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
23812651
label
Economy - General (4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
23812651
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Economy - General (4)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Poland
Export-Import Bank of the United States. (03/13/1968 - )
Treaties
Ships
Economics
Minimum wage
Coffee
Taxation
Inflation (Finance)
Administration goals and achievements
Legislation
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
23812651
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-01
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
f595e86722800be7
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 10, folder "Economy - General (4)" of the
Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 10 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
Economy
WASHINGTON
June 15, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
P.
SUBJECT:
Administration Policy on
Minimum Wage Legislation
I suggest Option 2 among the six options presented by
Bill Usery.
FORD & LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 14, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN O. MARSH
PHILIP BUCHEN
JAMES M. CANNON
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
Lus
SUBJECT:
Administration Policy on Minimum Wage Legislation
A draft memorandum from Secretary Usery on "Administration
Policy on Minimum Wage Legislation" is attached. EPB Execu-
tive Committee members were requested to provide their com-
ments at this morning's meeting.
Secretary Usery is very anxious for some guidance on this issue.
I would appreciate your comments and recommendations on the
memorandum by Noon, Tuesday, June 15, 1976.
Thank you very much.
Attachment
GERAL FORD LIBRACT
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
DRAFT
FROM:
W. J. USERY, JR.
SUBJECT:
Administration Policy on
Minimum Wage Legislation
Last October, Congressman Dent introduced legislation
which would increase the basic minimum wage (now $2.30)
to $2.65 on July 1, 1976 and $3.00 on January 1, 1977.
Thereafter the bill would index the minimum wage upward
twice yearly by percentage increases in the CPI plus
a 1 percent add-on at each adjustment.
Currently, however, Congressman Dent and the AFL-CIO are
giving greater attention to an informal proposal which
would increase the minimum wage to $2.65 on January 1,
1977 with annual increases thereafter so as to maintain
the minimum as a fixed percentage of gross average hourly
earnings of non-agricultural workers. This method would
"index" the minimum wage to average wages. A number of
other wage indexing models have also been discussed inform-
ally.
As you know, Congressman Dent delayed action on minimum wage
legislation during May so that the Administration could come
forward with a "positive" proposal in June. "Positive" was
not defined. There was no commitment to present a positive
proposal, but if the Administration opposes any increase
Congressman Dent may feel that an understanding was broken.
Proposals to increase the minimum wage and especially
proposals to index it will be controversial. The minimum
wage has always been an emotional issue and is supported
by rank and file workers. On the other hand, the economics
profession, by-and-large, believes that increases in the
minimum wage tend to decrease employment opportunities,
especially for certain groups like the elderly, the handi-
capped, youth, and those seeking part-time employment. *
Generally, the business community accepts periodic increases
reluctantly and would prefer no increase.
*
The Council of Economic Advisers estimates that an
increase in the minimum wage to $2.65 would increase
the unemployment rate by
%.
- 2 -
I am scheduled to meet with Congressman Dent and Andrew
Biemiller of the AFL-CIO on June 16 to sound them out on
various approaches. It would be desirable to have general
guidance from you before that meeting, but you do not need
to select a specific proposal yet.
The following are a set of options for minimum wage policy.
OPTION 1: Oppose an increase in the minimum wage at the
present time.
This option represents the most conservative approach and
is likely to anger Congressman Dent who is expecting a
positive proposal in June. An increase could be opposed on
the grounds that another increase so soon would hamper the
recovery, by reducing employment opportunities and stimulating
inflation. On the other hand the most recent increase to
$2.30 on January 1 of this year has already been eaten up by
inflation. (The CPI had increased 15.4% since the effective
date of the 1974 amendments but the $2.30 figure represents
an increase of only 15 percent in the minimum wage since
that time. Increases in the CPI since January have resulted
in further erosion.) Opposing any increase will put the
Administration in a position to be attacked as opposing the
interests of the rank-and-file worker.
OPTION 2: Take no position at this time.
Under this option the Administration would "wait and see"
what develops in Congress. It is possible that those in
Congress seeking to raise the minimum wage would find
relatively little support for major initiatives in this area
now. More likely is the possibility of a full-fledged
debate on the issue with a fair probability of the passage
of legislation both increasing the minimum wage and indexing
it to the growth in average wages. While the Administration
will come under increasing pressure to take a position it
probably will be two or three months before we must comment
ourselves.
FORD
OPTION 3: Propose a study of the minimum wagesincluding
its effects on inflation and unemployment
This option would pose the dilemma between desirable increases
in the minimum wage to compensate for inflation and employment
effects of such increases. The study would seek to address
this problem and propose solutions.
- 3 -
OPTION 4: Favor a legislated increase but oppose
indexing.
This would permit the President to recognize the erosion
of the minimum wage due to inflation while avoiding the
relatively controversial step of endorsing indexation.
However, a somewhat larger increase is likely if index-
ation is not adopted.
The most frequent figure mentioned in discussions on raising
the minimum wage is $2.65 from the current $2.30--a 15%
increase. It would appear that the "minimum" increase that
could be offered for January, 1977 under this option would
be $.15, raising the level to $2.45. This would just make
up for the expected 6% increase in consumer prices between
January, 1976 and January, 1977.
The impact of such an increase on inflation and employment
opportunities would of course depend on the size of the
increase.
OPTION 5: Propose a. modest increase in January, 1977,
and statutorily mandate for a study to determine
the best method for increasing the minimum wage
in January 1978. The study might result in a
proposal for another simple increase, or some
method of indexation.
This option would permit the President to favor an increase
in the minimum wage without committing himself on the
subject of indexation. It recognizes the complexity of
designing a satisfactory indexation formula and provides a
method whereby the issue must be addressed in roughly the
same time frame as the Dent proposal would address it.
While the indexing concept is relatively simple, previous
experience with indexing in the case of social security has
demonstrated the importance of correct technical design.
The two stage approach permits both the Congress and the
President flexibility to monitor events, to do further
analysis on the appropriateness of indexing, and the effect
of various indexing methods, and to exercise judgment in
early 1977 as to the best course of action in 1978.
FORD
- 4 -
OPTION 6: Favor indexation.
This option probably would be considered the most "positive"
by those favoring an increase in the minimum wage. Histor-
ical comparisons show that after allowing for the irregular
pattern of legislated increases, the minimum wage has, on
average, followed the rate of increase for average wages.
In particular, the minimum wage has averaged 48 percent of
average hourly earnings. Indexing the minimum wage to the
historically observed increases in average hourly earnings
would have resulted in a minimum wage very close to the
current level. Indexing to prices--such as the CPI--would
have resulted in a much lower minimum wage level.
In taking this option, there is some risk of future legis-
lated increases on top of the indexed minimum, particularly
if it is indexed to the CPI. Wage indexation, however,
probably would undercut political support for such increases.
If the Administration adopted this option, it could propose
a particular procedure or try to work with Congress to
assure a mutually satisfactory method.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP BUCHEN
JAMES M. CANNON
JOHN O. MARSH
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN five
SUBJECT:
U.S. Maritime Policy
The EPB Executive Committee has reviewed the situation in the
U.S. maritime industry in light of recent developments and
pending legislation. The attached memorandum seeks the Presi-
dent's guidance on the Administration position regarding the
most immediate pending legislation directly affecting the
maritime industry, S. 2422, a bill to require that oil ship-
ments between the Virgin Islands and the U.S. mainland be
carried in U.S. flag ships.
I would appreciate your comments and recommendations on this
issue by 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, July 27, 1976.
Thank you very much.
Support Option 3. In additional support of this option,
it is our understanding that this measure has not been
cleared with the leadership for floor action this year
and therefore the prospects for any Senate floor action,
regardless of our position, are very remote.
Philip T.W.B. W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 27, 1976
MEMO FOR:
ED SCHMULTS
FROM:
KEN LAZARUS
K
SUBJECT:
Seidman Memo re: U. S.
Maritime Policy
Suggested response:
Support Option 3. In additional support of this option,
it is our understanding that this measure has not
been cleared with the leadership for floor action this
year and therefore the prospects for any Senate
floor action, regardless of our position, are very
remote.
Approve
Disapprove
OHOO LIBRARY are
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
SUBJECT:
U. S. Maritime Policy
The EPB Executive Committee has reviewed the situation
in the U.S. maritime industry in light of recent develop-
ments and pending legislation. This memorandum outlines
developments in maritime policy, describes the situation
in the U.S. maritime industry, and seeks your guidance on
the Administration position regarding the most immediate
pending legislation, S. 2422, a bill to require that oil
shipments between the Virgin Islands and the U.S. main-
land be carried in U.S. flag ships.
Developments in Maritime Policy
Since early 1975 an interagency committee of the Economic
Policy Board has monitored the developing tanker situation
and considered alternative approaches for providing relief
to the industry.
The alternatives most actively considered include a number
of forms of oil cargo preference for U.S. flag ships, and
the manning of some military cargo vessels by non-government
seamen. A meeting on March 7, 1975, with you was arranged
for representatives of the industry, including maritime
labor spokesmen. The industry representatives indicated that
an oil cargo preference measure limited to existing and on-
order ships would provide the relief they deemed necessary.
An options memorandum on "U.S. Tanker Industry Problems"
was sent to you on May 9, 1975. Your decision approving the
trial substitution of non-government for government crews on
four tankers under long-term charter to the Military Sealift
Command is being implemented. However, the maritime industry
continues to feel the Administration has not been fully re-
sponsive to their needs.
At the April 14, 1976 EPB Executive Committee meeting the
Secretary of Commerce was asked to explore again alternative
FORD
LIBRARY
-2-
actions that might help relieve the maritime industry situ-
ation. Five options were developed:
Limited Oil Cargo Preference
Extension of the Jones Act to the Virgin Islands Oil
Trade
Increased Military Use of Commercial Tankers with Non-
government Crews for Underway Replenishment
Amendment of "Buy American" Provisions of the Merchant
Marine Act
A Shipping Agreement for the Movement of Soviet Oil
These options were considered at the May 26 EPB Executive Com-
mittee meeting. At that time it was concluded that extension
of the Jones Act to the Virgin Islands represented the least
objectionable measure that would provide significant relief
to the U.S. maritime industry, if it were decided to provide
any additional assistance. The Executive Committee directed
that this option be further refined for your consideration.
A number of further issues affecting the maritime industry
have arisen in the meantime. They are reviewed before turning
to a discussion of legislation extending the Jones Act to the
Virgin Islands, since they impact on the prospects for the U.S.
maritime industry.
Third Flag Issue
On July 19, Federal Maritime Commission Chairman Karl Bakke
announced that he had signed a "memorandum agreement" with the
Soviet Union regarding Soviet participation in U.S. foreign
trade. The "agreement" contains two principles:
1.
Soviet-flag carriers will maintain freight rates at
levels not lower than rates used for the same commod-
ity by non-Soviet carriers in the particular trades
involved.
2.
Soviet-flag carriers will pursue membership in ocean
shipping conferences covering the U.S. North Atlantic
and Pacific routes.
Simultaneously, Chairman Bakke sent a letter to you indicating
that "a legislated solution now appears to be unnecessary so
long as the carriers involved move forward in good faith LOFORD
implement the objectives of the agreement." A copy of hi
GERALDOR
LIBRARY
-3-
letter is attached at Tab A. Chairman Bakke has similarly
briefed key members of the appropriate Congressional committees.
U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Agreement
On September 17, 1975 the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed upon a
rate formula for the carriage of grain to the Soviet Union by
American-flag ships, effective through December 31, 1976,
providing for a minimum charter rate of $16.00 a ton. This
rate is sufficiently favorable under current market conditions
to attract a substantial portion of the American tanker. fleet
to this trade. However, the Soviets have adopted tactics
contrary to the principles of the U.S./U.S.S.R. Maritime Agree-
ment assuring U.S.-flag vessels the opportunity to carry one-
third of the grain cargoes. These tactics include: (1) offering
future cargoes to U.S.-flag ships that are currently on
Russian grain voyages and then cancelling the charters when
the ships cannot meet the loading dates due to delays in
Russian ports, (2) excluding tankers from discharging at
Nakhodka, and (3) computing the U.S. share based on monthly
Soviet projections, which tend to be lower than the amount of
grain actually shipped. As a result, since September 1975 U.S.-
flag vessels have carried only 25.6% of the grain shipments
(19.2% have been carried by Soviet ships and 55.2% by third-
flag vessels). The volume of cargo carried by U.S. ships is
approximately 1 million tons less than a one-third share. These
actions which in most cases are contrary to the specific pro-
visions of the Maritime Agreement and, in all cases contrary to
its spirit and intent, have been repeatedly and strongly objected
to by the Maritime Administration. These tactics were the prin-
cipal subject of discussions held between U.S. and Soviet maritime
officials in a meeting in Moscow on June 17-24, 1976. To date
the Soviets have refused to acknowledge their obligation under
the Agreement to increase future grain cargo allocations to
provide U.S. carriers their entitlement to a full one-third
share of the shipments. This matter will also be the major
topic of discussion at a meeting scheduled to be held in Wash-
ington in October 1976.
Even if U.S.-flag ships were provided a full one-third of the
Soviet grain cargoes, this would not fully employ available U.S.-
flag tankers seeking employment. Exclusive of those ships
that are in actual lay-up status, each month approximately one
million tons of U.S.-flag tankers are offered to the Soviet
charterers as compared to the 300,000 to 400,000 tons of grain
which constitute-one-third of the monthly Soviet grain shipment
program. Further, it appears that future program levels may be
significantly decreased. Only one ship is scheduled for employ-
ment in this trade in August 1976 and the Soviets have advised
that there will be no shipments in September.
-4-
Situation in the U.S. Maritime Industry
There are presently 22 U.S.-flag tankers of 1.2 million dwt
in lay-up, representing about 10% of the U.S. tanker tonnage.
About 16% of the worldwide tanker tonnage is in lay-up. The
prospect for employment of many of these tankers is dim.
The world shipbuilding market is also deeply depressed, and
the scramble for shipbuilding contracts has resulted in
foreign price quotations so low as to impose strong upward
pressures on U.S. construction subsidy rates for all types of
ships. The Administration is currently supporting a bill which
would assist U.S. shipyards by increasing the allowable Federal
ship construction ceiling from the current 35% to 45% for
negotiated contracts. The Congress is likely to further increase
the ceiling to 50%.
The full impact of the worldwide tanker depression was first
apparent in the United States early in 1975. It lead directly
to cancellations of orders for nine tankers in U.S. yards.
Substantial relief was afforded by Soviet grain purchases in
1975 and the U.S./U.S.S.R. transportation rate agreement for
grain.
As a result of these factors, the number of U.S. tankers in
layup declined from 33 in September 1975 to the range of
approximately 20. There are currently 22 tankers in lay-up.
The opening of the Alaskan oil pipeline next year will provide
substantial employment opportunities for U.S. tankers, although
most of this employment will be provided to new, more efficient
tankers currently being built in U.S. shipyards. Of course,
employment prospects will also be dependent upon the levels
of grain exports to the Soviet Union under the U.S./U.S.S.R.
Maritime Agreement.
Extension of the Jones Act to the Virgin Islands
U.S. cabotage laws (the Jones Act) require that all U.S.
domestic ocean shipping be reserved for vessels built and
registered in the U.S. and owned, operated and manned by U.S.
citizens. Traditionally, U.S.-flag ship operators have been
high cost carriers. It is estimated that the exclusion of lower
cost foreign-flag ship operators from the domestic ocean trades
increases U.S. shipping costs by about $150-200 million annually.
The cabotage laws do not currently encompass the U.S. Virgin
Islands/mainland trade, which has enjoyed an exemption since our
purchase of the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. This
exemption has been based historically on insufficient U.S. flag
-5-
vessel capacity to serve the trade -- a situation which is no
longer valid since sufficient capacity to transport oil is
now available.
S. 2422, currently under consideration by the Senate Commerce
Committee, would extend the cabotage laws to the Virgin Islands
for the transportation of oil products only. The legislation
has generated considerable interest since the Amerada Hess oil
refinery, the world's largest refinery, is located in the
Virgin Islands. This refinery produces residual fuel oil (used
for industrial power and generation of commercial electric
power) which represents a high proportion of consumption in
the U.S. East coast. There is considerable support for S. 2422
within the U.S. maritime industry.
In the near term, the measure would involve a transportation
cost increase of about 40¢/barrel. This is the present
differential between U.S. tanker rates and currently depressed
foreign rates. However, the additional demand for U.S. -flag
tankers caused by enactment of S. 2422 would result in further
rate increases, at least in the short-run. This would not only
increase the differential in the Virgin Islands trade, but would
also affect the rates for all other U.S.-flag tankers placed
on new charters in domestic trade. Over the long term, however,
as the worldwide surplus is gradually reduced, world tanker
rates can be expected to rise and the differential would
be reduced. The Commerce Department has hypothetically estimat-
ed a long term (post-1983) differential between U.S. and foreign
tankers of 25¢/barrel.
Presently there are about 255 U.S. flag tankers. Of these
about 125 are company owned, 50 are under long term charter
and 50 are on single voyages or short term charters.
Extension of the Jones Act to the Virgin Islands would very
likely cause increases in the rates charged for the 50 tankers
under short term charter and, as longer term charters expire,
also cause increases in rates for the tankers under long term
charter. Thus, consumers on the East coast would experience
price increases not only from Hess increased prices, but
because oil products moving by tanker from the Gulf to the
East coast would incur higher shipping costs.
In short, there is a substantial probability that enactment
of this legislation would increase the cost of delivering
residual fuel oil from both the Virgin Islands and the Gulf
Coast to the East coast and lead to increases in all other
markets where petroleum is moved by U.S. flag ship. The CEA
FORD
LIBRARY
-6-
estimates that the total cost could be as much as $1.0
billion, 4 times the $240 million impact estimated for Hess.
It is argued that there may be offsets to the higher trans-
portation costs. In particular, it is suggested that larger
entitlement allocations, now in effect for Hess, would offset
additional transportation costs. However, such éntitlements
are now reflected in present prices under price controls and
any increases in transportation costs would eventually
be reflected in higher prices as well. In short, extension
of the Jones Act to the Virgin Islands will lead to increased
petroleum costs on average.
The impact of higher charter rates may be reduced in the long
run as more tankers are constructed. However, the cost of
constructing these tankers in U.S. yards will be much greater
than the cost of constructing them in foreign yards. Further,
to the extent that there is an excess supply of tankers this
is a misallocation of resources.
Congressional Status
The Merchant Marine Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce
Committee held hearings on S. 2422 on February 18 and March 30.
The Governor and the Congressional delegate from the Virgin
Islands opposed the bill and the maritime and oil industries
supported it. The Department of Commerce, in its maritime
promotional role, favored the bill, while Interior, in its
Virgin Islands stewardship role, opposed it.
Only two Senators, both from Louisiana, attended the March 30
hearings -- Senator Long, the Subcommittee Chairman, and
Senator Johnston, who introduced S. 2422 but who is not a
member of the Committee. Both Senators indicated strong
support for the bill. Reportedly, the active interest of the
two Senators is prompted by support of the bill by the Energy
Corporation of Louisiana which is building a large refinery
operation in the Gulf area that is intended to compete with
Amerada Hess.
Chairman Long is presently devoting the bulk of his attention
to the tax reform bill. Upon the conclusion of the Senate
deliberations of the tax bill, it is anticipated that he will
seek a favorable report on S. 2422 by the Senate Commerce Committee
However, because of potential opposition to the bill Past
coast Senators, Senate floor action is uncertain.
LIBRARY
-7-
In short, with or without Administration support, action in
the Senate on this legislation is uncertain, and action by
the full Congress is unlikely. No House action has yet
been scheduled on a similar bill (H.R. 13251), and none is
anticipated until Senate action is complete.
Options
Option 1: Announce Administration Support for Legislation
Extending the Jones Act to the Virgin Islands
for the Transportation of Oil Products. (S.2422)
Advantages:
Extension of the Jones Act to the Virgin Islands
would provide employment to some 25 tankers
(app. 30,000 dwt) or about 750,000 cargo deadweight
tons.
Reserving this trade to U.S.-flag tankers would mean
about 2,000 jobs for U.S. seamen. Employment of
tankers currently in layup would account for 1,800
of this total.
Jones Act application to the Virgin Islands oil
export trade would represent a logical extension
of U.S. cabotage laws.
The balance of payments savings from using U.S.-
flag tankers are about $15 million.
Considering the several marketing advantages enjoyed
by Amerada Hess, the Virgin Islands refinery will
continue to have a considerable advantage over other
domestic refineries, who employ 3.5 to 4.0 million
deadweight tons of U.S.-flag tankers, unless the
requirement to use U.S.-flag vessels is extended to
the Virgin Islands through the Jones Act.
Option 2: Announce Administration Opposition to Legislation
Extending the Jones Act to the Virgin Islands for
the Transportation of Oil Products. (S.2422)
Advantages:
Extension of the Jones Act to the Virgin Islands
would entail increased prices to consumers due to
higher tanker rates.
CERRED
LIBRARY
-8-
O It is possible that higher tanker rates may make it
more profitable to import oil products from foreign
resources than to ship domestic products from the Gulf.
This increases import vulnerability and is contrary
to the goal of reducing import requirements.
This legislation is almost certain to be perceived as
detrimental to the interests of East coast consumers.
The price increases would come at a time when distillate
price decontrols were put into place, thereby endanger-
ing that program to reduce controls in the oil industry.
Hess has threatened to shut down the refinery if this
measure is enacted. This appears doubtful but is
conceivable. The Virgin Islands would suffer in-
creased unemployment if Hess' operation were terminated
or curtailed, and tanker employment would also be
affected.
Any reduction in economic activity in the Virgin
Islands could lead to requests for increased Federal
assistance. The Virgin Islands Refinery Corporation
has already invested in real estate in preparation for
construction of a small refinery. Enactment of S. 2422,
with its attendant higher shipping costs, would dis-
courage this construction.
This measure might lead to some U.S. tanker construc-
tion at a time when there are about 50 million dead-
weight tons of tanker capacity laid up worldwide,
(1 million in U.S.).
Option 3: Do nothing at this time. Withhold a decision
until after further Congressional action on S. 2422.
Advantages:
Withholding a decision at this time would preserve
your options while awaiting the outcome of Senate
action. The Senate Commerce Committee is expected
to report the legislation, but it may be slowed by
the Rules Committee and opposed on the Senate floor.
It is understood that the House does not intend to
move until the Senate acts. Congressional pressure
for an Administration position is unlikely until
House hearings are held.
- -9-
Taking a position now would likely be viewed unfavor-
ably either by Gulf Coast oil interests and maritime
interests on one hand, or by the Virgin Islands,
consumer groups (especially East coast), and Amerada
Hess interests on the other.
Decision
Option 1
Announce Administration support for
legislation extending the Jones Act to the
Virgin Islands for the transportation of
oil products (S. 2422).
Supported by:
Option 2
Announce Administration opposition to
legislation extending the Jones Act to
the Virgin Islands for the transportation
of oil products (S. 2422).
Supported by: Treasury, CEA, State
Option 3
Do nothing at this time. Withhold a decision
until further Congressional action on
S. 2422.
Supported by: Commerce, OMB
LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 7, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL SEIDMAN
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Proposal from National Alliance
of Businessmen
Bob Wilson brought in the attached proposal and
personally urged that it be given thorough considera-
tion. If you concur, you may want to make a
scheduling proposal for the President. If Bob's
suggestion does not appeal to you, I would like your
advice on how to respond to him.
August 5, 1976
TO THE PRESIDENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
The National Alliance of Businessmen was established
as a result of the riots of 1968. At the time, President Johnson called the top leaders
of the business community to the White House where he very forcefully and dramatically
outlined the serious problems of unemployment in the hard-core disadvantaged sector
of the nation. He challenged the business community to furnish jobs as a first prefer-
ence to welfare and public service jobs. The business community accepted that
challenge with our major corporations assuming leadership working throughout industry--
small and big.
Although even during good times business could not absorb
all in this category, it made a large dent in the problem and hundreds of thousands were
"hired, trained and retained" in jobs secured through the Alliance's efforts.
Most of those hired gained seniority rights and when laid
off, had recall rights to a job when the particular company such as auto, steel, etc.
recalled with the economic recovery. They became permanent private sector job holders.
With the depression of the last two years, securing jobs for
disadvantaged persons and persons on welfare was much more difficult and in many large
companies with lay-offs it was very small.
Likewise with EEOC and all its ramifications, there was
a lessening of interest and understanding on the part of business as to the continued
for hiring the hard-core type individual through the Alliance. EEOC provides equal
GERALD needford LIBRARY
- 2 -
opportunity for blacks, whites, chicanos, women, men, aged, etc. but nowhere is
there any provision for the hiring of hard-core disadvantaged--principally those on
welfare and minority youth.
Employment among minority youth of our inner cities is
even higher today than in 1968 and the same is true of those on welfare. Basically, we
are back where we started in 1968 and there is the same urgency there was then for
business to provide jobs in the private sector for these people.
There have been no riots, but these young people become
restless because they cannot get jobs. They have become more sophisticated and are
now forming small gangs systematically participating in various types of crime.
Faced with the Humphrey-Hawkins bill and other types of
legislation providing large outlays for public service jobs, the business community must
furnish jobs in the private sector if we are to prevent this trend with its costly dead-end
results.
Therefore, with unemployment being perhaps a major issue
in this campaign, we feel it could well be an excellent chance for the President to attack
the problem in a very intelligent, forceful and timely manner, putting it up to the business
community to do its share in providing more jobs for those in this high unemployed and
most needy group.
We would suggest inviting Alliance chairmen and past
chairmen and the 100 top business leaders of the country to the White House to give this
challenge to the business leaders. If this is done right, we feel The President can gain
FORD
some initiative right off the bat by attacking the problem before we are challengethto
LIBRAN
- 3 -
answer it. There may be other ways to meet the issue which might be explored at
such a meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert J. Wilson
-
SERVICE FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 14, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
FROM:
PHILIP BUCHEN
T.
SUBJECT:
Conference Committee Action on Extension
of Public Service Employment Program
From the limited information available in the attached
memorandum, I would lean towards recommending that the
President sign H.R. 12987. However, before making a
firm recommendation, I would want to see the OMB report
on the enrolled bill.
As to the question of how the President should make
his intentions known, I do not see a good reason for
making a statement before the enrolled bill reaches
the White House and the President takes action.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 14, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP BUCHEN
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JOHN O. MARSH
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
gws
SUBJECT:
Conference Committee Action on Extension
of Public Service Employment Program
Attached is a paper on the Conference Committee Action on
Extension of Public Service Employment Program.
I would appreciate having your comments and recommendations
on this paper no later than 5:00 p.m. today, September 14.
Thank you very much.
Attachment
FORD
LIBRAR
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON
SEP 10 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EPB EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
FROM:
W. J. USERY, JR.
With
SUBJECT: Conference Committee Action on Extension
of Public Service Employment Program
The Conference Committee has completed action on
H.R. 12987, the Emergency Jobs Program Extension Act of
1976. Before they began their deliberations, the conferees
were informed that the President would sign a bill extending
the program at its current size SO long as language from the
Senate version were included to limit new hires resulting
from attrition to the long-term, low-income unemployed. The
conference version gives about half that. It would limit
50% of the job openings resulting from attrition to the
long-term unemployed and would limit all jobs resulting from
an increase in the size of the program to the long-term
unemployed. As expected, the size of the program has been
left open for resolution at the appropriation stage.
This memorandum discusses whether you should sign the
bill as it has emerged from conference and how your position
should be explained to the public.
ISSUE 1
Should you sign the conference bill which limits only
50% of the positions to the long-term unemployed?
Option 1:
Sign the bill.
Pros:
FORD
O
The bill establishes the principle that LIBRA PSE
programs are appropriate only for targetted groups
except perhaps in the depths of a recession
O
Your position as conveyed to the conferees
almost certainly was responsible for such limita-
1
tions as are included in the conference version.
- 2 -
0
Embracing a jobs bill now is appropriate
given your announced high priority for jobs and
the troublesome unemployment rate this summer.
O
A major reason the Senate limitations were
not applied across the board is the crime wave in
Detroit where PSE funds were used to rehire laid
off policemen; the conferees' unwillingness to
adopt the Senate restrictions across the board is
not entirely unreasonable.
Cons:
O
The bill continues a 260,000-job emergency
program after the emergency is over; and it
represents precisely the kind of Congressional
irresponsibility with direct job creation programs
that you have been criticizing.
O
If you sign the authorization bill, it may
prove impractical to oppose an increase in size at
the appropriation stage if the appropriation for
this program is included in an omnibus package at
the end of the session.
O
Present estimates are that a veto would be
overriden; however that is not the worst posture
to be in. Moreover, there is enough confusion in
the House because of AFL-CIO opposition to the
Senate limitations that vote projections may not
be reliable.
Option 2:
Veto the bill.
Pros and Cons-see above.
- 3 -
ISSUE 2
How should your intentions be made known?
Option 1:
Issue a statement as soon as the conference report
is available. If you decide to sign the bill, such a
statement could rely on three bases for your decision,
with varying emphasis on each: (a) the importance of
targetting PSE programs on the long-term unemployed now
that the recovery is preceeding well; (b) the irrespon-
sibility of the Congress in giving you less than you
asked for; (c) the appropriateness of relaxing present
restrictions somewhat as an emergency measure to
permit rehire of law enforcement officers in urban
areas confronted with unrest.
Pros:
O Puts you in the position of leading rather
than reacting since you could call upon both
Houses to pass or defeat the bill.
Cons:
o
Might result in unfavorable House action
by stirring up the AFL-CIO forces who oppose the
Senate limitations.
O
You could be in the position of making an
open-ended commitment since the size of the
program is not known.
O
In light of previous opposition to Public
Service Jobs programs such a statement might be
interpreted as blatant political opportunism.
- 4 -
Option 2
Make a similar statement after the House acts
but before the Senate acts.
Pros:
O
Avoids the risk of stimulating unfavorable
House action.
O
Otherwise the same as Option 1.
Cons:
O
Same as Option 1.
Option 3
Make no statement until the bill reaches your
desk. If you decide to sign it, the same lines of
reasoning could be used as those presented in Option 1.
You could take the initiative on program size by
announcing submission of a supplemental appropriation
request in the signing ceremony.
Pros:
O
Permits withholding a commitment until it is
clear what will presented to you.
O
Particularly if you emphasize Congressional
irresponsibility in failing to apply the Senate
limitations, to all new hires a signing statement
is a somewhat more appropriate place to make such
criticism.
FORD
Cons:
O
Puts you in the position of reacting rather
than leading.
Zill
THE WHITE HOUSE
Cy
WASHINGTON
August 5, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
As you are aware, there that there will
JACK MARSH Just
be an anti-trust investigation auto manufacturers.
This is more fully reported on in today's New York Times.
It is not unlikely that we are going to get some questions
on this as to the President's view and position. Parti-
cularly, Ron Nessen can expect these inquiries.
I think it would be helpful if we could develop some guidance
for Ron as to how to respond. It may be that he will want to
refer the questions to Justice.
Many thanks.
ANTITRUST STUDY
ON CARS PLANNED
NeY, Times
8/4/76
Move by F.T.C. and Justice
Department Is Deplored by
General Motors and Ford
By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON, Aug. 3-An
Some items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted
materials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to
these materials.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 20, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP BUCHEN
JAMES M. CANNON
ROBERT T. HARTMANN
JOHN O. MARSH
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN FWS
SUBJECT:
National Alliance of Businessmen Program to
Create 500,000 Private Sector Jobs
A memorandum to the President on a National Alliance of Busi-
nessmen program to create 500,000 private sector jobs for
disadvantaged young persons during the coming year is attached.
I would appreciate your comments and recommendations by Noon,
October 21 so that this can be transmitted to the President
before he leaves Washington.
Thank you very much.
I concur.
Philip T.W.B. W. Buchen
Attachment
Counsel to the President
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 15, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
gws
SUBJECT:
National Alliance of Businessmen Program to
Create 500, 000 Private Sector Jobs
The Department of Labor, in coordination with the Department of
Commerce, has been working with the National Alliance of Businessmen
(NAB) on a program to develop 500, 000 private sector jobs for disad-
vantaged young persons during the coming year.
Under the proposed program, the National Alliance would continue and
build on its work at the local level with employers, CETA prime spons-
ors, and State employment security agencies. It would also begin work-
ing with major corporations to obtain specific commitments for hiring
disadvantaged young people. Consideration was also given to the Labor
Department funding up to $140 million -- out of already appropriated
funds -- to reimburse participating employers for training costs. How-
ever, more recently, the NAB has indicated a desire to proceed without
government funding.
The Economic Policy Board, in its consideration of youth employment
initiatives, has reviewed and supports the proposed National Alliance of
Businessmen proposa. The NAB would prefer to launch the program in
a highly public meeting with you. I am informed that pressures on your
schedule between now and November 2 would not permit your participa-
tion in such a meeting.
The NAB is prepared to commence the program immediately and the
Economic Policy Board recommends that you send a letter to the
Chairman of the NAB commending their acceptance of a challenge to
develop 500, 000 private sector jobs for disadvantaged youth. A letter
to the Chairman of the NAB, prepared in coordination with the Depart-
ment of Labor, is attached at Tab A.
GERALD GERALD FORD
2
Recommendation: That you sign the letter to the Chairman of the
National Alliance of Businessmen attached at
Tab A.
?" FORD
Attachment
Dear Mr. Skutt:
The contribution of the National Alliance of Businessmen toward the
economic and social well-being of the Nation continues to merit our
appreciation. Through the efforts of the NAB, hundreds of thousands
of disadvantaged Americans have gained a solid foothold in the work
force.
I am extremely pleased that the National Alliance, not content to rest
on past accomplishments, has accepted the challenge to develop 500, 000
private sector jobs for economically disadvantabed young people this
fiscal year. It is encouraging to know that you and the other members
of the National Alliance have recognized the high incidence of unem-
ployment among young persons as one of our most serious domestic
problems. It is even more encouraging to know that you intend to help
do something about it.
We agree that the basic solution to this problem is not the creation of
more government-funded, make-work programs. Young people need
lasting jobs in private industry, the kinds of jobs held by five out of
every six workers in this country,
BERALD R. YORD
2
I am encouraged that the National Alliance will continue to build on the
work it is doing with CETA prime sponsors, State employment security
agencies, educational institutions, and employers at the local level in
helping young people find jobs.
It is also essential that the National Alliance continue its concerted
efforts with our Nation's major corporations to secure additional com-
mitments for job opportunities for disadvantaged young Americans.
The NAB has had a highly successful record in the past in its efforts
to develop new private sector jobs, and I am hopeful that you can
improve on this record in the future.
I am deeply grateful for the outstanding leadership you and other chair-
men have given to the Alliance, and I look forward to your continued
success in the coming year.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford
FORD
Mr. V. J. Skutt
Chairman
National Alliance of Businessmen
1730 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 18, 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR PHILIP BUCHEN
JAMES CANNON
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JACK O. MARSH
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN Levs
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Regarding PL.L 480
Reporting Requirements
A memorandum to the President on a proposed Executive Order
regarding P.L. 480 reporting requirements is attached. I
would appreciate having your comments and recommendations
as soon as possible and no later than 3:00 p.m. today.
Thank you very much.
January 18, 1977
Counsel's office has no objection.
Attachment
Philip P.W.B. W. Buchen
GERALD FORD )
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 18, 1977
MEMO FOR: PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
BOBBIE KILBERG BK
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order
Regarding P.L. 480 Reporting
Requirements
Suggested response:
No objection
on T-
LIBRADA GERALD R. FOND
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 18, 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
L. WILLIAM SEIDMAN
8ws
SUBJECT:
Proposed Executive Order Regarding P.L. 480
Reporting Requirements
Public Law 480, the "Agricultural Trade Development and Assis-
tance Act of 1954, as Amended,' requires the President to
report annually to the Congress on the activities carried out
under the Act. A December 1975 amendment to P.L. 480 also
requires the President to submit annually to the Congress a
global assessment of food production and needs and other spe-
cified information.
Under the requirements of P.L. 480, the FY 1975 P.L. 480 Annual
Report should have been submitted to the Congress by April 1,
1976. The report was not received by the White House, however,
until late October. In addition, the annual report, as well
as the global assessment, were found to contain a number of
errors. In checking on the clearance process, it was discovered
that most agencies cleared these reports at a relatively low
staff level and, in some cases, the reports were approved without
being read.
The fact that most agencies do not consider the reports impor-
tant enough to be reviewed by policy level people suggests
that the reports are not important enough to be transmitted
by the President. Moreover, the reports deal with past acti-
vities and technical assessments and not with policy matters.
After discussing this situation with the appropriate Depart-
ments and agencies it was agreed to recommend that authority
for transmitting this report be transferred to the Secretary
of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture is responsible
for the initial preparation of the reports.
The proposed Executive Order transfers responsibility for trans-
mitting the reportsto the Secretary of Agriculture, while retain-
ing the requirement for approval by appropriate Departments and
agencies before the reports are transmitted to the Congress.
FORD is LIBRARY
-2-
The proposed Executive Order has been approved by the Depart-
ments of State, Treasury, and Agriculture, the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, the Agency for International Development, the
Council of Economic Advisers, the National Security Council,
and the Council on International Economic Policy. The order
has been approved with respect to form and legality by the
Department of Justice.
Recommendation: That you sign the proposed Executive Order
regarding P.L. 480 reporting requirements
attached at Tab A.
FORD OTHER
JAN 13 1977
The President,
The White House.
My dear Mr. President:
I am herewith transmitting a proposed Executive order
entitled "Delegating Reporting Functions Under the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as Amended."
This proposed order was submitted by the Department of
Agriculture at the request of the Executive Secretary of the
Economic Policy Board and has been forwarded for the con-
sideration of this Department as to form and legality by the
Office of Management and Budget with the approval of the
Director, after revision in that agency.
The proposed Executive order is approved as to form
and legality.
Respectfully,
Antonin Scalia
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
LIBRARY GERALD R. FORD
JAN 13 1977
MEMORANDUM
Re: Proposed Executive order entitled
"Delegating Reporting Functions Under the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of
1954, as Amended"
The attached proposed Executive order was submitted by
the Department of Agriculture at the request of the Executive
Secretary of the Economic Policy Board and has been forwarded
for the consideration of this Department as to form and
legality by the Office of Management and Budget with the
approval of the Director, after revision in that agency.
Executive Order 10900 of January 5, 1961, as amended,
assigned certain responsibilities for administering the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended, to the heads of various Federal agencies. (7 U.S.C.
1691 note). Section 5 of that order reserved to the
President the function of making reports to the Congress on
activities carried out under the Act.
This proposed order would delegate the reporting func-
tion to the Secretary of Agriculture, after consultation
with the Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury,
Administrator of the Agency for International Development,
Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Director of
the Office of Management and Budget, Chairman of the Council
on International Economic Policy and the Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs. Background
information concerning the order is detailed in the attached
OMB transmittal letter.
The proposed Executive order is acceptable as to form
and legality.
Antonin Scalia
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
GENERAL COUNSEL
January 11, 1977
Honorable Edward H. Levi
Attorney General
Washington, D. C. 20530
OFFICE
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
OF
LEG
Herewith, in accordance with the provisions of Executive
RECEIVED
Order No. 11030, as amended, is a proposed Executive
order entitled "Delegating Reporting Functions Unde
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act
of 1954, as Amended."
The proposed order was submitted by the Department of
Agriculture at the request of the Executive Secretary
of the Economic Policy Board and has been revised in
this office. It would delegate to the Secretary of
Agriculture certain reporting requirements vested in
the President by Section 408 of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended
(ATDAA).
As originally enacted, Section 108 of the ATDAA (Public
Law 83-480, 68 Stat. 457) required the President to
report to Congress at least once every six months and
at such other times as may be appropriate with respect
to the activities undertaken pursuant to the ATDAA.
On January 5, 1961, the President issued Executive Order
No. 10900 which provided generally for the administration
of the ATDAA. Pursuant to Section 5 thereof, however,
the President reserved the functions conferred by
Section 108 of the ATDAA.
Subsequently, Congress enacted the Food for Peace Act
of 1966 (Public Law 89-808, 80 Stat. 1526) which made
numerous amendments to the ATDAA. The provisions con-
tained in former Section 108 were transferred to
Title IV of the ATDAA as a new Section 408 (80 Stat.
1537; 7 U.S.C. 1736b). Under this provision, the
President was required to report to Congress not later
2
than April 1 of each year with respect to activities
carried out under the ATDAA during the preceding calendar
year. This section was amended by Section 211 of the
International Development and Food Assistance Act of
1975 (Public Law 94-161, 89 Stat. 854). These 1975
amendments changed the period covered by the report from
the preceding calendar year to the preceding fiscal year
and added new reporting requirements with respect to
global assessment of food production and needs and
related information.
Although Executive Order No. 10900 has been amended
several times since its issuance, no amendments have
reflected these increased reporting requirements. These
reports are primarily concerned with technical matters
and activities already undertaken. They do not deal
with policy matters and, accordingly, do not receive
the attention and review of officers responsible for
the development and implementation of policy. Under these
circumstances, no reason is perceived to warrant continued
Presidential transmittal.
Section 1 of the proposed order adds a new Section 1(d)
to Executive Order No. 10900 which delegates the report-
ing functions of the President under Section 408 of the
ATDAA to the Secretary of Agriculture who is required
to consult with the Secretary of State, Secretary of
the Treasury, Administrator of the Agency for Interna-
tional Development, Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers, Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
Chairman of the Council on International Economic Policy
and Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs. The reference to "the Act" in Section 1(d) is to
the ATDAA as indicated in the definitional provisions
of Section 7(a) of Executive Order No. 10900.
Section 2 of the proposed order revokes Section 5 of
Executive Order No. 10900 and redesignates Sections 6,
7 and 8 thereof as Sections 5, 6 and 7, respectively.
Section 2 includes a parenthetical reference to "7 U.S.C.
1736b, 1970 ed." Although such citation is unusual -for
an Executive order, the various sections of Title 7 of
the United States Code which are currently cited in
Executive Order No. 10900 are keyed to the edition of
the United States Code in use at the time the order was
3
issued (the 1958 edition) The cited sections do not
all correspond to their counterparts in the 1970 edition.
Accordingly, the additional reference is included for
clarity as time does not now permit a comprehensive
revision.
We have been requested to urge that this order be re-
viewed on an expedited basis in order that it may be
presented for the President's consideration as soon as
practicable.
This proposed Executive order has the approval of the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Sincerely,
William M.Nichole
William M. Nichols
General Counsel
8 Enclosures
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SERVIS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
GENERAL COUNSEL
January 11, 1977
Honorable Edward H. Levi
Attorney General
Washington, D. C. 20530
Dear Mr. Attorney General:
Herewith, in accordance with the provisions of Executive
Order No. 11030, as amended, is a proposed Executive
order entitled "Delegating Reporting Functions Under
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act
of 1954, as Amended."
The proposed order was submitted by the Department of
Agriculture at the request of the Executive Secretary
of the Economic Policy Board and has been revised in
this office. It would delegate to the Secretary of
Agriculture certain reporting requirements vested in
the President by Section 408 of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended
(ATDAA).
As originally enacted, Section 108 of the ATDAA (Public
Law 83-480, 68 Stat. 457) required the President to
report to Congress at least once every six months and
at such other times as may be appropriate with respect
to the activities undertaken pursuant to the ATDAA.
On January 5, 1961, the President issued Executive Order
No. 10900 which provided generally for the administration
of the ATDAA. Pursuant to Section 5 thereof, however,
the President reserved the functions conferred by
Section 108 of the ATDAA.
Subsequently, Congress enacted the Food for Peace Act
of 1966 (Public Law 89-808, 80 Stat. 1526) which made
numerous amendments to the ATDAA. The provisions con-
tained in former Section 108 were transferred to
Title IV of the ATDAA as a new Section 403 (80 Stat.
1537; 7 U.S.C. 1736b). Under this provision, the
President was required to report to Congress not later
2
than April 1 of each year with respect to activities
carried out under the ATDAA during the preceding calendar
year. This section was amended by Section 211 of the
International Development and Food Assistance Act of
1975 (Public Law 94-161, 89 Stat. 854). These 1975
amendments changed the period covered by the report from
the preceding calendar year to the preceding fiscal year
and added new reporting requirements with respect to
global assessment of food production and needs and
related information.
Although Executive Order No. 10900 has been amended
several times since its issuance, no amendments have
reflected these increased reporting requirements. These
reports are primarily concerned with technical matters
and activities already undertaken. They do not deal
with policy matters and, accordingly, do not receive
the attention and review of officers responsible for
the development and implementation of policy. Under these
circumstances, no reason is perceived to warrant continued
Presidential transmittal.
Section 1 of the proposed order adds a new Section 1(d)
to Executive Order No. 10900 which delegates the report-
ing functions of the President under Section 408 of the
ATDAA to the Secretary of Agriculture who is required
to consult with the Secretary of State, Secretary of
the Treasury, Administrator of the Agency for Interna-
tional Development, Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers, Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
Chairman of the Council on International Economic Policy
and Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs. The reference to "the Act" in Section 1(d) is to
the ATDAA as indicated in the definitional provisions
of Section 7(a) of Executive Order No. 10900.
Section 2 of the proposed order revokes Section 5 of
Executive Order No. 10900 and redesignates Sections 6,
7 and 8 thereof as Sections 5, 6 and 7, respectively.
Section 2 includes a parenthetical reference to "7 U.S.C.
1736b, 1970 ed." Although such citation is unusual for
an Executive order, the various sections of Title 7 of
the United States Code which are currently cited in
Executive Order No. 10900 are keyed to the edition of
the United States Code in use at the time the order was
3
issued (the 1958 edition). The cited sections do not
all correspond to their counterparts in the 1970 edition.
Accordingly, the additional reference is included for
clarity as time does not now permit a comprehensive
revision.
We have been requested to urge that this order be re-
viewed on an expedited basis in order that it may be
presented for the President's consideration as soon as
practicable.
This proposed Executive order has the approval of the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Sincerely,
(Signed) William M. Nichols
William M. Nichols
General Counsel
8 Enclosures
LICENSE
January 5, 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
Subject: Proposed Executive Order Entitled "Delegating
to the Secretary of Agriculture Certain Reporting
Functions Under the Agricultureal Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, as Amended"
Mr. Richard Ogden, Department of State, Chief, Food for
Freedom Division (632-0563), requested that provision be
made for coordination with the Department of State prior
to submission of the report to Congress by USDA.
Store
Steven N. Needle
Assistant General Counsel
January 7, 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
Subject: Proposed Executive Order Entitled "Delegating
to the Secretary of Agriculture Certain Reporting
Functions Under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, As Amended"
Mr. William Espinsosa, Office of the General Counsel, Agency
for International Development (632-8371), requested that
provision be made for coordination with the Department of
State prior to submission of the report to Congress by USDA.
Steven D. Needle
Assistant General Counsel
DERALD R. FORD LIBRANA
January 10, 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
Subject: Proposed Executive Order Entitled "Delegating
to the Secretary of Agriculture Certain Reporting
Functions Under the Agricultural Trade Develop-
ment and Assistance Act of 1954, as Amended"
Ms. Sandra Morewitz, office of the General Counsel, Depart-
ment of the Treasury (964-8523), advised that Treasury
recommends that USDA consult with all member agencies of the
Interagency Staff Committee on Public Law 83-480.
Steven D. Needle
Assistant General Counsel
LIBRARY BERALD ? read
January 10, 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
Subject: Proposed Executive Order Entitled "Delegating
to the Secretary of Agriculture Certain Reporting
Functions Under the Agricultural Trade Develop-
ment and Assistance Act of 1954, as Amended"
Mr. Bruce Gardner, Council of Economic Advisers (5056)
requested a requirement be included for coordination with
the Chairman of CEA.
Steven D. Needle
Assistant General Counsel
COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20500
January 6, 1977
Dear Mr. Nichols:
This is in response to your letter of January 3, 1977,
requesting comments on a proposed Executive Order entitled
"Delegating to the Secretary of Agriculture Certain Reporting
Functions Under the Agricultural Trade Development and As-
sistance Act of 1954, as Amended.'
I would concur in the issuance of the proposed Executive
Order if the order reserves to the appropriate departments
and agencies the right to approve any reports prepared in
accordance with the requirements of Section 408 prior to
their being transmitted to the Congress. The order should
indicate that such reports must have the approval of the
Council on International Economic Policy before being trans-
mitted to the Congress. Other agencies whose approval should
probably be required include the Departments of State and
Treasury, the Agency for International Development, the
Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic
Advisers, and the National Security Council. Since these
agencies participate in varying degrees in the P.L. 480
program, it is appropriate that they should review the
required reports. Informal discussions with some of these
agencies indicate that they will support the proposed
Executive Order if it specifically provides them with the
right to review and approve such reports.
Sincerely,
William UF F. Gorog
Executive Director
Mr. William M. Nichols
General Counsel
Office of Management
and Budget
January 10, 1977
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
Subject: Proposed Executive Order Entitled "Delegating
to the Secretary of Agriculture Certain Reporting
Functions Under the Agricultural Trade Develop-
ment and Assistance Act of 1954, as Amended"
Mr. Malcolm Butler, National Security Council (ext. 5026),
requested that a requirement be included for coordination
with the NSC.
Steven D. Needle
Assistant General Counsel
FURD
LIBRARY
212/30
V.BICELTUR
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20250
December 30, 1976
Mr. William M. Nichols
General Counsel
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. Nichols:
Enclosed is a draft Executive Order delegating to the Secretary of
Agriculture certain reporting functions under the Agricultural
Trade and Assistance Act of 1954, as Amended (Public Law 480-83rd
Congress).
This draft Executive Order was prepared at the request of
Roger B. Porter, Executive Secretary of the Economic Policy Board.
Mr. Porter asked that I send it to you for clearance within the
Executive Branch.
Sincerely,
Richard E, Bell
Richard E. Bell
Assistant Secretary
Attachment
LIBRARY
Draft Executive Order
DELEGATING TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE CERTAIN
REPORTING FUNCTIONS UNDER THE AGRICULTURAL TRADE
DEVELOPMENT AND ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
Executive Order No. 10900, January 5, 1961, 25 F.R. 143, as
amended, made certain delegations of authority regarding the ad-
ministration of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance
Act of 1954, as amended. Section 5 of Executive Order No. 10900,
however, reserved to the President the functions conferred upon him
by section 108 of the Act (including that section as affected by
section 406 of the Act) with respect to making reports to Congress.
Section 108 of the Act, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1708) was amended by
the Food for Peace Act of 1966, P.L. 89-808, 80 Stat. 1537, approved
November 11, 1966, which placed the reporting functions of section
108 under the newly-added section 408 (7 U.S.C. 1736b). Additional
reporting requirements were imposed on the President by Public Law
94-161, 89 Stat. 854, approved December 20, 1975, which amended
section 408 by adding "(a)" after "Sec. 408", by adding new subsections
(b) and (c), and by changing the base reporting period in subsection
(a) from calendar to fiscal year. It has now been found desirable-
to transfer the reporting requirements of section 408 from the
President to the Secretary of Agriculture.
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of authority vested in me by section 301
of Title 3 of the United States Code, and as President of the United
States, it is ordered that the Secretary of Agriculture shall perform
FORD
LIBRARY
all reporting functions required of the President by Section 408
of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954,
as amended, (7 U.S.C. 1736b), and formerly reserved to the President
by Section 5 of Executive Order No. 10900.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
FORD is LIBRARY
EXECUTIVE ORDER
DELEGATING REPORTING FUNCTIONS UNDER THE
AGRICULTURAL TRADE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSISTANCE
ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
By virtue of the authority vested in me by
Section 408 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1736b),
Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and
as President of the United States of America, it is
hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Executive Order No. 10900, as amended,
is further amended by adding to Section 1 thereof a
new subsection (d) as follows:
"(d) The Secretary of Agriculture, after con-
sultation with the Secretary of State, Secretary of
the Treasury, Administrator of the Agency for Inter-
national Development, Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers, Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
Chairman of the Council on International Economic Policy
and the Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs, shall transmit to the Congress all reports
required by Section 408 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1736b,
1970 ed., Supp. V). "
Sec. 2. Executive Order No. 10900, as amended, is
further amended by revoking Section 5 thereof and
redesignating Sections 6, 7 and 8 as Sections 5, 6 and
7 respectively.
THE WHITE HOUSE
1977
GERALE FORD LIBRARY