decades,
however, we have departed from this trust in individual
initiative and consumer choice. For good reasons and
bad, we have expanded government's role and the scope and
detail of governmental controls. We have created a
governmental system which is more and more rigid and less
able to respond to changing conditions. In an increasingly
complex society, government's role should be to assist
in the search for solutions to our problems. But in many
cases government has become a part of the problem.
This growth of government accelerated in the Depression
era. New government agencies were created to resolve
numerous economic and social problems--to help reduce
unemployment, to still unstable financial markets, and
to protect failing businesses. Over time, we have turned
to the Federal Government to bring us better housing, a
national transportation system, better health care and
equal opportunities in the job market.
In our compassion to solve urgent human problems, we have
given the Federal Government the power to regulate more
and more of our economy and our way of life. At the time
it seemed like an inexpensive, easy answer to some very
complex problems.
Government programs and burcaucracies have grown geometricall
to handle all of the Government's responsibilities. In the
last 15 years, we have created 236 departments, agencies,
bureaus, and commissions. Only 21 have been eliminated.
It is no wonder that today we have more than 1000 different
Federal programs, more than 80 regulatory agencies, more
than 100,000 government workers whose primary responsibility
is to regulate some aspect of our lives and tens of thousands
of government regulations.
Every President since Harry Trutan has tried to reform
some aspect of the regulatory system. But in the past year,
we have achieved the most significant and comprehensive
2
progress toward the reform of government regulation in
three decades. We have moved toward a more oten and
vigorous free market with less paperwork and more op-
portunity for businessmen to run their OWN businesses.
We have reversed the trend of paperwork growth. We have
reduced delays and we have instituted reforms to help
small businessmen.
We have repealed the Federal fair trade laws which for
40 years were creating artifically high prices for
consumers.
The Senate has passed the Financial Institutions Act
which is the most sweeping reform of banking regulation in
over 40 years.
We have increased civil and criminal penalties for anti-
trust violations to ensure that compatition can flourish.
We have opened LD competition in the securities markets
for the first time since the major stock exchanges were
established almost 200 years ago.
We have lessened ICC regulation of the Railroads for the
first time since the creation of the agency in 1887 and
I have introduced the first major reform of airline and
trucking regulation since the 1930's.
However, it is not enough to rest on our first successful
efforts. There is much more that needs to be done. First
we need to conduct = fundamental reexamination of how we
achieve our regulatory goals. We need to find out more
about the total impact of the maze of government regulations
and subsidies. We need to see where there are contradictions
and where there are overlaps. We need to know where cut-
dated and unnecessary regulations should be climinated.
We need to know more about the impact of regulation on jobs,
on prices, on innovation and on individual freedoms.
Only by undertaking as comprehonsive, systemmatic program
of our regulatory system will we know where our future
efforts should be directed, what the best approach to
change should be and how we can achieve concrete results.
Certainly we do not suck to change or abolish all regulations,
only those that are obsolete, inefficient and Lonefiting
special interests at the expense of the public interest.
Ve do, however, need to know nose about our entire regula-
then
3
The legislation I am submitting to the Congress today
would establish a disciplined approach to the design of
these policies. It would establish a comprehensive reform
program to:
make sure that government policies do not infringe
on individual choice and initiative;
-- reduce government intervention in the marketplace;
find better ways to assure that scarce economic
resources are usedymost efficiently so that we
fulfill our desirable social goals at minimum costs;
--- improve our ability to ensure that public expenditures
benefit all Americans and that government policies
are equitably enforced;
make sure that the public interest rather than
special interests benefit from government programs.
TO achieve these goals, we need a systemmatic approach
to understanding the problem, so that we can explain the
facts to the American public, and assure timely action on
the reforms that are necessary.
I have not been alone in recognizing that government inter-
ference has too many facets and affects too many people
to permit a piecemeal approach to the problems. Congressmen
and Senators of both parties have recently introduced
legislation requiring major changes in the conventional
practices of government agencies. Some bills would give
Congress the authority to veto proposed regulations. Others
call for the immediate or phased abolition of selected
agencies. More comprehensive bills proposed that all
agencies be subject to a zero-base authorization review in
Congress on a periodic schedule, or that new offices be
created within Congress to review specific agencies and/or
regulations.
GERALD LIBRARY FORD
Finally, Senators Charles Percy and Robert Byrd have
proposed legislation which would require a series of annual
plans designed to amend the authorities of agencies responsible
for controlling certain industries or schieving certain gools.
The legislation I am submitting today is based on this same
concept. Many members of Commress have already voiced their
support for this kind of agreement. WA will be working
together to achieve :: logistrative sendute for is systematic
to
OUT
regal.
contident
of
greeter
logislation:
focuses disciplined attention on major aspects of
government activity that have been often neglected
in the past;
provides for a systemmatic, phased review and scrutiny
of all government institutions, agencies, laws and
administrative regulations that directly affect our
economy with the aim of eliminating those that do not
generate bonefits to the public commensurate with
their costs;
-- provides a means for making a systemmatic assessment
of the cumulative impact of government involvement on
major sectors of the economy and for building the basis
for informed choices on alternative ways of achieving
our economic, social and environmental goals;
-- emphasizes the role of Congress, the agencies, State
and local governments, business and labor groups and
the consumer in formulating proposals for reform and
developing the support necessary for success.
The legislation requires the President over a period of
four years to submit annual plans designed to eliminate
or modify those Federal statutes and regulations which
now add more in costs to America's consumers and taxpayers
than they provide in benefits. These plans would provide
affirmative steps for increasing competition and finding
more effective methods of achieving important social and
economic goals.
The annual plans would be referred to the appropriate
oversight committees in the Congress, giving the Senate
and the House of Representatives an opportunity to review
and modify the plan. However, it requires that the Congress
act on the proposals within ten months of their submission.
Let me stress that this comprehensive, phased program of
reform must in no way delay reform efforts now underway.
It is vital to our economic health as a Nation to achieve
reform of the regulations governing our airlines, the motor
carrier industry and financial institutions as soon as
possible. This logislation is a complyment to, not a
substitute for, the legislative proposals I have already
sent to the Congress.
e
5
I believe that the reform of our regulatory system is one
of the best investments that we can maile in our future
as 3 Nation. J. believe we can make Government responsive
to the American people and an instrument of economic
progress without the endless growth of red tape and
regulations.
Let us work together to revitalize our regulatory system
in order to build a Stronger, healthier, safer America to
leave to our future generations.
TabB
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
B
May 7, 1976
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES M. CANNON
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
FROM:
JAMES E. CONNOR JEE
SUBJECT:
Task Forces to Reduce Waste
and Inefficiency in Government
Regulation
The President reviewed your memorandum of April 29 on the above
subject and approved the Task Force concept outlined in your
memorandum to Reduce Waste and Inefficiency in Government
Regulation.
Please follow-up with appropriate action.
cc: Dick Cheney
Robert Linder
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINITON
April 29, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNON
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
SUBJECT:
Task Forces to Reduce Waste and Inefficiency
in Government Regulation
Background
In your meeting with the Domestic Council Review Group on reg-
ulatory reform on February 4, 1976, you called for speeding
up the pace and broadening the scope of the agency reform
effort. You noted that an effective reform effort will require
an initiative from outside the Departments and agencies in
identifying and reducing obsolete or unnecessary regulations.
In order to move forward to accomplish your objective, we will
establish a number of short-term task forces to reduce waste
and inefficiency in agency operations in the next six months.
Organization
Paul W. MacAvoy of the Council of Economic Advisers will direct
the task force effort and will report biweekly to the Economic
Policy Board Executive Committee which will provide you with
periodic evaluations of the progress being achieved. The task
forces will be staffed by individuals detailed from various
Departments and agencies.
Initial Focus
Initially, task forces will be set up to work with specific
agencies whose regulations appear to impose excessive costs
compared to benefits. The goal is to identify excessively
costly regulations which could be changed quickly. The task
forces will also focus on improvements in the administration
of certain regulations, such as speeding up the processing of
applications or responses to requests for rulings.
-2-
The choice of agencies is perhaps the most critical step in
the entire process. Since this initial task force effort
is designed for a six-month period, it is important that we
concentrate on agencies where improvements in performance can
be achieved within a short period of time. Based on our
research over the last six weeks, we expect that the task
forces will initially concentrate on the following:
1. OSHA. The OSHA mandatory physical standards for the
work environment are complex, very costly to meet, and appear
to have little effect on industrial accident rates. OSHA
itself is planning to hold regional hearings to determine
the most costly and least effective standards, and these
standards should be eliminated.
2. FEA has been required by congressional mandate to
develop comprehensive oil price controls which are compli-
cated and cumbersome. While decontrolling refined products
over the next few months, FEA should simplify its procedures.
3. The Office of Export Administration in the Department
of Commerce issues export licenses for the sale of major
products to Eastern European and Sino-Soviet countries. The
current procedures are prolonged and have arguably had an
adverse impact on exports from the United States. In the
case of high technology products, the national security impli-
cations of particular exports is sufficiently complicated that
a significant speedup is probably not possible. However, for
low technology products it should be possible to develop an
expedited licensing procedure. Commerce has taken a number
of steps to speed up the licensing process and plans to take
additional actions in coopération with the task force.
Proposed Next Steps
Although the task forces can potentially produce significant
and visible accomplishments, their success will depend on your
strong personal support. It will require that Departments and
agencies. provide able people for detail to the task forces.
We estimate that the task forces will involve between 20 and 30
individuals over the next six months. We seek your approval
of this task force concept before staffing the operation.
FORD LIBRARY & QERALLO
Approve
Disapprove
This memorandum has been approved by the EPB Executive Com-
mittee. It has also been reviewed by the appropriate White House
offices. Their comments and recommendations are as follows:
Counsel's Office
Approve establishment of Task Forces
-3-
John O. Marsh
Approve establishment of Task Forces
Max Friedersdorf
No comment
THE WHITE HOUSE
/RRO Tabc
WASHINGTON
May 7, 1976
WEEKLY DOMESTIC ACTIVITIES REPORT
FOR THE PRESIDENT
1.
Bic Government Issue
C
Last year when you authorized the creation of the
Domestic Council Review Group on Regulatory Reform,
we concentrated on the independent regulatory agencies,
and those elements of Federal regulation that
primarily affect business, jobs and consumers.
Steve McConahey, your Assistant for Intergovernmental
Affairs, in a series of discussions with governors,
mayors, county executives and their public interest
groups, has learned that the number one intergovernmental
issue is over-regulation of state and local governments
by the Federal government. The bulk of these restrictions
on state and local governments is a result of adminis-
trative regulations issued by Executive branch agencies.
If you agree, we will propose that Steve form, with
OMB, a small strike force to look into the most trouble-
some areas of over-regulation of state and local government
to:
a) prevent excess regulation of new programs,
and
b) review and revise unnecessary, burdensome
and overlapping existing regulations.
We believe we can get some results in the short-term
and that this could be the basis of a major Presidential
speech or public statement. As part of this process,
we would form an advisory group of selected state and
local officials, including Dan Evans, who have long
called for this kind of reform. We will circulate a
proposal for this effort within the serior staff next
week. But, we first wanted to get your general reaction
to the idea.
RR7
DISAPPROVE
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 19, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL SEIDMAN
ED SCHMULTS
FROM:
STEVE McCONAHEY
Sem
SUBJECT:
Regulations Review
It is my understanding that the regulatory reform effort is
beginning to focus on the regulations of the Federal depart-
ments and independent agencies. Given the fact that these
regulations have a major impact on state, county and local
government, I would like to raise the intergovernmental
dimension of regulation reform and offer some suggestions
on the approach to this problem.
Two of the Administration's major themes have been the re-
duction of excessive government, and the return of essential
decision authority to state and local governments. The block
grant initiatives, revenue sharing, the regulatory reform
legislation are existing actions in support of these themes.
However, there has not been to date a sustained government-
wide effort to overhaul the maze of burdensome regulations
that prescribe to state and local officials how Federally-
supported programs are run. In most instances, these regulations
increase the cost of Federal assistance programs, complicate
their aGministration, and impose unwanted features. To many
governors and mayors, the burden of these regulations seems to
outweigh the benefits of the programs.
Based on our intergovernmental perspective, and on the observa-
tions that state and local officials have made on other White
House or agency reviews and studies, I offer the following
recommendations for the next phase of regulation review:
1. Focus the review effort on regulations surrounding
Federal assistance programs.
The majority of agency administrative regula-
tions deal with Federal public assistance programs
and largely affect the delivery of such diverse
services as health care, income support, food
shamps, job training assistance, and housing.
- 2 -
These are highly visible programs that impact
on the great majority of the American people.
The regulations for administering these programs
are, in many cases, adversely affecting the
ability of state, county and local governments
to deliver the needed services. As stated in a
recent National Journal article:
"
overly detailed administrative
regulations in many areas not only
fail to achieve their purposes but
fail precisely because of the bur-
dens they plase on state and local
management.
"
My review of the "targets of opportunity" being
reviewed by the EPB suggests a continued focus on
regulations affecting the private sector and the
consumer.
As an alternative, I believe we must foçus the major
portion of our efforts on the domestic assistance
program regulations - if we do not, we will be over-
looking one of the major contributing factors to
excessive government and bureaucracy.
2. Provide full-time, sustained White House oversight
of in-depth, priority agency reform efforts.
The regulatory reform effort to date has been
essentially the work of a Domestic Council review
group coordinating specific legislative projects
and monitoring agency regulation activities. The
performance of the departments and agencies in re-
viewing their own regulations has been, however,
uneven and sporadic. Moreover, because of the
focus of the work to date, and because of limited
resources, the review group has not been able to
devote full time to this effort. Given the unique
management and bureaucratic problems associated
with the regulation of domestic programs, I believe
that we must approach this reform effort quite dif-
ferently than our approach to date.
The problems we are trying to overcome have a
staying power that historically outlasts the
life of any task force or review group.
- 3 -
The most contemporary and startling example
of this is what is happening to the CETA program:
where sound and well-established legislative and
administrative simplification and reform is being
eroded through the gradual reimposition of old
administrative practices and rules.
If we are to move beyond identification of reform
opportunities to the actual implementation of im-
provements, I believe there must be two types of on-
going oversight:
(a) Full-time White House Oversight. Tough
and experienced White House management
of this effort will: give the effort a
clear Presidential mandate; signal this
mandate to the departments and agencies;
respond to the criticism of state and local
officials, who will give the effort full
support if they perceive the effort to be
a priority; and, insure the objectives are
achieved in a timely and visible manner.
(b) Agency. Participation and Commitment. The
agencies must feel the pinch and -be held
accountable for the progress of this ef-
fort. A critical element of real reform
is in-depth agency involvement. Histori-
cally, the White House has been ineffective
by itself in imposing from the outside the
type of reform needed here. It requires
agency commitment and full participation.
One suggestion is the use of the Under
Secretaries as the officials charged with
in-house oversight, and who would work
closely with and under the White House
oversight official (s).
3. Provide for input from and participation by state,
county and local officials.
No group is more aware of the problems from excessive
Federal regulation than those charged with the day-to-
day administration of the regulated programs. More-
over, these officials collectively represent an
effective force to help marshall support for these
reforms, particularly where legislative adjustments
are required. The participation of state and local
officials is essential, both substantively and politicall
- 4 -
At the same time, we must avoid a "mess chart"
situation with a tangled maze of ongoing reform
efforts. Already a number of agencies have
initiated regulation review efforts, including
HEW, Treasury, FEA and EPA. Secretary Mathews,
for example, has initiated three task force ef-
forts with the New Coalition, two of which pertain
to regulations. Secretary Simon has initiated
selective projects with the National Governors'
Conference (NGC). Most recently, Jim Lynn com-
mitted to respond to priority management and
regulation issues identified by the NGC.
For these reasons, I recommend that this effort
include the following elements:
Inputs from state and local officials
to help focus the effort (perhaps
through an advisory committee, with
members like Governor Dan Evans)
Coordination and encouragement of
reform work presently underway in
the agencies, thereby avoiding du-
plication of efforts.
Channeling of inputs from state and
local officials, and their public
interest groups, to avoid overloading
their capacity to respond.
Summary
The achievement of the President's goals of reducing big
government and rebalancing federal-state relations requires
that vie focus much of our regulatory review effort on public
assistance programs, and that we directly involve the officials
responsible for the administration of these programs in the
departments and agencies. We must have strong, full-time and
sustained commitment both at the White House and at the top
leadership of the agencies. And, we must orchestrate the
various efforts now underway to maximize the input from state
and local officials.
- 5 -
Given the inttergovernmental charter of my office, I am
available to provide whatever assistance I can to achieve
these objectives. I consider this a problem area of the
utmost urgencify, one that we can make quick and visible
progress withy and which, if properly approached, will
measurably ackcomplish the President's commitment to re-
duce the burden of the Federal government.
I would like to have an opportunity to discuss this memorandum
with you.
Organization of Energy and Related Functions
Task Force Composition and Operating Plan
1.
Project Direction
Jim Mitchell and Joe Kasputies jointly responsible to
ERC for performance of organizational study of energy
and related functions.
2.
Working Task Force
At working level there will be a task force comprised
as follows:
a.
Central Core -
Dinsmore, OSS - Task Force leader
Seidl - EF
Kreitler - NR
- Commerce (ERC)
Secretary -
This core group will be assigned substantially full-time.
b. OMB Back-up Contact Points
- General Counsel's Office
- Science & Energy Tech. Div.
- Agriculture Branch
- Water Resources Branch
- Commerce Branch
These persons should maintain a general familiarity with
the study at all stages and be prepared to respond with
information, analyses or agency contact work when called
upon. The time committment for these persons should not
be extensive.
C. Agency Contact Points
Each directly affected agency will be requested to designate
a responsible official who will follow the progress of this
study and will see that his agency responds promptly and
effectively to requests for basic data and information or for
analytical products such as the evaluation of specific issues
and the identification and evaluation of tentative options.
The person so designated by each agency should have clear
access to relevant program officials and to agency top manage-
ment. Affected agencies are:
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
Agriculture
Commerce (e.g. Kasputies)
Defense
Interior
Transportation
ERDA
FEA
Water Resources Council
3.
Work Steps - following approval of study plan by ERC
Step
Completion by
1. Assemble and brief task force
May 20
Phase I
2. Call for, obtain and review basic infor-
May 31
mation and data concerning energy and
related functions - e.g., legislative
basis, Presidential direction, object-
ives, manpower and funding, major
officials, organizational placement,
principal issues, Congressional Com-
FORD & LIBRARY 034839
mittee relationships, principal cross-
program involvements, published imple-
menting regulations, etc.
3. Obtain and review prior studies, issue
June 10
papers, testimony, etc. - update as
necessary.
4.
Conduct selected interviews
June 15
5. Formulate preliminary organizational
June 20
alternatives (without detailed evaluation).
6. Interim progress report to ERC via project
June 25
directors - as basis for obtaining guidance
on issues and preliminary alternatives
Phase II
7.
Evaluate in detail those alternatives judged
July 25
by ERC to merit further consideration for
final selection - including follow-up inter-
views, development of preliminary internal
organizational detail for each broad
alternative.
-3-
Step
Completion by
8. Prepare final report to ERC which presents
August 15
and evaluates major alternatives especially
from standpoint of effectiveness in
promoting program accomplishment rather than
Congressional/political feasibility.
9. Prepare Presidential decision-paper
August 20
reflecting ERC recommendation.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 2, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR
JIM CANNON
THROUGH:
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
MIKE DUVAL Mike
SUBJECT:
"RED TAPE"
This follows up on my memorandum to you of May 7 and your
note (see Tab A).
I spoke briefly with Paul Leach and he concurs with my
belief that we should document specific cases where Federal
regulations have unreasonably burdened small businesses and
individuals.
Our objective should be to document specific examples of
unwarranted government "red tape". These examples should
cover the entire U.S. geographically and the broadest possi-
ble number of different businesses. The documented cases
could be used in Presidential speeches to "humanize" the
deregulation issue, by the Domestic Council staff to "test"
the effectiveness of proposed legislation (and to develop
additional areas where reform is needed), by agency and
department heads as they adopt administrative reforms and
in our efforts to explain our deregulation proposals when
questioned during Congressional hearings.
I think we should approach this in a very low-key, low-budget
manner. If necessary, the project can be escalated, in terms
of visibility and resources, as we go along. I recommend
that we undertake the following:
1) Identify potential cases of unwarranted Federal "red
tape" involving adverse impacts on small businesses
or individuals.
- Review White House correspondence.
- Discuss with Bill Baroody and Virginia Knauer staffs.
Review their correspondence, etc.
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
2
- Working through the appropriate Domestic Council
staff member, check with selected departments and
agencies (SBA, EPA, Labor, DOT, etc.)
- Jim Falk checks with selected governors, mayors,
etc. to develop leads.
- Check with minority staff of appropriate Congres-
sional offices (members and committees).
2) Develop one-page summary of potential cases. Develop
list (of 25-30 cases) which gives proper spread geo-
graphically and by subject matter.
3) Conduct field interviews and fact gathering.
4) Develop preliminary report by August 15.
In order to keep this low-key, I recommend using a summer
intern to do the initial work.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 7, 1975
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR
JIM CANNON
THROUGH:
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
MIKE DUVAL Wite
SUBJECT:
GOVERNMENT "RED TAPE"
I suggest you read the attached letter from Mr. Terry.
It makes an excellent example of what government "red
tape" (Federal, State and local) is doing to a small
businessman.
I think it's likely that this will become a major part of
the President's domestic record during the '76 election.
He has a good opportunity to develop a theme of making
government responsive to the needs of people. We must
get on the "anti" side of the "anti-government" issue.
It would be enormously useful if we could document this
kind of government interference in the private sector,
especially as it impacts small businessmen and individual
consumers. We should try to document specific cases,
covering the broadest range of industries and businesses
and geographic regions of the country.
I have some specific ideas in this regard and would like
to discuss them with you as soon as possible.
2) 1) Covanagh whe I would like To are brief
your them messitions for we, and Ms Then
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
we u dircuss. gohn
6/2
MD
OUTLINE OF POINTS FOR THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT TO BE
ISSUED ON THURSDAY, JUNE 3, IN CONNECTION WITH HIS MEETING
WITH THE "NEW COALITION"
One of my most important objectives as President is to
improve the quality of performance of the federal
government and reduce the burden it places on individual
Americans.
In many respects, the federal government has become a
burden to all of us by interferring in our daily deci-
sions, both as individual citizens and participants in
the free economic system, and also because of the burden
it places on us as taxpayers. Too often, the right to
choose a life style and make other individual decisions
is being infringed upon by government regulation. Also,
the burden we must shoulder as property and individual
taxpayers is increasing without matching benefits.
I have set out to make fundamental, comprehensive and
structural changes in the federal government. As Presi-
dent, and one who has served in Congress for over twenty-
five years, I cannot simply criticize the government,
but rather I have taken actions to change it. I am
improving the quality of the federal government by:
- Returning resources and decision-making authority
to state and local government officials. [Insert
description of revenue sharing and bloc grant
programs]
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
2
- Reforming federal regulation, thereby saving the
consumers money and reducing government interference
in individual decision-making. [insert regulatory
reform legislative package -- four-year plan -- plus
specific independent regulatory agency reform bill]
- Streamlining the operation of the Executive Branch,
thereby reducing cost of government, increasing
efficiency and making government officials more
responsive to people. [insert information on OMB
management initiatives, review of regulations
governing delivery of federal funds to state and
local agencies, and our "strike force" idea.]
These are some of the specific reforms that are currently
underway and have already had a major impact in changing the
federal government. This is consistent with my overall
philosophy in approaching the role of government, which
is to let individuals make decisions -- not bureaucrats.
That is why my basic approach to economic recovery has
been to support tax cuts as opposed to additional federal
make-work programs. [pick up from President's recent speeches
on tax cut versus federal programs.]
I deeply believe that the government must cost less and
be more responsive to the legitimate needs of the people.
We have to remember that government does not govern this
nation; the people do.
FORD s LIBRARY
3
I have found that the further away decision-making
gets from the people involved, the more unresponsive
the decision-making becomes. People must be able to
reach out and control the public employee who is making
decisions which impact them. We must never insulate
the government employee from the people we all serve.
FORD is LIBRARY 938470
1
Need TAbs Bc
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK CHENEY
FROM:
MIKE DUVAL
SUBJECT:
BIG GOVERNMENT
I continue to work on developing an approach to the Big
Government problem. We must put the issue in a very
broad context and get away from the narrow, highly
technical approach we've been using in the past -- such
as talking about revenue sharing, regulatory reform, and
the like.
To give you an idea of what can be accomplished by aiming
for the broader picture, you might want to take a look at
some brief remarks which I had hoped the President would
use to open his meeting with the Governors and Mayors on
revenue sharing several weeks ago. (See Tab A.)
I think that Carter continues to be highly vulnerable in
this area because he refuses to be specific about what he
would do to attack the bigness problem. Accordingly, I
think that we should take steps immediately to develop a
most comprehensive and detailed government reorganization
plan. A piece of it was contained in the memo I did for
you yesterday, calling for detailed review of the Civil
Service. However, there is much more involved.
One idea I had was to consider major Cabinet departmental
changes, much as Nixon did. I fundamentally disagree with
the Nixon approach of consolidation along functional lines
because I think it resulted in creating Cabinet departments
which were so big that they were virtually unmanageable.
I think it would be useful for you to chair a meeting of some
people I have listed at Tab B for the purpose of developing a
strategy for coming up with a government reform plan.
This would probably take four or five hours and should be done
on a Saturday or a Sunday. (See Tab C for a draft agenda.)
FORD LIBRARY & CERALD
2
DECISION
Set up meeting:
Yes
No
See me
Invite those checked in Tab B:
Yes
I will do inviting
TAB A
-1-
ONE OF MY MOST IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES AS PRESIDENT IS
TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
AND REDUCE THE BURDEN IT PLACES ON INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS®
TOO OFTEN, THE RIGHT TO MAKE INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS
IS BEING INFRINGED UPON BY GOVERNMENT REGULATION®
ALSO,
THE BURDEN WHICH PROPERTY AND INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS MUST
SHOULDER IS INCREASING WITHOUT MATCHING BENEFITS®
I HAVE SET OUT TO MAKE FUNDAMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE
AND STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT®
AS
PRESIDENT, AND ONE WHO HAS SERVED IN CONGRESS FOR OVER TWENTY-
FIVE YEARS, I DO NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF SIMPLY CRITICIZING
GOVERNMENT
FORD is LIBRARY
-2-
INSTEAD, I HAVE ACTED AND I WILL CONTINUE TO ACT TO
CHANGE IT.
I AM IMPROVING THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY:
-- RETURNING DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY AND THE
FINANCIAL RESOURCES REQUIRED TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS.
-- BY REFORMING FEDERAL REGULATION, THEREBY SAVING
AMERICA'S CONSUMERS MONEY AND REDUC ING GOVERNMENT
INTERFERENCE IN INDIVIDUAL DECISION-MAKING.
-- AND FINALLY, BY STREAMLINING THE OPERATION OF
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH -- THEREBY REDUCING THE COST OF
GOVERNMENT, INCREASING EFFICIENCY AND MAKING GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS MORE RESPONSIVE TO THE PEOPLE®
-3-
GENERAL REVENUE SHARING IS A PROVEN SUCCESSFUL,
AND VERY IMPORTANT ELEMENT IN MY EFFORTS TO RETURN MORE OF THE
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS AND NECESSARY FINANCIAL RESOURCES
TO LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT
IF GENERAL REVENUE SHARING IS NOT EXTENDED, THE
FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ON MANY STATES AND LOCAL
COMMUNITIES WILL BE SEVERE®
THE UNFORTUNATE DELAY IN
ENACTMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION HAS ALREADY CAUSED SERIOUS
PROBLEMS®
THE EVIDENCE INDICATES THAT FURTHER DELAY, THE
FAILURE TO EXTEND THIS PROGRAM, OR THE ADOPTION OF DRASTIC
PROGRAM REVISIONS -- WOULD LEAD TO INCREASED PROPERTY TAXES
AND THE IMPOSITION OF OTHER TAXES IN MANY AREAS®
-4-
IT WOULD ALSO EFFECT THE LEVEL AND QUALITY OF VITAL
PUBLIC SERVICES WHICH ARE PROVIDED
THERE WOULD BE LESS
POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION, REDUCTIONS IN HEALTH, EDUCATION
AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS, AND DELAYED CONSTRUCTION OF NEEDED
PUBLIC FACILITIES®
DURING THE PAST FOURTEEN MONTHS, I HAVE SOUGHT TO
WORK WITH THE CONGRESS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE ADOPTION OF
S OUND LEGISLATION EXTENDING THIS VITAL PROGRAM®
I WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE BI-PARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP
AND REPRESENTATIVES OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO ACHIEVE
THAT GOAL.
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
-5-
IT IS IN THAT SPIRIT THAT I HAVE ASKED YOU HERE
TODAY.
I KNOW THAT MANY OF YOU SHARE MY CONCERNS.
I HOPE THAT WE CAN EMERGE FROM OUR DISCUSSION TODAY UNITED
IN OUR SUPPORT FOR GENERAL REVENUE SHARING AND WORK TOGETHER
FOR THE ADOPTION OF A BILL WHICH WILL CONTINUE THE GOOD
RESULTS ALREADY ACHIEVED BY THE EXISTING PROGRAM®
END OF TEXT
FORDO A LIBRARY
TAB B
TAB C
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 27, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CAVANAUGH
FROM:
MIKE DUVAL Whe
SUBJECT:
GOVERNMENT RED TAPE
Attached are some more examples from Bill Rutherford of
government red tape.
I recommend that someone on the Domestic Council be assigned
as "product officer" for these problems.
One possible way to approach this problem is to have the
appropriate agency head personally develop a substantive
reply to legitimate claims that Federal programs are not
working. This could be reviewed by the Domestic Council
before going out to insure that it is responsive.
This way some of the programs might receive well-needed
reform.
LIBRARY GERALD RT FORD
September 14, 1976
JC:MD
RESPONSE TO BIG GOVERNMENT ISSUE
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
When left unchecked, every level of government has
a tendency to grow. In the past, we have seen this at
the city, State and Federal level.
I believe this is a serious problem. If we were an
undeveloped country with only a few qualified people, it
might make sense to concentrate them all in the Capital - at
the State and Federal levels. But, when we have as talented
and energetic country as America, it is a great waste to
direct things from Washington, or just from State Capitals.
Indeed, I have found that when we move slowly in Washington,
we tend to encourage opportunities to open up elsewhere in
the country.
America has the most educated, resourceful and widely
diverse talent of any country on earth. It is an enormous
waste of human resources to concentrate initiative in
Washington when the whole fabric of American society is
bursting with intelligence and creativity.
It has been gratifying to me to be able to devote some
of my time and energy over the last two years changing the
Executive Branch of the Federal government to conform with
my view that government should not be allowed to get too
big. I have found that keeping down the growth of govern-
ment requires the vigorous efforts of the Chief Executive.
2
The Executive Branch has about 11,000 fewer employees
today than it had when I took office. The decline isn't
dramatic, but it is real and it tells us that the trend
toward bigger government can be reversed with hard work.
In addition, we have been able to increase by 24% the
portion of the Federal budget returned to our State and
local communities. We have reduced Federal paperwork by
over 12%, and my personal office - the White House - now
has nearly 10% fewer employees than when I took office.
That didn't happen by accident. It happened because I
directed it to happen and because I followed up to make
sure that it did happen.
I suspect that Governor Carter knows how hard it is to
reduce the growth of government because while he was Governor,
the State employment in Georgia rose by 24%, from 34,332 to
42,400. However, the most outrageous example of growth in
government is the Congress of the United States. Its staff
has grown 84% in the last ten years, which makes it the
fastest growing industry in the country.
FORD LIBRARY & 038870