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
1515931
label
Revenue Sharing - Meeting with the President, May 1, 1976
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515931
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Revenue Sharing - Meeting with the President, May 1, 1976
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Legislation
Revenue sharing
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515931
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-05-31
month
5
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-04-01
month
4
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
7fa0f76967ddc640
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 31, folder "Revenue Sharing - Meeting with the
President, May 1, 1976" of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 31 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT
ON REVENUE SHARING
Saturday, May 1, 1976
Oval Office
Hold for
Discumons
Wonday 5/3/76
FORD LIBRARY & GENALD
MORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 27, 1976
for meeting Set
MEMORANDUM FOR
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Dick Nathan Letter on
General Revenue Sharing
Attached for your information is a copy of the
Nathan letter we discussed in your office this
afternoon. I have not previously made this
letter available.
Attachment
The Brookings Institution
1775 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE N.W. / WASHINGTON D.C. 20036/CABLES: BROOKINST/ TELEPHONE: (202) 797-6000
Governmental Studies Program
March 31, 1976
Mr. Paul J. Myer
Office of Congressional Relations
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Paul:
I am glad we had an opportunity to get together last week. You
suggested that it would be useful for me to commit to paper my ideas
on one subject we discussed--namely, the time period and permanence
of funding for revenue sharing.
As you know, I have virtually made a career out of revenue
sharing. And like many others, I have been of the opinion for quite
some time that the basic idea of revenue sharing requires that there
be long-term financing for the program, preferably a permanent
appropriation, such as for Social Security. There are, of course,
good reasons for taking this position: (1) State and local officers
will thus be able to plan ahead for the use of shared revenue and
(2) the program will be more secure on this basis, as opposed to being
subject to frequent congressional appropriations.
I still regard these as important points. However, based on our
research, I have increasingly come to take a more middle ground position
on this issue.
One of the most important purposes of revenue sharing is that it
stands as a symbol of a desire to place more reliance on State and local
government and commensurately less on the Federal Government. In order
for this essential purpose to be achieved, we need to make certain
that the program is visible. The fact that governors, mayors, et.al.
have been so much in evidence in Washington this year making the case
for revenue sharing and decentralization is healthy and desirable.
Every time legislation is considered for the revenue sharing program,
it is again--along with the decentralization theme--brought forcefully
(at least in relative terms for domestic policy) to national attention.
The same effects are felt, based on our research, at the State and local
level; decentralization issues, as a result of current legislative
efforts on revenue sharing, are in the news and on people's minds.
In a large sense, this is how I think one should gauge the decentraliza-
tion effects of revenue sharing, that is, according to the extent to
- 2 -
March 31, 1976
which it impacts on budgetary decision-making processes at both the
national and state-local levels. In so doing, it signals to people
to look to city halls and the county court house to a greater
extent to meet public needs and not to expect them to necessarily
and invariably be framed in terms of old-style, particularistic
federal aid instruments. We know from our research that the older
a revenue sharing grant becomes, the more likely it is simply to
be subsumed in the budget and treated "just like any other revenue."
However, if the revenue sharing policy decision is regularly up for
review, and, in fact, if there is an issue to be joined about its
continuation, the tendency, both for decisions processes and the
budget, is to give greater prominence to this explicit decision to
shift power in our political system.
In sum, the visibility of revenue sharing reinforces one of its
important aims--getting people to focus on the role of State and local
governments in American federalism. For this reason, I now feel that
Senator Bill Brock's bill and others for a permanent program may
actually be the wrong approach. (Again, I would not have said this
three years ago.) Having made this point, I would nevertheless guard
against overstating it. All of this leads me to urge a middle ground.
I personally think it would be desirable, for example, to have
a long authorization for revenue sharing, such as in the President's
proposal for 5-3/4 years, if possible, with appropriations, say, every
two years. I am not as happy about annual appropriations, even with
one year advance-funded. But the essential point, as I said on
Friday, is that my current thinking runs in the direction of seeking a
compromise, rather than hanging tough on the principle of a multi-year
(5 years or more) appropriation.
Sincerely,
alick
Richard P. Nathan
Senior Fellow
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
JACK MARSH
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
ED SCHMULTS
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Background for General
Revenue Sharing Meeting
Wednesday, April 28
4:30 p.m.
The House Government Operations Committee will soon begin
consideration of the General Revenue Sharing renewal bill
reported today by the Fountain Subcommittee. Although
the Subcommittee did not endorse the President's proposal,
the reported bill is not far from his position. Attached
for your review is a comparative analysis of the current
program, the President's proposal and the Subcommittee
bill. (Attachment 1)
The following issues are relevant to our discussion of a
legislative strategy from this point:
1.
Length of Program and Level of Funding
President's Proposal: 5 3/4 years; total fund-
ing of $39.5 billion, including $150 million annual
increase.
GERALD
Subcommittee Bill: 3 3/4 years; total funding
of $24.9 billion, with no annual increase (funds
frozen at 1976 level of $6.65 billion).
Comment: 3 3/4 years represents a compromise
after Democratic attempt to get only 1 3/4-year
period. PIGS support compromise in light of fund-
ing level problems; longer extension obtainable in
the Senate.
All attempts to increase funding, including
those advanced by those wanting to change allocation
formula to help big cities, were rejected.
-2-
$150 million increment provision is not worth a
fight; PIGS want greater increase; liberal Demo-
crats want major formula change or add-on funds
for distribution on basis of need.
Unless a substantial annual increase or other
"sweetener" is advocated, it is advisable to hold
Subcommittee position in House.
2.
Method of Funding
President's Proposal: Continue present com-
bined authorization-appropriation approach.
Subcommittee Bill: Establish "entitlement"
financing approach.
Comment: Clearly the most controversial and
sensitive issue. The entitlement financing approach
adopted by the Subcommittee was developed as a
realistic approach to the highly controversial ques-
tion of how General Revenue Sharing should be funded.
It does not substantially modify the basic tenets of
the revenue sharing concept, but it does answer the
argument of those Members who have charged that the
existing funding provision by-passes the traditional
Congressional appropriations process and circumvents
the newly-established Budget Act procedures designed
to control long-term spending actions (e.g. Brooks,
Mahon). See Attachment 2 for a detailed explanation.
The entitlement financing approach is desirable
because --
a.
its impact is identical to the President's
proposal;
b.
it does not by-pass appropriations and is
consistent with the new Budget Act;
C.
it negates the need for a special rule
waiving points of order; and
d.
its chances of adoption are far greater
than the combined authorization-
appropriations approach and would place us
in a favorable position in the Senate.
-3-
3.
Civil Rights
President's Proposal: Clarifies the Secretary's
authority to invoke one or more remedies where a reci-
pient government is found to have used revenue sharing
funds in a discriminatory fashion. This includes the
authority to withhold all or a portion of entitlement
funds due to the government and to require repayment
of funds expended in a discriminatory fashion.
Subcommittee Bill: Discrimination prohibited on
basis of handicapped status, age and religion in
addition to race, color, sex, and national origin
under all State and local programs except where
recipient can prove "with clear and convincing evi-
dence" that program was not funded, directly or
indirectly, with GRS monies.
Extensive hearing and compliance procedures are
spelled out requiring time limits for investigations,
compliance, administrative procedures and court
actions.
Private civil suits are authorized after the
exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Comment: There has been a substantial amount of
criticism, much of it legitimate, about the failure to
enforce the nondiscrimination provision of the current
Act. The Subcommittee bill contains a greatly
strengthened provision, originally viewed as a compro-
mise which would neutralize the issue.
Civil rights community now opposed, particularly
to restriction on right of private action, but is a
reflection of their total opposition to the program;
most moderate and conservative Members may feel that
Subcommittee provision goes too far.
Effort should be made to return to a position
more consistent with, but stronger than, the President's
proposal (e.g. a variation of Senate countercyclical
bill nondiscrimination provision).
All other issues and points of difference are either
relatively technical in nature or do not involve substantial
policy decisions and may be worked out in Committee or can
be easily revised in the Senate (e.g. citizen participation
and reporting requirements).
-4-
Recommendation: The Subcommittee bill, with some modi-
fication, should be viewed as the best vehicle available
to insure House passage of a General Revenue Sharing bill
which maintains the basic program concept and will enable
us to work for Senate adoption and eventual enactment of a
bill consistent with the President's objectives.
Attachments
#1
BASIC PROVISIONS
CURRENT LAW
PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL
SUBCOMMITTEE DRAFT BILL
(P. L. 92-512)
H. R. 6558
Funding level
$30.2 billion to be distributed
$39.5 billion to dis-
$24.9 billion to be distributed Jan. 1, 1977
Jan. 1, 1972 to Dec. 31, 1976.
tributed Jan. 1, 1977
to Sept. 30, 1980.
to Sept. 30, 1982.
Funding
5 year trust fund.
5 3/4 year trust fund.
3 3/4 year entitlement. (Note: an entitlement
Mechanism
(Funds authorized and
(Funds authorized and
program is not the same as annual appropriations.
appropriated for entire
appropriated for entire
Under the entitlement provision, the Appropria -
period.)
period.)
tions Committee would only have jurisdiction if
the amount authorized by the legislative committee
(Government Operations) is greater than that
approved by the Budget Committee. Under such
circumstances the Appropriations Committee would
have 15 days in which to adjust the legislative
committee's action. If they do not, the dis-
crepancy must be reconciled on the Floor.)
Annual
$150 million per year.
No change.
No increment. Funds are frozen at the 1976
Increment
level of $6.65 billion.
Eligibility
All units of general purpose
No change.
To participate local government recipients must:
government are eligible to
1) Be defined as a unit of general purpose
participate in the program.
government by the Census Bureau.
2) Impose taxes or receive intergovernmental
transfer payments.
3) Provides "substantially" for at least two of
the following services: police, courts and
corrections, fire protection, health services,
social services, recreation, libraries, sewage
disposal and water supply, solid waste dis-
posal, zoning or land-use planning, pollution
abatement, roads, mass transit, and education.
4) Spend at least 10 percent of their total ex-
penditure for two of the services or provide
four of the listed services.
Formula
Money allocated by formula based
No change.
No change.
Provisions
on population, per capita income
and tax effort.
States receive 1/3 of funds
No change.
No change.
distributed; local governments
receive 2/3.
Sets maximum entitlement to local
Raised to 175 percent
Retains 145 percent maximum limitation.
government at 145 percent of the
by 6 percentage points
average statewide per capita
per entitlement period
entitlement.
in five steps.
Sets minimum entitlement to local
No change.
No change.
government at 20 percent of the
average statewide per capita
entitlement.
No local government to receive
No change.
No change.
revenue sharing funds in excess
of 50 percent of its own source
non-school revenues plus any
intergovernmental transfer.
Any general purpose government
No change.
No change.
due to receive less than $200
annually will not participate
in the program.
Citizen
Recipient governments must publish
Same, but Secretary of
a) Recipient governments must hold public hear-
Participation
Planned and Actual Use Reports in
the Treasury may autho-
ings on the Proposed Use Report at least 7
and Public
newspapers of general circulation.
rize other methods to
days before the submission of the report to ORS.
Hearing
publicize use information
b)
Recipient governments must hold a second hear-
tion where such are
ing, at least 7 days before the adoption of
appropriate.
their budget, showing the relationship of GRS
funds to functional items in their budget.
c) Thirty days before the second hearing, the govern-
ment must publish a summary of its budget and
Proposed Use Report in a general circulation
newspaper.
d) Hearings must be at a place and time that
"permits and encourages citizen participation."
No requirement for public hearing
Requires assurance that
or other means of public partici-
there will be a public
pation in use of funds.
hearing or other method
by which the public may
participate in deciding
how the funds are to be
spent.
Allocation of GRS monies must be in
No change.
No change.
accordance with State and local law.
Reporting
Law prescribes reports on amounts
No change.
Proposed Use Report must include comparative data
Requirements
and purposes of planned and actual
use of GRS funds for the current and the two previous
expenditures.
entitlement periods and must compare them to items
in budget.
Proposed Use Reports must specify whether the use
is for new or expanded program, a continuation of
activity or tax stabilization or reduction.
Actual Use Reports must be filed with ORS. Any
differences between planned and actual uses must
be explained.
Budget documents and Use Reports must be available
at principal government office and libraries.
Budget summary must be published in newpaper 30
days after adoption with explanation of changes
between the Proposed and Actual Use Reports.
Anti-
Law contains strong anti-
Clarifies the Secre-
Discrimination prohibited on basis of handicapped
Discrimination
discrimination requirement where
tary's authority to in-
status, age and religion in addition to race,
Provisions
activity is funded with revenue
voke one or more reme-
color, sex, and national origin under all State
sharing. Secretary's enforce-
dies where a recipient
and local programs except where recipient can
ment powers are stated in general
government is found to
prove "with clear and convincing evidence" that
terms: to refer matter to Attorney
have used revenue shar-
program was not funded, directly or indirectly,
General, to exercise powers and
ing funds in a discrim-
with GRS monies.
functions provided by Title VI
inatory fashion. This
of Civil Rights Act of 1964, or
includes the authority
Extensive hearing and compliance procedures are
to take such other action as may
to withhold all or a
spelled out requiring time limits for investiga-
be provided by law.
portion of entitlement
tions, compliance, administrative procedures, and
funds due to the govern-
court actions.
ment and to require re-
payment of funds expended
Private civil suits are authorized after the ex-
in a discriminatory
haustion of administrative remedies.
fashion.
Matching
Revenue sharing funds may not be
No change.
Matching prohibition eliminated.
Prohibition
utilized to meet Federal grant
matching requirements.
Davis-Bacon
Davis-Bacon (minimum-wage) applies
No change.
No change.
Provision
to construction projects funded
25 percent or more with revenue
sharing monies.
Priority
Local governments may use funds for
No change.
Priorities eliminated.
Categories
any capital projects but only for oper-
ating and maintenance expenses of pro-
grams in eight priority expenditure
categories (public safety, environmen-
tal protection, public transportation,
health, recreation, libraries, social
services for the poor or aged, and
financial administration.)
Congressional
No general review of program
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Treasury must make an annual report
Review
is required.
to report to Congress two
on program. Comptroller General is to review
years before expiration
ORS compliance activities.
date.
State
States must maintain level of
No change.
States must maintain level of funds transferred
Maintenance
fund transfers to localities
to localities as of Fiscal '76.
of Effort
as of Fiscal '72.
Auditing
Recipient governments must
No change.
Annual "independent" audit required of all State
Requirements
follow standard fiscal
and local finances except where the cost of such
accounting and auditing
audits is disproportionately large in relation
procedures. Federal govern-
to GRS funds.
ment is permitted to audit
any recipient.
Anti-lobbying
No provision.
No provision.
No recipient governments may use, directly or in-
Provisions
directly, any GRS funds for "lobbying or to
influence any legislation regarding the Act."
# 2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 9, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
Paul
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Entitlement Financing
for General Revenue
Sharing
The funding provision of the current Act and the
President's proposed legislation to extend General
Revenue Sharing providing combined authorization-
appropriation of funds over a long-term period has
generated considerable opposition among many Mem-
bers who otherwise support the revenue sharing
concept and those Members who strongly oppose the
program's continuation for other reasons. After
rejecting the President's proposal, the House Sub-
committee had tentatively adopted a short-term
extension of the program's authorization only,
making its funding subject to the annual appropri-
ations process. The Subcommittee has now reversed
that decision, voting to authorize continuation of
General Revenue Sharing as a 3 3/4-year entitlement
program.
The entitlement financing amendment adopted by the
Subcommittee was developed as a realistic approach
to the highly controversial question of how General
Revenue Sharing should be funded. The amendment
does not substantially modify the basic tenets of
the revenue sharing concept, but it does answer the
argument of those Members who have charged that the
existing funding provision by-passes the traditional
Congressional appropriations process and circumvents
the newly-established Budget Act procedures designed
to control long-term spending'actions.
-2-
One of the principle objectives of the Budget Act
was to bring so-called backdoor spending within the
scope of the appropriations process. The Budget
Act (section 401) defines three types of "new
spending authority" and sets forth their relation-
ship to the appropriations process in order to
promote more comprehensive and consistent control
over spending actions. The Budget Act draws dis-
tinctions between these types of spending legislation
and establishes special, procedures for their consider-
ation. With respect to"new contract authority and
borrowing authority legislation, such bills must
contain a provision that funding is effective only
to the extent or in such amounts as are provided in
appropriations acts. However, the Budget Act
established different procedures with respect to the
third type of new spending authority, entitlement
financing.
As defined in the Budget Act (section 401 (c) (2) (c)),
entitlement legislation provides temporary or perma-
nent authority to make payments (including loans and
grants), the budget authority for which is not provided
for in advance by appropriation acts, to any person
or government if, under the provision of law contain-
ing such authority, the Federal Government is obligated
to make such payments to persons or governments who
meet the requirements established by such law.
In recognition of the need to provide for long-term
funding of certain Federal programs, the Budget Act
established specific procedures for consideration of
legislation providing entitlement authority (section
401 (b) (1), (2) and (3) )
First, since legislation providing entitlement authority
could not become effective prior to the start of the
new fiscal year, the Budget Act provides that such
legislation would be fully subject to the reconcilia-
tion process.
Second, legislation providing entitlement authority
would be referred to the respective Appropriations
Committees if it would generate new budget authority
in excess of the allocation made under the latest
Congressional Budget Resolution for the new fiscal
-3-
year. Such legislation would be referred for no more
than 15 days, with the Appropriations Committee auto-
matically discharged from consideration if it has not
reported during this period. The Appropriations Com-
mittee may report the legislation with an amendment
limiting the total amount of new entitlement authority;
however, their jurisdiction extends only to the cost
of the program involved and not to substantive changes.
Further, entitlement financing does not violate either
the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee or
Rule XXI of the House. Appropriations Committee juris-
diction was specifically rejected by the House-Senate
Conference Committee on the Budget Act (the House-
passed bill would have made all new entitlements
effective only as provided in appropriation acts),
except to the extent that entitlement authority is
contained in annual appropriations acts (and therefore
consistent with Rule XXI).
Not only is legislation providing entitlement authority
clearly recognized as a form of spending and within
those provisions of the Budget Act designed to control
long-term spending actions, the Budget Act specifically
contemplates the application of the entitlement
financing approach to legislation extending the General
Revenue Sharing program. In fact, when stipulating
certain exceptions to the Budget Act provisions for
consideration of entitlement programs (e.g., Social
Security), Section 401 (d) (2) specifically provides that
the current Act authorizing General Revenue Sharing
payments or legislation extending it could also be
exempted from these procedures if Congress were so
inclined.
Based upon this analysis, it appears that the entitle-
ment financing approach for General Revenue Sharing
represents both an acceptable legislative and substantive
resolution of the funding method issue.
The approach is consistent with the Budget Act and the
President's objective. While subject to the provisions
of the Budget Act and the annual appropriations process,
in practice, since these are entitlement payments which
the Federal Government is obligated to make to eligible
-4-
recipients, the annual process is pro forma and the
results would be nearly identical to the funding
provisions of the current Act and the President's
renewal bill.
Attached per your request is a copy of the entitle-
ment financing amendment adopted by the Subcommittee
on Thursday, April 8. As I noted in our phone con-
versation, it does not address the level of funding
or duration of the program issues. These matters
are still open and will, be considered in full com-
mittee.
Attachment
CC: Jim Cannon
Max Friedersdorf
Art Quern
JAW Brooks 225-6565 4/29/76
Big Library Bldy -
1) R-S-
out of Anbcountts watchey
1201 Expite
ulu to went on Tusdey
of wed
fundi a 1
repeat on Frilly
FORD is LIBRARY
frush
Hoston - fat w) Amprowah 1 drom't
want & went man a TWA
1
A
can Horton - start
was a Two day
Key
Kings
set book & can in
the
Pictu Even
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 30, 1976
STAFF BRIEFING ON GENERAL REVENUE SHARING
RENEWAL LEGISLATIVE SITUATION
Saturday, May 1, 1976
The Oval Office
From: Jim Cannon June
I. PURPOSE
To brief the President on the status of General
Revenue Sharing renewal legislation, and to get
Presidential guidance on strategy as the bill is
taken up by the full Committee.
II. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN
A.
Background: On Tuesday, May 4, the House
Government Operations Committee will begin
consideration of the General Revenue Sharing
bill reported by the Fountain Subcommittee.
Although the Subcommittee did not endorse
the President's proposal, the reported bill
includes most of the major elements proposed
by the President.
Congressmen Frank Horton and Jack Wydler,
ranking minority members of the Committee
and Subcommittee respectively, need guidance
on your strategy for the Committee sessions
next week and the floor battles to follow.
Four major issues will dominate full Commit
tee consideration:
1.
length of program and level of funding;
2.
method of funding;
3.
civil rights; and
4.
formula revision.
Tab A is a summary of these points.
B.
Legislative Assessment: There has been a
36.5% turnover in the House since 1972 when
General Revenue Sharing was enacted.
The key House vote in 1972 was on a motion
to adopt a "closed rule" for consideration
of the General Revenue Sharing bill.
In 1972, the motion passed by a vote of
223-185 (R 113-57; D 110-128). Today, 63%
of the Members (141 Members) who supported
General Revenue Sharing on this critical
vote are still serving, while nearly 70%
(126 Members) of those opposed remain Members.
There are 157 new Members since 1972 (103 D;
54 R). Tab B is a statistical display of
the key rule vote.
The opposition represented a coalition of
liberal Democrats opposed to "no strings"
spending, and conservative Democrats and
Republicans who opposed the program for a
variety of philosophical reasons including
increased spending and the funding method
which by-passed the traditional appropriations
process. With respect to the latter, current
Members of the Appropriations Committee voted
31-15 (R 8-7; D 23-8) against General Revenue
Sharing on this vote. Members of the new
Budget Committee voted 14-9 (R 4-4; D 10-5)
against. Tab C is a list of all current
Republican Members who voted "wrong" on this
rule vote in 1972.
The nature of the opposition in the 94th
Congress closely parallels that expressed in
1972, reflecting the same philosophical
differences over the control and distribution
of Federal funds and appropriate Congressional
procedures.
C.
Participants: See Tab D.
D.
Press Plan: To be announced.
TAB A -- REVIEW OF MAJOR ISSUES
1.
Length of Program and Level of Funding
President's Proposal: 5 3/4 years; total funding
of $39.5 billion, including $150 million annual
increase.
Subcommittee Bill: 3 3/4 years; total funding
of $24.9 billion, with no annual increase (funds
frozen at 1976 level of $6.65 billion).
Comment: Committee Democrats may attempt to
get a 1 3/4-year extension. Governors and Mayors
are willing to accept a 3 3/4-year compromise. A
longer extension may be obtainable in the Senate.
All attempts to increase funding, including those
advanced by Members wanting to change the formula,
were rejected. No serious effort is anticipated
to increase the level of funding, except to the
extent the formula is modified.
2.
Method of Funding
President's Proposal: Continue the present
combined authorization-appropriation approach.
Subcommittee Bill: Establishes an "entitlement"
financing approach.
Comment: The entitlement financing adopted by the
Subcommittee was developed as a realistic approach
to the highly controversial question of how
General Revenue Sharing should be funded. It does
not substantially modify the basic tenets of the
revenue sharing concept, but it does answer the
argument of influential Members such as George
Mahon and Jack Brooks who have charged that the
existing funding provision bypasses the traditional
Congressional appropriations process and circumvents
the newly-established Budget Act procedures designed
to control long-term spending actions.
3.
Civil Rights
President's Proposal: Retains current nondiscrimination
requirement, but clarifies the Secretary's authority
to withhold all or a portion of entitlement funds,
2
to require repayments, and terminate eligibility
where revenue sharing funds have been expended
in a discriminatory fashion.
Subcommittee Bill: Expands nondiscrimination
requirements to cover all State and local programs
except where recipient can prove "with clear and
convincing evidence" that the program was not funded,
directly or indirectly, with revenue sharing funds.
Extensive hearing and compliance procedures are
spelled out requiring time limits for investigations,
compliance, administrative procedures and court
actions. Private civil suits are authorized only
after the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Comment: There has been substantial criticism
of the enforcement record under the current Act.
The subcommittee provision was drafted as a
compromise which the Members hoped would neutralize
the issue and gain some liberal support.
It now appears that the civil rights community
and their Congressional allies will not support
the bill without more drastic changes, and the
Subcommittee provision may go too far for most
moderate and conservative Members. An effort will
be made to return to a position more consistent
with, but possibly stronger than, the President's
proposal.
4.
Formula Provisions
President's Proposal: Retains current formula
with a slight increase in upper constraint.
Subcommittee Bill: Retains current formula
without change, but attempts to tighten eligibility
criteria.
Comment: Liberal Democrats will renew their
attempts to modify formula or add a new provision
for the distribution of increased payments to
"needy" governments.
TAB B --
STATISTICAL DISPLAY
House vote on motion to end debate and adopt "closed rule" for
consideration of H. R. 14370. Motion agreed to, 223-185,
June 21, 1972. A yea vote was in support of General Revenue
Sharing.
Republicans
Democrats
Total
1972
1976
1972
1976
1972
1976
YEA
113
57
110
84
223
141
NAY
57
32
128
94
185
126
NOT VOTING
8
2
16
6
24
8
TOTAL, 92nd
178
91
254
184
432*
267
Congress
"NEW" MEMBERS
--
54
I
103
--
157
TOTAL, 94th
--
145
--
287
---
432*
Congress
* 2 vacancies, Speaker not voting.
TAB C -- ALL CURRENT REPUBLICAN MEMBERS VOTING
AGAINST GENERAL REVENUE SHARING ON KEY
VOTE IN 1972
Republicans
Andrews
Hutchinson
Archer
Lujan
Ashbrook
Michel
Broyhill
Myers (Ind.)
Burke
Rhodes
Carter
Robinson
Cederberg
Rousselot
Clancy
Ruppe
Clawson
Schneebeli
Collins
Sebelius
Crane
Skubitz
Derwinski
Spense
Devine
Snyder
Edwards
Talcott
Findley
Vander Jagt
Frey
Young (Fla.)
TAB D -- PARTICIPANTS
The Vice President
Jack Marsh, Counsellor to the President
James Cannon, Assistant to the President
James Lynn, Director of the Office of
Management and Budget
Ed Schmults, Deputy Counsel to the
President
Paul O'Neill, Deputy Director of the
Office of Management and
Budget
Charles Leppert, Deputy Assistant to
the President
Robert Wolthuis, Deputy to the Assistant
to the President
Paul Myer, Assistant Director, Domestic
Council
Richard Albrecht, General Counsel,
Department of the Treasury
[5/1/76]
DRAFT
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
ON GENERAL REVENUE SHARING
I have today received from my staff a report
on the status of the General Revenue Sharing
legislation now before the Congress.
I am gratified that the Government Operations
Committee is proceeding with a mark-up of this
legislation which is important to every State and
local government and therefore important to every
citizen in the country. It is essential that the
Congress enact this legislation as soon as
possible.
More than a year ago I proposed an extension
of the current General Revenue Sharing program to
provide $39.8 billion over the next 5 3/4 years.
I remain committed to that proposal.
I shall be following closely the actions of
the House Government Operations Committee and
subsequent actions by the Congress.
[5/1/76]
DRAFT
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
ON GENERAL REVENUE SHARING
I have today received from my staff a report
on the status of the General Revenue Sharing
legislation now before the Congress.
I am gratified that the Government Operations
Committee is proceeding with a mark-up of this
legislation which is important to every State and
local government and therefore important to every
citizen in the country. It is essential that the
Congress enact this legislation as soon as
possible.
More than a year ago I proposed an extension
of the current General Revenue Sharing program to
provide $39.8 billion over the next 5 3/4 years.
I remain committed to that proposal.
I shall be following closely the actions of
the House Government Operations Committee and
subsequent actions by the Congress.
[5/1/76]
Optional strategies:
1.
Reaffirm publicly, and privately to the Republican
leaders, your sommitment to your proposal
before
the Congress.
2.
Tell the Regublican leaders that they should get
the best bill they can out of the Committee, and then
the House, and improve it in the Senate.
3.
Reaffirm publicly your commitment
to your
proposal, and state that you are going to follow
closely Congressional action on revenue sharing.
[5/1/76]
AGENDA
1.
Opening Remarks -- Cannon
a.
House Government Operations Committee
to begin mark-up Tuesday
b.
Marsh and others met earlier this week,
would like to briefly review with you
the Subcommittee bill and our assessment
of the legislative situation
C.
Staff and Republican Members need your
guidance
2.
Review Subcommittee Bill -- Cannon, Myer
(O'Neill, Schmults)
3.
Leiglsative Assessment -- Marsh, Cannon (Myer)
4.
Discussion of Possible Actions
a.
Review Presidential options,
statement (Cannon)
b.
Phone calls to Members
(by President, Vice President, Secretary
Simon, Senior Staff)
Horton
Rhodes
Randall
Wydler
Michel
Preyer
Fountain
Cederberg
Hicks
Fuqua
Wright
Levitas
Steiger
Thone
C.
Agenda item at GOP Leadership meeting with
President (Wednesday, May 5)
R - S
myer
$/3/76
P calls to Mode
michel
Smon /
Buhus, conviter
Acigien T Those
/
tyrn- Barrhurg counths
Jenenen - -
mils
wright
FORD is LIBRARY 078830
Cannon
Rosenthal -
Raw -
Jenny work
Faley ? (ddnite)
Jones - oxposed
Worken (ouni 12)
wahon opprew
Teague - appoar
Ewis - on mir
me Price (?)
Roberts -onfored
Wilman - (okm72)
Reuss (on mith
Adem - opprev
Dregs-
)
Perhnis - opposed
Mangan. - ? (on m7r)
Burh opposed
Huys oxpored
Holey oppened
Staepper amposed
Pits Rodio
Sulvan oppow
Henderson oppored