Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "16988430",
    "label": "Revenue Sharing (10)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988430"
}

{
    "id": "16988430",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988430",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Revenue Sharing (10)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988430",
    "collections": [
        "James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)",
        "James Cannon's Issues Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "U.S. Congress. 1789-",
        "Legislation",
        "Presidential messages",
        "Revenue sharing"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988430.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988430.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988430.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/16988430",
    "naId": 16988430,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1976-07-31",
        "month": 7,
        "year": 1976
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-02-01",
        "month": 2,
        "year": 1975
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/ford/grf-0039/635863/16988430.pdf",
    "mediaId": "e80ba968890db044",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 30, folder \"Revenue Sharing (10)\" of the James\nM. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 30 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nREQUEST\nWASHINGTON\nApril 2, 1976\nLIDRARY\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON Jul FRIEDERSDORF\nm.f.\nSUBJECT:\nStatus Report:\nGeneral Revenue Sharing\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee has completed\nthe first phase of its mark-up.\nCongressman Fountain has directed the staff to draft a clean\nbill which reflects the Subcommittee's tentative substantive\ndecisions. Representatives from the Treasury Department\nwill participate in the actual drafting.\nThe Subcommittee plans to resume mark-up next Wednesday,\nApril 7, 1976, and expects to report a bill to the full\ncommittee just prior to the April 15 recess date.\nSince their first critical decisions to provide for a shorter,\nno-growth program dependent upon annual appropriations, the\nSubcommittee decisions have either endorsed your recommenda-\ntions or been generally consistent with your conceptual\nobjectives.\nIn summary, the Subcommittee bill would:\n*\nextend the program for 3 3/4 years with funding\nfrozen at its present level;\n*\nsubject funding to annual review by appropria-\ntion committees;\n*\nretain the present distribution formula;\n*\ntighten the definition of eligible recipients\n(in effort to delete some smaller, single-\npurpose governments)\n*\ndelete present priority expenditure categories;\n*\nstrengthen enforcement of nondiscrimination pro-\nvisions; and\n-2-\n-\n*\nimprove present reporting and citizen parti-\ncipation requirements.\nMyer\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nREQUEST\nWASHINGTON\nApril 2, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nJIM PAUL CANNON MYER\nFROM\nSUBJECT:\nStatus of House General\nRevenue Sharing Mark-up\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee has completed\nthe first phase of its mark-up. Fountain has directed the\nstaff to draft a clean bill which reflects the Subcommittee's\ntentative substantive decisions. Representatives from the\nTreasury Department will participate in the actual drafting.\nThe Subcommittee anticipates resumption of mark-up next\nWednesday, April 7, 1976, and expects to report a bill to\nthe full committee just prior to the April 15 recess date.\nSince their first critical decisions to provide for a shorter,\nno-growth program dependent upon annual appropriations, the\nSubcommittee decisions have either endorsed the President's\nrecommendations or been generally consistent with his concep-\ntual objectives.\nIn summary, the Subcommittee bill would:\n*\nextend the program for 3 3/4 years with funding\nfrozen at its present level;\n*\nsubject funding to annual review by appropria-\ntion committees;\n*\nretain the present distribution formula;\nDERALD FORD LIBRARY\n*\ntighten the definition of eligible recipients\n(in effort to delete some smaller, single-\npurpose governments);\n*\ndelete present priority expenditure categories;\n*\nstrengthen enforcement of nondiscrimination pro-\nvisions; and\n-2-\n*\nimprove present reporting and citizen participation\nrequirements.\nIt is possible that the Subcommittee will adopt a compromise\nwith respect to the duration and method of funding of the pro-\ngram when they meet next week. This has been the subject of\nconsiderable private discussion, and I will have a paper on\nthis matter for your review on Monday.\nmyer\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 6, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nAGNES WALDRON\nPa\nJIM SHUMAN\nMARGARET EARL\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nRevised General Revenue\nSharing Data (as of\nApril 5, 1976)\nOn April 5, 1976, the Treasury Department distributed\nan additional $1.5 billion payment to the 50 States\nand 37, 441 eligible units of local government. This\nregular quarterly payment covers the period of\nJanuary 1, 1976-March 31, 1976, and brings the total\nof General Revenue Sharing payments to date to\n$25.1 billion.\nAttached for your information are summary tables of\nthis payment data by State.\nCC: Jim Cannon\nJim Cavanaugh\nAttachment\nFORD LIBRARY Y GERALD\nMAGE\nOFFICE OF REVENUE SHARING\nNUMBER OF RECIPIENTS PAID THIS QUARTER\nINDIAN TRIBES &\nSTATE\nCODE\nALASKAN NATIVE\nCOUNTIES\nMUNICIPALITIES\nTOWNSHIPS\nVILLAGES\nTOTALS\nALABAMA\n1\n66\n396\n463\nALASKA\n1\n9\n81\n28\n119\nAMIZONA\n1\n14\n68\n17\n100\nAMAANSAS\n1\n75\n459\n535\nCALIFORNIA\n1\n57\n412\n36\n506\nCOLORADO\nà\n62\n248\n2\n313\nCONNECTION\n1\n32\n148\n181\nDELAWARE\n1\n3\n54\n58\nDIST OF COLUMSIA\n1\n1\nFLORIDA\n1\n66\n378\n2\n447\nGEORGIA\n1\n158\n501\n660\nHAWAII\n1\n3\n1\n5\nIDAHO\n1\n44\n188\n5\n238\nILLINOIS\n1\n102\n1,25.\n1,424\n2,777\nINDIANA\n1\n91\n543\n987\n1,622\n1044\n1\n99\n936\n1\n1,037\nRANSAS\n1\n105\n596\n965\n3\n1,670\nKENTUCKY\n1\n119\n380\n500\nLOUISIANA\n1\nm\n62\n292\n1\n356\n*\nMAINE\n1\n16\n22\n471\n2\n512\nMANYLAND\n1\n23\n148\n172\nMASSACHUSETTS\n1\n12\n39\n312\n364\nMICHIGAN\n1\n83\n529\n1,211\n4\n1,828\nMINNESOTA\n1\n87\n844\n1.773\n11\n2,716\nMISSISSIPPI\n1\n82\n278\n1\n362\nMISSOUPI\n1\n114\n838\n320\n1,273\nMUNTANA\n1\n56\n125\n7\n189\nNEHHASKA\n1\n93\n511\n422\n3\n1,030\nNEVADA\n1\n16\n17\n14\n48\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\n1\n10\n13\n215\n239\nNEW JEHSEY\n1\n21\n331\n232\n585\nNEW MEXICO\n1\n32\n93\n22\n148\nNEW YORK\n1\n57\n615\n925\n6\n1,604\nNUMTH CAROLINA\n1\n100\n455\n1\n557\nNORTH DAKOTA\n1\n53\n329\n1,328\n4\n1,715\nUHIO\n1\n88\n921\n1,307\n2,317\nOKLAHOMA\n1\n77\n514\n24\n616\nGREGON\n1\n36\n235\n4\n276\nPENNSYLVANIA\n1\n66\n1,010\n1,542\n1\n2,620\nRHODE ISLAND\n1\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n8\n31\n40\nSOUTH CAROLINA\n1\n46\n246\n293\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n1\n66\n295\n887\n8\n1,257\nTENNESSEE\n1\n93\n315\n409\nTEXAS\n1\n254\n974\n2\n1,231\nUTAH\n1\n29\n204\n4\n238\nVERMONT\n1\n12\n55\n235\n303\nVIRGINIA\n1\n95\n226\n2\n324\nWASHINGTON\nI\n39\n265\n18\n323\nWEST VIRGINIA\nI\n55\n225\n281\n*ISCONSIN\n1\n72\n573\n1,263\n10\n1,919\n*YOMING\n1\n23\n87\n2\n113\nNATIONAL TOTALS\n51\n3.041\n18,155\n15,998\n245\n37,490\nOFFICE OF REVENUE SHARING\nPAGE 271\nDISTRIBUTION OF QUARTER PAY\nINDIAN TRIBES &\nALASKAN NATIVE\nSTATE NAME\nSTATE\nCOUNTIES\nMUNICIPALITIES\nTOWNSHIPS\nVILLAGES\nTOTALS\n$\n$\n%\n$\n$\n$\nALAMAMA\n8,488,993\n6,231,673\n10,700,653\n25,421,319\nALASKA\n764.132\n641.613\n777,239\n18.681\n2,201.665\nANIZONA\n5,437,550\n4,019,932\n6.203.174\n729,630\n16,390,286\nAHKANSAS\n5,541,114\n5,884,484\n5,056,845\n16,482,443\nCALIFORNIA\n54,934,544\n62,908,587\n46,973,764\n45,072\n164,861,967\nCOLORADO\n5,762,672\n3,894,938\n7,675,653\n9,568\n17,342,831\nCONNECTICUT\n7,125,496\n7,222,024\n7,029,056\n21,376,576\nDELAWARE\n1,675,966\n1,969,870\n1,140,614\n4,786,450\nDIST OF COLUMNIA\n6,662,242\n6,662,242\nFLORIDA\n16.722.636\n16,366,317\n17,073,734\n6,015\n50,168,702\nGEORGIA\n11,117,632\n12,327,394\n9,941,115\n33,386,141\nHAWAII\n2,319,136\n1,228,158\n3,410,113\n6,957,407\nIDAHO\n2,107,367\n2,390,807\n1,801,830\n22,137\n6,322,141\nILLINOIS\n26,811,514\n11,538,112\n16,101,356\n7,275,307\n61,726.289\nINDIANA\n10,735,037\n7,391,513\n11.273.415\n2.803,472\n32,203,437\nTOWA\n6,904,851\n8,030,840\n5,775,910\n2,992\n20,714,593\nKANSAS\n4,846,728\n4,749,398\n4,471,517\n489,774\n5,957\n14,563,374\nKENTUCKY\n9.152,700\n7,727,822\n8,831,858\n25,712.380\nLOUISIANA\n11.395,012\n8,845,300\n13,997,926\n1,405\n34,239,643\nMAINE\n3,389,103\n466,240\n2,802,863\n3,559,259\n5,251\n10,222,716\nMARYLAND\n10,511,829\n12,942,079\n8,089,341\n31,543,249\nMASSACHUSETTS\n17,206.030\n1,934,308\n18.503.010\n13,977,688\n51.621,036\nMICHIGAN\n22,247,437\n13,600,944\n26,824,868\n4,102,054\n7,220\n66,782,523\nMINNESOTA\n11,070,621\n12.022.856\n8,721,801\n1,347,343\n89,466\n33,252,287\nMISSISSIPPI\n8,003,108\n10,359,254\n5,318,874\n10,438\n23,691,674\nMISSOURI\n10,190,713\n6,893,675\n13,069,070\n428,343\n30,581,801\nMONTANA\n1,976,124\n2,637,400\n1.171.154\n144,039\n5,928,717\nNEHRASKA\n3,512,749\n3,517,152\n3,285,739\n206,887\n18,427\n10,540,954\nNEVADA\n1,225,466\n1,554,915\n878,456\n15,434\n3,674,271\nNEW HAMPSHIRE\n1,672,006\n434,128\n1,542,257\n1,372,243\n5,020,634\nNEW JERSEY\n16,540,166\n11,385,273\n14,275,872\n7,416,429\n49,617,740\nNEW MEXICO\n3,353,694\n2,953,152\n3,123,121\n473,506\n9,903,473\nNEW YORK\n59,933,132\n26,553.169\n79,861,936\n12,819,041\n45,018\n179,212,296\nNORTH CAHOLINA\n12,938,183\n14,136,498\n11,705,613\n41,449\n38,821,743\nNORTH DAKOTA\n1,604,837\n1,689,061\n1,064,718\n395,331\n51,767\n4,805,714\nOHIO\n21,608,304\n13.910,369\n25,212,233\n4,137,043\n64,867,949\nFORD\nOKLAHOMA\n5,863,667\n3,848,786\n7,768,908\n109,879\n17,591,240\nOMEGON\n5,555,968\n4,180,474\n6,928,085\n18,182\n16,682,709\nPENNSYLVANIA\n28,062,494\n15,662,749\n30,496,095\n10,007,204\n94\n84,228.636\nGERALD\nRHODE ISLAND\n2,285,294\n3,155,894\n1,414,681\n6,855,869\nSOUTH CANOLINA\n7,396,174\n8,055,660\n6,869.185\n22,321.019\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n2,105,377\n2,246,129\n1,472,906\n267,238\n208,975\n6,300,625\nTENNESSEE\n9,771,053\n8,027,066\n11,492,974\n29,291,093\nTEXAS\n25,754.203\n19,821,896\n31,598,134\n2,925\n77,177,158\nUTAN\n3,103.721\n2,984,722\n3,154,742\n63,680\n9,306,865\nVERMONT\n1,638,546\n35,373\n1,116,355\n2,122,645\n4,912,919\nVIRGINIA\n10,690,132\n8,289,824\n13,090,836\n461\n32.071,253\nWASHINGTON\n7.710,894\n6,827,338\n8,534,702\n63,110\n23,144,044\nWEST VINGINIA\n5,586,241\n4,023,260\n4,663,731\n14,273,232\nWISCONSIN\n13.379.243\n12.974,508\n11.703,576\n2,044,052\n40,780\n40,142,159\nWYONING\n835,479\n1,176,667\n468,955\n25,437\n2,506,538\nNATIONAL TUTALS\n535.235.510\n401,291,683\n546,394,744\n83,215,090\n2.276,995\n1,568,414,022\nOFFICE OF REVENUE SHARING\nRECIPIENTS PAID TO DATE\nINDIAN TRIRES &\nALASKAN NATIVE\nSTA\nSTATE NAME\nSTATE\nCOUNTIES\nMUNICIPALITIES\nTOWNSHIPS\nVILLAGES\nTOTALS\ns\n$\n$\n$\n$\n$\nALAH\nALAMAMA\n140.627.044\n105,283,564\n176,141.946\n422,052,554\nALAS\nALASKA\n11.138.024\n9,075,000\n12,845,285\n598,925\n33,657,234\nARIZ\nAWSZONA\n84.307,136\n66,566,459\n94,046,502\n9,274,942\n254,195,039\nARKA\nAHKANSAS\n91,551,054\n94,308,059\n75,309,407\n261,168,520\nCALI\n716,006,375\n588.820\n2:668,966.476\nCALIFORNIA\n889,625,416\n1,062,745,865\nCOLO\nCOLUMADO\n8,669,479\n62,100,124\n115,201,682\n164,150\n266,135.435\nCONN\nCONNECTION\n107,679,644\n113,746.481\n101,771,654\n323,197,779\nDELA\nDELAWARE\n28,174,562\n28,506,445\n18,921.894\n75,602,901\nDIST\n111.001.733\n111,001,733\nDIST OF COLUMBIA\nFLOR\nFLOHIDA\n249.084,111\n225,939,278\n272,669,797\n91,646\n747,784,832\nGEOR\nGEORGIA\n175,524,141\n201,447,304\n149,413,293\n526,384,738\nHAWE\nMAPAII\n36.952,190\n18.621.297\n55,283,079\n110,855,566\nIDA\n369,848\n101,128,182\nIDAHO\n33,706,705\n38,729,081\n28,322,548\nILL\nILLINOIS\n427,876,369\n190,337,627\n438,869.03\n112.743,574\n1,169.826.602\nIND\nINDIANA\n176.268.248\n120.121.733\n189,493,365\n42,893,022\n528.776.368\nIOWA\nIOWA\n116,790,380\n135,882.346\n97,716.133\n51,056\n350,439,915\nKANS\nKANSAS\n79,806,578\n80,746,811\n70.160,756\n8,626,939\n35,172\n239,376,256\nKEN\nRENTUCKY\n155,488,843\n118,149,402\n136,366,531\n410,004,776\nLOU\nLOUISIANA\n192,529,756\n153,443,646\n224,504,208\n25,656\n570,503,266\nMAIL\n154,930,176\nMAINE\n51,632,432\n6,912,364\n42,716,146\n53,486,898\n182,336\nMAR\nMARYLAND\n166,192,432\n195,767,487\n136,609,331\n498,569,250\nMAS\nMASSACHUSETTS\n266,339,600\n30,566,001\n297,730,773\n205,386,969\n800,023,343\nMIC\nMICHIGAN\n355,467,954\n209,085,124\n437,146,148\n64,779,291\n115,775\n1.066.594,292\nMIN\nMINNESOTA\n167,904,058\n179,735,987\n135,255,469\n20,529,240\n1,034,998\n504,459,752\nMIS\nMISSISSIPPI\n140.136,163\n171,032,855\n94,320,765\n180,733\n405,670,516\nMIS\n158,162,495\n104,951,399\n204,061,664\n7.022.502\n474,198.060\nMISSOURI\nMON\nMONTANA\n32.829,305\n43,654,665\n19,615,647\n2,388,089\n98,487,706\nNER\nNERRASKA\n59,241.021\n58,982,095\n55.518,859\n3,710,324\n258,573\n177,710,872\nNEV\nNEVADA\n18.605,375\n23,330.641\n13,586,948\n286,782\n55,809,746\nNEW\n-\nNE- HAMPSHIRE\n26,754,213\n7,014,886\n25,244,848\n21,308,322\n80.322,269\nNE.\nNEW JERSEY\n263,060,657\n183,445,342\n232,818,023\n110,063,487\n789,387,509\nNEW\nNEW MEXICO\n54,281,729\n43,869,906\n53,019,167\n7.631,645\n158,802,447\nNEW\n541,188\n2,813.231,315\nNEW YORK\n938,340,865\n404,921,906\n1,270,528,566\n198,898,790\nNOS\nNORTH CAROLINA\n213,035.201\n229,817,670\n196,446,649\n501,028\n639,800,548\nNOT\nNORTH DAKOTA\n31,648,503\n32,694,132\n21,120,525\n8,175,088\n1,258,445\n94,896,693\nOH\nOMIO\n336,186,596\n213,320,842\n393,801,409\n65,231,651\n1,008,540,496\nOKI\nOKLAHOMA\n93,769,051\n67,454,285\n118,367.279\n1,696,522\n281,287,137\nOR\nOREGON\n84.191,748\n63,946,023\n104,178,074\n274,572\n252,590,417\nPt\n441.475.118\n248,794,640\n491,322,712\n143,391.256\n682\n1,324,984,408\nPENNSYLVANIA\nRH\nRMODE ISLAND\n37,448,586\n52.994.404\n21,902,731\n112,345,721\nso\nSOUTH CAROLINA\n117,602,767\n121,905,867\n107,150,711\n346,659,345\nSU\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n36,393,249\n41,798,181\n23,126,531\n5,087,039\n3,016,873\n109,421,873\nTE\n476.292.498\nTENNESSEE\n157,940,605\n135,969,282\n182,382.611\nTt\nTEXAS\n399,985.730\n299,737,686\n498,P20,237\n75,378\n1,199,619,031\nUT\nUTAH\n49,443,013\n48,845,651\n49,154,692\n879,229\n148,322.585\nVE\nVERMONT\n24,027.616\n574,980\n16.535.583\n31.032,549\n72,170,728\nVI\nVINGINIA\n166,795,555\n124,662,225\n209.492.782\n7,551\n500,958,113\nWA\nWASHINGTON\n121.259,478\n108,396.2A3\n133,086,234\n3,401\n1,036,588\n363,781,984\nwt\nWEST VIRGINIA\n104.318.936\n64,548,636\n74,910.267\n243,777,939\nw l\nWISCONSIN\n211.108.331\n208,481,442\n180,302,664\n33,190.875\n647.820\n633.731,132\nWY\nWYOMING\n15,065,421\n21,798,738\n7.889.371\n443,572\n45,197,102\nNi\nNATIONAL TOTALS\n8,537,445.214\n6,408,121,262\n8,864,173,403\n1,259,235.602\n33,658,594\n25.102.634,075\nRevenue Sharing\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nINFORMATION\nWASHINGTON\nApril 8, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON June MAX FRIEDERSDORF m.f.\nSUBJECT:\nStatus Report: General Revenue Sharing\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee\ntoday reversed its earlier decision to subject\nGeneral Revenue Sharing to the annual\nappropriations process and voted to redesign\nGeneral Revenue Sharing as a 3 3/4-year entitlement\nprogram.\nWhile there is little practical difference under\nthe Budget Act between the entitlement approach\nFORD LIBRARY\nand the combined authorization-appropriation\nmethod of funding proposed by the President, the\nDemocratic Members advocating this amendment stressed\nthat it was a satisfactory response to charges that\nthe current funding provision by-passed the\ntraditional Congressional appropriations process\nand circumvented newly-established Budget Act\nprocedures designed to control long-term spending\nactions. Although the Republican Members voted for\nthis amendment, they established an excellent record\nfor future reconsideration of the President's proposal\nin the full committee.\nPrior to the adoption of this entitlement amendment,\nthe Subcommittee rejected, on a straight party roll\ncall vote, the President's proposal, and a Drinan\namendment by voice vote.\n-2-\nThe Subcommittee will not meet again until Monday\nafternoon, April 12, 1976. Brooks urged the Subcom-\nmittee to complete its mark-up prior to the Easter\nRecess in order to allow time for all Committee\nMembers to study the bill and proceed to early con-\nsideration after the recess. If the Subcommittee\ndoes not reconsider today's action or get delayed\nover the controversial civil rights issue, it should\nbe possible for them to report a bill by April 14.\nAttached is a complete record of all actions and\nroll call votes taken by the Subcommittee today.\nAttachment\n1.\nAdopted Levitas amendment making General Revenue\nSharing a 3 3/4-year entitlement program by a vote\nof 7-6:\nYEA\nNAY\nFountain\nMezvinsky\nFuqua\nJordan\nLevitas\nBurton\nWydler\nDrinan\nBrown (proxy)\nEnglish\nSteelman (proxy)\nBrooks\nHorton\n2. Rejected Wydler amendment to adopt 5 3/4-year\nprogram with combined authorization-appropriation\nfunding provision (President's proposal) by a vote\nof 9-4:\nYEA\nNAY\nWydler\nFountain\nBrown (proxy)\nFuqua\nSteelman (proxy)\nMezvinsky\nHorton (proxy)\nJordan\nBurton\nDrinan\nEnglish\nLevitas (proxy)\nBrookd\n3. Rejected Drinan amendment providing that GRS\nbe an entitlement program for 1 3/4 years with\nannual appropriations thereafter by voice vote.\n& FORD LIBRARY\nGRS\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nINFORMATION\nWASHINGTON\nApril 8, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNON June MAX FRIEDERSDORF m.f.\nSUBJECT:\nStatus Report: General Revenue Sharing\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee\ntoday reversed its earlier decision to subject\nGeneral Revenue Sharing to the annual\nappropriations process and voted to redesign\nGeneral Revenue Sharing as a 3 3/4-year entitlement\nprogram.\nWhile there is little practical difference under\nthe Budget Act between the entitlement approach\nand the combined authorization-appropriation\nmethod of funding proposed by the President, the\nDemocratic Members advocating this amendment stressed\nthat it was a satisfactory response to charges that\nthe current funding provision by-passed the\ntraditional Congressional appropriations process\nand circumvented newly-established Budget Act\nprocedures designed to control long-term spending\nactions. Although the Republican Members voted for\nthis amendment, they established an excellent record\nfor future reconsideration of the President's proposal\nin the full committee.\nPrior to the adoption of this entitlement amendment,\nthe Subcommittee rejected, on a straight party roll\ncall vote, the President's proposal, and a Drinan\namendment by voice vote.\nGERALD 4. LIBRARY FORD\n-2- -\nThe Subcommittee will not meet again until Monday\nafternoon, April 12, 1976. Brooks urged the Subcom-\nmittee to complete its mark-up prior to the Easter\nRecess in order to allow time for all Committee\nMembers to study the bill and proceed to early con-\nsideration after the recess. If the Subcommittee\ndoes not reconsider today's action or get delayed\nover the controversial civil rights issue, it should\nbe possible for them to report a bill by April 14.\nAttached is a complete record of all actions and\nroll call votes taken by the Subcommittee today.\nAttachment\nFORD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 9, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nPart\nPAUL O'NEILL\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nEntitlement Financing\nfor General Revenue\nSharing\nThe funding provision of the current Act and the\nPresident's proposed legislation to extend General\nRevenue Sharing providing combined authorization-\nappropriation of funds over a long-term period has\ngenerated considerable opposition among many Mem-\nbers who otherwise support the revenue sharing\nconcept and those Members who strongly oppose the\nprogram's continuation for other reasons. After\nrejecting the President's proposal, the House Sub-\ncommittee had tentatively adopted a short-term\nextension of the program's authorization only,\nmaking its funding subject to the annual appropri-\nations process. The Subcommittee has now reversed\nthat decision, voting to authorize continuation of\nGeneral Revenue Sharing as a 3 3/4-year entitlement\nprogram.\nThe entitlement financing amendment adopted by the\nSubcommittee was developed as a realistic approach\nto the highly controversial question of how General\nRevenue Sharing should be funded. The amendment\ndoes not substantially modify the basic tenets of\nthe revenue sharing concept, but it does answer the\nargument of those Members who have charged that the\nexisting funding provision by-passes the traditional\nCongressional appropriations process and circumvents\nthe newly-established Budget Act procedures designed\nto control long-term spending actions.\n-2-\nOne of the principle objectives of the Budget Act\nwas to bring so-called backdoor spending within the\nscope of the appropriations process. The Budget\nAct (section 401) defines three types of \"new\nspending authority\" and sets forth their relation-\nship to the appropriations process in order to\npromote more comprehensive and consistent control\nover spending actions. The Budget Act draws dis-\ntinctions between these types of spending legislation\nand establishes special, procedures for their consider-\nation. With respect to new contract authority and\nborrowing authority legislation, such bills must\ncontain a provision that funding is effective only\nto the extent or in such amounts as are provided in\nappropriations acts. However, the Budget Act\nestablished different procedures with respect to the\nthird type of new spending authority, entitlement\nfinancing.\nAs defined in the Budget Act (section 401 (c) (2) (C) ) ,\nentitlement legislation provides temporary or perma-\nnent authority to make payments (including loans and\ngrants), the budget authority for which is not provided\nfor in advance by appropriation acts, to any person\nor government if, under the provision of law contain-\ning such authority, the Federal Government is obligated\nto make such payments to persons or governments who\nmeet the requirements established by such law.\nIn recognition of the need to provide for long-term\nfunding of certain Federal programs, the Budget Act\nFORD\nestablished specific procedures for consideration of\nlegislation providing entitlement authority (section\nLIBRARY\n401 (b) (1), (2) and (3) )\n135\nFirst, since legislation providing entitlement authority\ncould not become effective prior to the start of the\nnew fiscal year, the Budget Act provides that such\nlegislation would be fully subject to the reconcilia-\ntion process.\nSecond, legislation providing entitlement authority\nwould be referred to the respective Appropriations\nCommittees if it would generate new budget authority\nin excess of the allocation made under the latest\nCongressional Budget Resolution for the new fiscal\n-3-\nyear. Such legislation would be referred for no more\nthan 15 days, with the Appropriations Committee auto-\nmatically discharged from consideration if it has not\nreported during this period. The Appropriations Com-\nmittee may report the legislation with an amendment\nlimiting the total amount of new entitlement authority;\nhowever, their jurisdiction extends only to the cost\nof the program involved and not to substantive changes.\nFurther, entitlement financing does not violate either\nthe jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee or\nRule XXI of the House. Appropriations Committee juris-\ndiction was specifically rejected by the House-Senate\nConference Committee on the Budget Act (the House-\npassed bill would have made all new entitlements\neffective only as provided in appropriation acts),\nexcept to the extent that entitlement authority is\ncontained in annual appropriations acts (and therefore\nconsistent with Rule XXI).\nNot only is legislation providing entitlement authority\nclearly recognized as a form of spending and within\nthose provisions of the Budget Act designed to control\nlong-term spending actions, the Budget Act specifically\ncontemplates the application of the entitlement\nfinancing approach to legislation extending the General\nRevenue Sharing program. In fact, when stipulating\ncertain exceptions to the Budget Act provisions for\nconsideration of entitlement programs (e.g., Social\nSecurity), Section 401 (d) (2) specifically provides that\nthe current Act authorizing General Revenue Sharing\npayments or legislation extending it could also be\nexempted from these procedures if Congress were so\ninclined.\nBased upon this analysis, it appears that the entitle-\nment financing approach for General Revenue Sharing\nrepresents both an acceptable legislative and substantive\nresolution of the funding method issue.\nThe approach is consistent with the Budget Act and the\nPresident's objective. While subject to the provisions\nof the Budget Act and the annual appropriations process,\nin practice, since these are entitlement payments which\nthe Federal Government is obligated to make to eligible\nLIBRARY\n- -4-\nrecipients, the annual process is pro forma and the\nresults would be nearly identical to the funding\nprovisions of the current Act and the President's\nrenewal bill.\nAttached per your request is a copy of the entitle-\nment financing amendment adopted by the Subcommittee\non Thursday, April 8. As I noted in our phone con-\nversation, it does not address the level of funding\nor duration of the program issues. These matters\nare still open and will, be considered in full com-\nmittee.\nAttachment\nCC: Jim Cannon\nMax Friedersdorf\nArt Quern\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nEXTENSION OF PROGRAM AND FUNDING\nSEC. 4 (a) Section 105 of the Act is amended-\n(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection\n(d) ;\n(2) by inserting immediately after subsection (b)\nthe following new subsection:\n' (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATION FOR\nENTITLEMENTS. --\n\"(1) IN GENERAL. -- There are authorized to\nbe appropriated to the Trust Fund to pay the entitle-\nment herinafter provided ---\n\" (A) For the period beginning January 1, 1977,\nand ending September 30, 1977, $4,987,500,000; and\n\" (B) For the Fiscal Years beginning October 1,\n1977, 1978, and 1979, $6,650,000,000.\n\"(2) NON-CONTIGUOUS STATES ADJUSTMENT AMOUNTS. --\nThere are authorized to be appropriated to the Trust\nFund to pay the entitlement hereinafter provided --\n\"(A) For the period beginning January 1, 1977,\nand ending September 30, 1977, $3,585,000; and\n\"(B) For each of the Fiscal Years beginning on\nOctober 1, 1977, 1978, 1979, $4,780,000.\" and\n(3) by inserting \"; AUTHORIZATIONS\" in the heading\nof such section immediately after \"APPROPRIATIONS\".\n--2\n(b) (1) Section 104 (c) of the Act is amended --\n(A) by inserting \"or three-fourths\" after \"one-\nhalf\"; and\n(B) by striking out \"period of 6 months\" and\ninserting in lieu thereof \"period of 6 or 9 months,\nrespectively\".\n(2) Section 106 (a) of the Act is amended --\n(A) by inserting \"an entitlement\" after \"shall\nbe allocated\"; and\n(B) by inserting \"and from the sums authorized\nunder section 105 (c) (1) for succeeding entitlement\nperiods\" after \"that entitlement period,\".\n(3) Section 106 (c) of the Act is amended by striking\nout \"section 105 (b) (2)\" each place it appears and\ninserting in lieu thereof \"subsection (b) (2) or (c) (2)\nof section 105\".\n(4) Section 107 (b) of the Act is amended by redesig-\nnating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (7) and (8),\nrespectively, and by inserting after paragraph (5) the\nfollowing new paragraph:\n\" (6) SPECIAL RULE FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING\nJANUARY 1, 1977.--In the case of the entitlement\nperiod beginning January 1, 1977, and ending Septem-\nber 30, 1977, the aggregate amount taken into account\n--3\nunder paragraph (1) (A) for the preceding entitlement\nperiod and the aggregate amount taken into account\nunder paragraph (1) (B) shall be three-fourts of the\namounts which (but for this paragraph) would be taken\ninto account. \"\n(5) Section 108 (c) (1) (C) of the Act is amended by\nstriking out \"December 31, 1976,\" and inserting in\nlieu thereof \"September 30, 1980,\"\n(6) Section 141 (b) of the Act is amended by inserting\nat the end thereof the following new paragraphs:\n\" (6) The period beginning on January 1, 1977,\nand ending September 30, 1977.\n\" (7) The one-year periods beginning on\nOctober 1 of 1977, 1978, and 1979.\"\nSome items in this folder were not digitized because it contains copyrighted\nmaterials. Please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for access to\nthese materials.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 9, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nPaul\nPAUL O'NEILL\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nEntitlement Financing\nfor General Revenue\nSharing\nThe funding provision of the current Act and the\nPresident's proposed legislation to extend General\nRevenue Sharing providing combined authorization-\nappropriation of funds over a long-term period has\ngenerated considerable opposition among many Mem-\nbers who otherwise support the revenue sharing\nconcept and those Members who strongly oppose the\nprogram's continuation for other reasons. After\nrejecting the President's proposal, the House Sub-\nFORD i LIBRARY 03\ncommittee had tentatively adopted a short-term\nextension of the program's authorization only,\nmaking its funding subject to the annual appropri-\nations process. The Subcommittee has now reversed\nthat decision, voting to authorize continuation of\nGeneral Revenue Sharing as a 3 3/4-year entitlement\nprogram.\nThe entitlement financing amendment adopted by the\nSubcommittee was developed as a realistic approach\nto the highly controversial question of how General\nRevenue Sharing should be funded. The amendment\ndoes not substantially modify the basic tenets of\nthe revenue sharing concept, but it does answer the\nargument of those Members who have charged that the\nexisting funding provision by-passes the traditional\nCongressional appropriations process and circumvents\nthe newly-established Budget Act procedures designed\nto control long-term spending actions.\nFORD USRARY\nof\n-2-\nOne of the principle objectives of the Budget Act\nwas to bring so-called backdoor spending within the\nscope of the appropriations process. The Budget\nAct (section 401) defines three types of \"new\nspending authority\" and sets forth their relation-\nship to the appropriations process in order to\npromote more comprehensive and consistent control\nover spending actions. The Budget Act draws dis-\ntinctions between these types of spending legislation\nand establishes special procedures for their consider-\nation. With respect to new contract authority and\nborrowing authority legislation, such bills must\ncontain a provision that funding is effective only\nto the extent or in such amounts as are provided in\nappropriations acts. However, the Budget Act\nestablished different procedures with respect to the\nthird type of new spending authority, entitlement\nfinancing.\nAs defined in the Budget Act (section 401 (c) (2) (C) ,\nentitlement legislation provides temporary or perma-\nnent authority to make payments (including loans and\ngrants), the budget authority for which is not provided\nfor in advance by appropriation acts, to any person\nor government if, under the provision of law contain-\ning such authority, the Federal Government is obligated\nto make such payments to persons or governments who\nmeet the requirements established by such law.\nIn recognition of the need to provide for long-term\nfunding of certain Federal programs, the Budget Act\nestablished specific procedures for consideration of\nlegislation providing entitlement authority (section\n401 (b) (1) (2) and (3)).\nFirst, since legislation providing entitlement authority\ncould not become effective prior to the start of the\nnew fiscal year, the Budget Act provides that such\nlegislation would be fully subject to the reconcilia-\ntion process.\nSecond, legislation providing entitlement authority\nwould be referred to the respective Appropriations\nCommittees if it would generate new budget authority\nin excess of the allocation made under the latest\nCongressional Budget Resolution for the new fiscal\n-3-\nyear. Such legislation would be referred for no more\nthan 15 days, with the Appropriations Committee auto-\nmatically discharged from consideration if it has not\nreported during this period. The Appropriations Com-\nmittee may report the legislation with an amendment\nlimiting the total amount of new entitlement authority;\nhowever, their jurisdiction extends only to the cost\nof the program involved and not to substantive changes.\nFurther, entitlement financing does not violate either\nthe jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee or\nRule XXI of the House. Appropriations Committee juris-\ndiction was specifically rejected by the House-Senate\nConference Committee on the Budget Act (the House-\npassed bill would have made all new entitlements\neffective only as provided in appropriation acts),\nexcept to the extent that entitlement authority is\ncontained in annual appropriations acts (and therefore\nconsistent with Rule XXI).\nNot only is legislation providing entitlement authority\nclearly recognized as a form of spending and within\nthose provisions of the Budget Act designed to control\nlong-term spending actions, the Budget Act specifically\ncontemplates the application of the entitlement\nfinancing approach to legislation extending the General\nRevenue Sharing program. In fact, when stipulating\ncertain exceptions to the Budget Act provisions for\nconsideration of entitlement programs (e.g., Social\nSecurity), Section 401 (d) (2) specifically provides that\nthe current Act authorizing General Revenue Sharing\npayments or legislation extending it could also be\nexempted from these procedures if Congress were so\ninclined.\nBased upon this analysis, it appears that the entitle-\nment financing approach for General Revenue Sharing\nrepresents both an acceptable legislative and substantive\nresolution of the funding method issue.\nThe approach is consistent with the Budget Act and the\nPresident's objective. While subject to the provisions\nof the Budget Act and the annual appropriations process,\nin practice, since these are entitlement payments which\nthe Federal Government is obligated to make to eligible\n-4-\nrecipients, the annual process is pro forma and the\nresults would be nearly identical to the funding\nprovisions of the current Act and the President's\nrenewal bill.\nAttached per your request is a copy of the entitle-\nment financing amendment adopted by the Subcommittee\non Thursday, April 8. As I noted in our phone con-\nversation, it does not address the level of funding\nor duration of the program issues. These matters\nare still open and will, be considered in full com-\nmittee.\nAttachment\nCC: Jim Cannon\nMax Friedersdorf\nArt Quern\nFORD CIBRANT\nGRS\nThe WaSHINGTON Star\nApril 12, 1976\nMayors' Man Warns Democrats\nAssociated Press\nthe legislation before, the in 1972, is scheduled to ex,\nlegislation as a way to get\nCongressional Democrats\nsummer recess, revenue-\npire Dec. 31.\nback at him. \"It's all politi-\nwho oppose the renewal of\nsharing opponents in the\nFord is advecating a 5 3/4-\ncal and they don't know\nfederal revenue sharing are\nHouse may be able to pres-\nyear program that would\nhow to get to Ford any\nbeing warned they may,\nsure the Senate into accept-\nexpire on Sept. 30, 1982,\nother way,\" he said. \"You\nhand President Ford a po-\ning provisions that\nwhen fiscal 1982 ends. The\nhave to remember this is\nlitical plum this election\nrevenue-sharing advocates\nprogram's opponents are\nthe only spending program\nyear if they delay extending\nfeel would weaken the pro-\nseeking to limit any exten-\nthe guy is asking for.\"\nthe program.\ngram\nsion to-21 months, A short-\nAt the height of the:1972\nThe legislation has\nened program would give\npresidential campaign,\nstrong bipartisan support in\nthem the opportunity to\nRichard M, Nixon signed\nthe Senate, and it is unlike-\nbegin chipping away at the\nthe federal revenue-shar-\nly to become a political\nrenewed program next\ning law with an entourage\nissue there.\nJanuary. when they would\nblockghaits\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nINFORMATION\nWASHINGTON\nApril 14, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nJIM CANNOM Jun\nSUBJECT:\nSupport of Block Grants\nAttached is a copy of a letter jointly signed by Governor\nAndrus (D-Idaho) and Governor Evans (R-Washington) expressing\nto the other Governors of this country their support for\nyour block grant proposals. In their letter, these Governors\nrequest that other chief executives help stimulate the dis-\ncussion and support for these proposals in order that they\nreceive a due hearing and consideration by the Congress.\nThe Governors' Conference has been extremely interested and\ncooperative in these block grant proposals. Governor Andrus\nhas taken special effort to go beyond party line and to\nsupport a concept that he believes in very strongly.\nWe are continuing to work with Governor Andrus and Governor\nEvans and their Human Resource Committee on a number of\nitems, and I am hopeful that this continued cooperation will\nhelp move the block grants from their current stalemate\nposition.\nFORD j LIBRARY GERALD\nNational\nGovemars\nRobert D. Ray\nonference\nGovernor of lowe\nChairman\n1150 Seventeenth Street N.W. Suite 600\nWashington, D.C. 20036\n(202)785-5600\nMarch 29, 1976\nHonorable\n(ALL GOVERNORS)\nGovernor of\nDear\n:\nWe take this opportunity to express our mutual belief that Congress\nshould shortly hold public hearings on the Administration's block grant\nproposals.\nDuring the past ten years we have all become painfully aware of the\nprogram and management conditions caused by federal categorical funding\nof human services. One of our biggest challenges in the next years will\nbe revamping the intergovernmental funding and management of education and\nhuman services so that these services may become more responsive, realistic,\nand meaningful to recipients of the services as well as to the people who\npay for them.\nWhile neither of us endorses all the specific details of the Adminis-\ntration's block grant proposals, we firmly believe it is important that\nthe concepts be publicly discussed. Furthermore, we believe that Congress\nmust be given a concise message that this is a direction in intergovernmental\nfunding that Governors believe to be vital to the successful exercise of our\njoint responsibility for the funding and management of human service programs\nWe are asking that you join us in communicating to our respective\nCongressional delegations and appropriate Committee chairmen our belief that\nhearings should be soon held for the purpose of discussing the concepts\ncontained in the Administration's block grant proposals. The list of block\ngrant proposals and the Committee to which they have been referred is attache\nfor your reference. Through our united efforts we hope to impress upon\nCongress the necessity of addressing these issues promptly and directly.\nSincerely,\nCecil D. Andrus\nDaniel J. Evans\nChairman, NGC Committee on\nVice Chairman, NGC Committee on\nHuman Resources\nHuman Resources\nDan\nDear Governor Evans:\nI would like to thank you and Governor Andrus for\nyour March 29th letter in which you expressed to\nyour fellow Governors your joint support for the\nAdministration's block grant proposals.\n11\nAs I am sure you are aware, these proposals reflect\nthe President's desires to improve the delivery\nof Federal categorical programs. Needless to say,\nthere has not been overwhelming support shown for\nthese proposals in the Congress. The support that\nyou express in your letter and the support which\nyour letter will hopefully create within the\nGovernors' Conference are much needed and appre-\nciated.\nI would like to again express my appreciation for\nyour support and hope that it will, along with\nother efforts, generate a positive response in the\nCongress.\nSincerely\nJames M. Cannon\nAssistant to the President\nfor Domestic Affairs\nThe Honorable Daniel J. Evans\nGovernor of Washington\nOlympia, Washington 98501\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nUSE\nHINGTON\nDear Governor Andrus:\nI would like to thank you and Governor Evans for\nyour March 29th letter in which you expressed to\nyour fellow Governors your joint support for the\nAdministration's block grant proposals.\nAs I am sure you are aware, these proposals reflect\nthe President's desires to improve the delivery\nof Federal categorical programs. Needless to say,\nthere has not been overwhelming support shown for\nthese proposals in the Congress. The support that\nyou express in your letter and the support which\nyour letter will hopefully create within the\nGovernors' Conference are much needed and appre-\nciated.\nI would like to again express my appreciation for\nyour support and hope that it will, along with\nother efforts, generate a positive response in the\nCongress.\nJan James M. Camon\nSincerely,\nAssistant to the President\nfor Domestic Affairs\n100\nThe Honorable Cecil D. Andrus\nGovernor of Idaho\nBoise, Idaho 83701\nNational\nGovernors'\nRobert D. Ray\nGovernor of lowa\nChairman\nConference Seventeenth Street N.W. Suite Steve 600\nApril 1, 1976\nWashington, D.C. 20036\n(202)785-5600\n.) wl Aue That To\ncopy wr\nMr. James Cannon\nAssistant to the President\nfor Domestic Affairs\n2)\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Jim:\nmiste\nI thought you might like to see a copy of the enclosed\nletter from Governor Andrus and Governor Evans to their fellow\nJun\nGovernors on the subject of the President's block grant pro-\nposals.\nSincerely,\nSteve\nStephen B. Farber\nDirector\nEnclosure\nLISEARY GERALD FORD\nCc; McConchey\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nPul -\nWASHINGTON\n-\nApril 15, 1976\nThanks lets you and\nI have a\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nShartegy\nFROM:\nPAUL MYER\nEssion.\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcommittee\nActions on General Revenue\nSharing Renewal\nIn\nOn Wednesday, April 14, 1976, the House Government\nOperations Subcommittee completed markup of legislation\nto extend and revise the General Revenue Sharing program.\nA clean bill will be introduced and reported to the full\nCommittee after the recess.\nDuring the final days of the markup, the Subcommittee\nreversed a number of earlier tentative decisions, taking\nactions which improved the bill. While it does not en-\ndorse the President's proposal, it is generally consistent\nwith its basic principle and represents a good markup\nvehicle in the full Committee for purposes of strengthen-\ning the bill further.\nIn summary, the Subcommittee bill would:\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\n* extend the program's authorization for 3 3/4\nyears;\n* establish entitlement financing for the program,\nproviding funds for the total authorization period;\n* freeze funding at its present level ($6.6 billion)\nspecifically rejecting any annual increase;\n* retain the present distribution formula;\n* delete present priority expenditure categories\nand matching prohibition;\n- 2 -\n*\nstrengthen scope and enforcement of non-\ndiscrimination provisions, however, providing\nthat all administrative remedies be exhausted\nprior to court action; and\n*\nexpand present, reporting, auditing and citizen\nparticipation requirements.\nI have asked Treasury to prepare a detailed analysis of\nthe Subcommittee bill.\nFull Committee markup should begin shortly after the\nrecess. Jack Brooks and the Subcommittee's liberal\nDemocrats are not happy with the final bill. Brooks\nwill clearly revisit all the major issues in Committee\n(i e , method of funding and civil rights) and liberals\nmay seek to revise the distribution formula in some way.\nIt is anticipated that the Committee will report a bill\nprior to the May 15 deadline.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 26, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nSummary and Analysis of House\nSubcommittee Action on General\nRevenue Sharing Legislation\nAttached for your information are two documents which\nsummarize the House Subcommittee's action on General\nRevenue Sharing renewal legislation and compares the\nSubcommittee bill with current law and the President's\nproposal.\nThe Subcommittee is scheduled to report a clear bill on\nWednesday, April 28. The Full Committee should consider\nthis item the following week.\nAttachment\nFORD LIBRARY\nActions Taken by the Subcommittee\nListed below are the major actions that have been taken by the\nSubcommittee concerning the General Revenue Sharing Program.\nThe extent to which these actions deviate from the President's\nproposal is shown in parenthesis.\n1. The program has been extended for 3 3/4 years.\n(The President's proposal would extend the program for\n5 3/4 years.)\n2. The level of funding will be kept at the present level of\n$6.65 billion annually.\n(The President's proposal would have increased that amount\nat 2.4 percent yearly for 5 3/4 years.)\n3. The program will be funded through an entitlement mechanism.\nWhile this is not as insulated from Congressional dabbling\nas a joint authorization and appropriation, it has several\nadvantages along the same lines. The Appropriations Committee\nwould only have jurisdiction if the amount authorized by the\nlegislative committee (in this case Government Operations) is\ngreated than that approved by the Budget Committee. Then the\nAppropriations Committee would have 15 days in which to adjust\nthe legislative committee's action. If they do not, the dis-\ncrepancy must be reconciled on the Floor. The other major\nbenefit is that since entitlements are specifically authorized\nin the Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974, there is no\nneed for a special rule as there would be with a joint\nauthorization and appropriation.\n4. Participation in the program will be restricted to general\nrequirements: purpose units of government that satisfy the following two\n(The President's proposal would have maintained the existing\neligibility requirements to all general purpose governments.)\na. levy taxes or receives intergovernmental transfers.\nb. performs two or more municipal type services from a\nspecified list of such services.\n(It is not clear how many governments would be impacted by this.\nWe suspect that it will not be many.)\n5. unchanged. The formula for disbursing funds has been left basically\n(The President's bill had requested raising the 145 percent\nupper constraint to 175 percent.)\nFORD\n- 2 -\n6. Priority expenditure categories have been eliminated.\n(The President's proposal would retain these categories.)\n7. The prohibition against the use of revenue sharing monies\nfor matching purposed has been eliminated.\n8. States are required to maintain their local aid at a level\nequivalent to that of Fiscal Year 1976.\n9. Construction projects using 25 percent of more revenue\nsharing monies must comply with the Davis-Bacon Act.\n10. Non-discrimination provisions have been substantially\nstrenthened to apply to all activities of a recipient\ngovernment unless that government can show with \"clear\nand convincing evidence\" that General Revenue Sharing\nfunds have been placed solely in a program that does\nnot violate civil rights laws. The non-discrimination\nprovisions have been expanded to include the handicapped,\nand aged in addition to race, color, religion, sex and\nnational origin. Extensive hearing and compliance procedures\nare spelled out requiring time limits for investigations\ncompliance, administrative procedure, and court actions.\nPrivate civil suits are permitted after the exhaustion\nof administrative remedies.\n11. Citizen participation requirements have been strengthened.\n12. Plan and actual use reports have been expanded to include\ncomparative information on a jurisdiction's total budget\nand how revenue sharing funds relate to particular items\nin the budget.\n13. All governments will be required to conduct an independent\naudit of General Revenue Sharing accounts.\nBASIC PROVISIONS\nCURRENT LAW\nPRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL\nSUBCOMMITTEE DRAFT BILL\n(P. L. 92-512)\nH. R. 6558\nFunding level\n$30.2 billion to be distributed\n$39.5 billion to dis-\n$24.9 billion to be distributed Jan. 1, 1977\nJan. 1, 1972 to Dec. 31, 1976.\ntributed Jan. 1, 1977\nto Sept. 30, 1980.\nto Sept. 30, 1982.\nFunding\n5 year trust fund.\n5 3/4 year trust fund.\n3 3/4 year entitlement. (Note: an entitlement\nMechanism\nprogram is not the same as annual appropriations.\nUnder the entitlement provision, the Appropria -\ntions Committee would only have jurisdiction if\nthe amount authorized by the legislative committee\n(Covernment Operations) is greater than that\napproved by the Budget Committee. Under such\ncircumstances the Appropriations Committee would\nhave 15 days in which to adjust the legislative\ncommittee's action. If they do not, the dis-\ncrepancy must be reconciled on the Floor.)\nAnnual\n$150 million per year each\nNo change.\nNo increment. Funds are frozen at the 1976\nIncrement\nlevel of $6.65 billion.\nEligibility\nAll units of general purpose\nNo change.\nTo participate local government recipients must:\ngovernment are eligible to\n1) Be defined as a unit of general purpose\nparticipate in the program.\ngovernment by the Census Bureau.\n2) Impose taxes or receive intergovernmental\ntransfer payments.\n3) Provides \"substantially\" for at least two of\nthe following services: police, courts and\ncorrections, fire protection, health services,\nsocial services, recreation, libraries, sewage\ndisposal and water supply, solid waste dis-\nposal, zoning or land-use planning, pollution\nabatement, roads, mass transit, and education.\n4) Spend at least 10 percent of their total ex-\npenditure for two of the services or provide\nfour of the listed services.\nFormula\nMoney allocated by formula based\nNo change.\nNo change.\nProvisions\non population, per capita income\nand tax effort.\nThe maximum entitlement to local\nRaised to 175 percent.\nNo change.\ngovernment of 145 percent of the\naverage statewide per capita\nentitlement.\nThe minimum entitlement to local\nNo change.\nNo change.\ngovernment of 20 percent of the\naverage statewide per capita\nentitlement.\nNo local government will receive\nNo change.\nNo change.\nmore than 50 percent of its non-\nschool revenues plus its inter-\ngovernmental transfers.\nAny general purpose government\nNo change.\nNo change.\nreceiving less than $200 will\nnot receive any money.\nStates receive 1/3 of funds dis-\nNo change.\nNo change.\ntributed, local governments\nreceive 2/3.\nCitizen\nRecipient governments must publish\nNo change.\nParticipation\nRecipient governments must hold public hearings\nplanned and actual Use Reports in\nand Public\non the proposed Use Report at least 7 days before the\nnewspapers of general circulation.\nHearing\nsubmission of the report to ORS.\nRequires assurance that there will\nNo change.\nRecipient governments must hold a second hearing, at least\nbe a public hearing or other method\n7 days before the adoption of their budget, showing the\nby which the public may participate\nrelationship of GRS funds to functional items in their\nin deciding how the funds are to\nbudget.\nbe spent.\n30 days before the second hearing, the government\nmust publish a summary of its budget and proposed\nAllocation of GRS monies must be in\nNo change.\nUse Report in a general circulation newspaper.\naccordance with State and local law.\nHearings must be at a place and time that \"permits\nand encourages citizen participation.\"\nReporting\nLaw prescribes reports on amounts\nNo change,\nRequirements\nProposed Use Report must include comparative data\nand purposes of planned and actual\non the use of GRS funds for the current and the\nexpenditures.\ntwo previous entitlement periods and must compare\nthem to items in budget.\nProposed Use Reports must specify whether the use\nis for new expanded, a continuation of activity\nor tax stabilization or reduction.\nActual Use Reports must be filed with ORS. Any differ-\nerences between planned and actual uses must be explained.\nBudgets and Use Reports must be available at principal\ngovernment office and libraries.\nBudget Summary must be published in newspaper 30 days\nafter adoption with explanation of changes between\nthe proposed and actual Use Reports.\nAnti-\nLaw contains strong anti-dis-\nClarifies the Secre-\nDiscrimination prohibited on basis of race,\nDiscrimination\ncrimination requirement. Secre-\ntary's authority to\ncolor, religion, sex, age, national origin, or\nProvisions\ntary's enforcement powers are\ninvoke one or more\nhandicapped status under any State or local pro-\nstated in general terms: to\nremedies where a reci-\ngram except where recipient can prove \"with clear\nrefer matter to Attorney General\npient government is\nand gonvincing evidence\" that program was not\nfor functions provided by Title VI\nfound to have used\nfunded with GRS monies.\nof Civil Rights Act of 1964, or to\nrevenue sharing funds\ntake such other action as may be\nin a discriminatory\nExtensive hearing and compliance procedures are\nprovided by law.\nfashion. This includes\nspelled out requiring time limits for investi-\nthe authority to with-\ngations, compliance, administrative procedures, and\nhold all or a portion\ncourt actions.\nof entitlement funds\ndue to the government\nPrivate civil suits are permitted after the\nand require repayment\nexhaustion of administrative remedies.\nof funds expended in a\nLIGHTHY\ndiscriminatory fashion.\nMatching\nRevenue Sharing funds may not be\nNo change.\nMatching prohibition eliminated.\nProhibition\nutilized to meet Federal grant\nmatching requirements.\nDavis-Bacon\nDavis-Bacon (minimum-wage) applies\nNo change.\nNo change.\nProvision\nto construction projects using\n25 percent or more of revenue\nsharing monies.\nPriority\nLocal governments may use funds for\nNo change.\nPriorities eliminated.\nCategories\nany capital projects but only for\noperating and maintenance expenses\nof programs in eight priority ex-\npenditure categories (public safety,\nenvironmental protection, public\ntransportation, health, recreation,\nlibraries, social services, for the\npoor or aged, and financial adminis-\ntration.)\nCongressional\nNo general review of program\nNo general review of the\nSecretary of Treasury must make an annual report.\nReview\nis required.\nprogram is required.\nComptroller General is to review compliance.\nState mainten-\nStates must maintain level of fund\nNo change.\nState must maintain level of funds transferred\nance of Effort\ntransfers to localities as of\nto localities as of Fiscal '76.\nFiscal '72.\nAuditing\nRecipient governments must use fiscal No change.\nAnnual \"independent\" audit required of all State\nRequirements\naccounting and auditing procedures\nand local finances except where the cost of such audits\nthat permit Federal government to audit.\nis disproportionately large in relation to CRS funds.\nAnti-lobbying\nNo provision.\nProvisions\nNo provision.\nNo recipient governments may use directly\nor indirectly any GRS funds for \"lobbying\nor to influence any legislation regarding\nthe Act.\"\nOFFICE OF THE VICE president\nWASHINGTON, D.C.\nApril 29, 1976\nJim Cannon -\nAttached from the VP.\nDick Allison\nFile\nS\nFORD LIBRARY\nOFFICE OF THE VICE president\nWASHINGTON\nApril 27, 1976\nThe Vice President\n1. Attached is your copy of the\nlatest status report on revenue sharing.\n2. Tomorrow the bill will be\nreported to the full committee, which\nis now scheduled to take it up next\nweek.\nOrih Whim\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 26, 1976\nSun\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nSUBJECT:\nSummary and Analysis of House\nyou'd\nher\nJIM CANNON\nto\nFROM:\nPAUL MYER\nSubcommittee Action on General\nRevenue Sharing Legislation\nAttached for your information are two documents which\nsummarize the House Subcommittee's action on General\nRevenue Sharing renewal legislation and compares the\nagreet a great on\nSubcommittee bill with current law and the President's\nproposal.\nThe Subcommittee is scheduled to report a clear bill\nWednesday, April 28. The Full Committee should consider\nthis item the following week.\nAttachment\nbil\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nActions Taken by the Subcommittee\nListed below are the major actions that have been taken by the\nSubcommittee concerning the General Revenue Sharing Program.\nThe extent to which these actions deviate from the President's\nproposal is shown in parenthesis.\n1. The program has been extended for 3 3/4 years.\n(The President's proposal would extend the program for\n5 3/4 years.)\n2. The level of funding will be kept at the present level of\n$6.65 billion annually.\n(The President's proposal would have increased that amount\nat 2.4 percent yearly for 5 3/4 years.)\n3. The program will be funded through an entitlement mechanism.\nWhile this is not as insulated from Congressional dabbling\nas a joint authorization and appropriation, it has several\nadvantages along the same lines. The Appropriations Committee\nwould only have jurisdiction if the amount authorized by the\nlegislative committee (in this case Government Operations) is\ngreated than that approved by the Budget Committee. Then the\nAppropriations Committee would have 15 days in which to adjust\nthe legislative committee's action. If they do not, the dis-\ncrepancy must be reconciled on the Floor. The other major\nbenefit is that since entitlements are specifically authorized\nin the Budget Control and Impoundment Act of 1974, there is no\nneed for a special rule as there would be with a joint\nauthorization and appropriation.\n4. Participation in the program will be restricted to general\npurpose units of government that satisfy the following two\nrequirements:\n(The President's proposal would have maintained the existing\neligibility requirements to all general purpose governments.)\na. levy taxes or receives intergovernmental transfers.\nb. performs two or more municipal type services from a\nspecified list of such services.\n(It is not clear how many governments would be impacted by this.\nWe suspect that it will not be many.)\n5. unchanged. The formula for disbursing funds has been left basically\n(The President's bill had requested raising the 145 percent\nupper constraint to 175 percent.)\nSECRETA FORD CIBRARY\n- 2 -\n6. Priority expenditure categories have been eliminated.\n(The President's proposal would retain these categories.)\n7. The prohibition against the use of revenue sharing monies\nfor matching purposed has been eliminated.\n8. States are required to maintain their local aid at\nThey fiel\nequivalent to that of Fiscal Year 1976.\n5/16/m\n9. Construction projects using 25 percent of more revenue\nsharing monies must comply with the Davis-Bacon Act.\n10. Non-discrimination provisions have been substantially\nstrenthened to apply to all activities of a recipient\ngovernment unless that government can show with \"clear\nand convincing evidence\" that General Revenue Sharing\nfunds have been placed solely in a program that does\nnot violate civil rights laws. The non-discrimination\nprovisions have been expanded to include the handicapped,\nand aged in addition to race, color, religion, sex and\nnational origin. Extensive hearing and compliance procedures\nare spelled out requiring time limits for investigations\ncompliance, administrative procedure, and court actions.\nPrivate civil suits are permitted after the exhaustion\nof administrative remedies.\n11. Citizen participation requirements have been strengthened.\n12. Plan and actual use reports have been expanded to include\ncomparative information on a jurisdiction's total budget\nand how revenue sharing funds relate to particular items\nin the budget.\n13. All governments will be required to conduct an independent\naudit of General Revenue Sharing accounts.\nBASIC PROVISIONS\nCURRENT LAW\nPRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL\nSUBCOMMITTEE DRAFT BILL\n(P. L. 92-512)\nH. R. 6558\nLIBRARY\nFunding level\n$30.2 billion to be distributed\n$39.5 billion to dis-\n$24.9 billion to be distributed Jan. 1, 1977\nJan. 1, 1972 to Dec. 31, 1976.\ntributed Jan. 1, 1977\nto Sept. 30, 1980.\nFORD\nto Sept. 30, 1982.\nFunding\n5 year trust fund.\n5 3/4 year trust fund.\n3 3/4 year entitlement. (Nòte: an entitlement\nMechanism\nprogram is not the same as annual appropriations.\nUnder the entitlement provision, the Appropria -\ntions Committee would only have jurisdiction if\nthe amount authorized by the legislative committee\n(Government Operations) is greater than that\napproved by the Budget Committee. Under such\ncircumstances the Appropriations Committee would\nhave 15 days in which to adjust the legislative\ncommittee's action. If they do not, the dis-\ncrepancy must be reconciled on the Floor.)\nAnnual\n$150 million per year each\nNo change.\nNo increment. Funds are frozen at the 1976\nIncrement\nlevel of $6.65 billion.\nEligibility\nAll units of general purpose\nNo change.\nTo participate local government recipients must:\ngovernment are eligible to\n1) Be defined as a unit of general purpose\nparticipate in the program.\ngovernment by the Census Bureau.\n2) Impose taxes or receive intergovernmental\ntransfer payments.\n3) Provides \"substantially\" for at least two of\nthe following services: police, courts and\ncorrections, fire protection, health services,\nsocial services, recreation, libraries, sewage\ndisposal and water supply, solid waste dis-\nposal, zoning or land-use planning, pollution\nabatement, roads, mass transit, and education.\n4) Spend at least 10 percent of their total ex-\npenditure for two of the services or provide\nfour of the listed services.\nFormula\nMoney allocated by formula based\nNo change.\nNo change.\nProvisions\non population, per capita income\nand tax effort.\nThe maximum entitlement to local\nRaised to 175 percent.\nNo change.\ngovernment of 145 percent of the\naverage statewide per capita\nentitlement.\nThe minimum entitlement to local\nNo change.\nNo change.\ngovernment of 20 percent of the\naverage statewide per capita\nentitlement.\nNo local government will receive\nNo change.\nNo change.\nmore than 50 percent of its non-\nschool revenues plus its inter-\ngovernmental transfers.\nAny general purpose government\nNo change.\nNo change.\nreceiving less than $200 will\nnot receive any money.\nStates receive 1/3 of funds dis-\nNo change.\nNo change.\ntributed, local governments\nreceive 2/3.\nCitizen\nRecipient governments must publish\nNo change.\nRecipient governments must hold public hearings\nParticipation\nplanned and actual Use Reports in\non the proposed Use Report at least 7 days before the\nand Public\nnewspapers of general circulation.\nsubmission of the report to ORS.\nHearing\nRequires assurance that there will\nNo change.\nRecipient governments must hold a second hearing, at least\nbe a public hearing or other method\n7 days before the adoption of their budget, showing the\nby which the public may participate\nrelationship of GRS funds to functional items in their\nin deciding how the funds are to\nbudget.\nbe spent.\n30 days before the second hearing, the government\nmust publish a summary of its budget and proposed\nAllocation of GRS monies must be in\nNo change.\nUse Report in a general circulation newspaper.\naccordance with State and local law.\nHearings must be at a place and time that \"permits\nand encourages citizen participation.\"\nReporting\nLaw prescribes reports on amounts\nNo change.\nProposed Use Report must include comparative data\nRequirements\nand purposes of planned and actual\non the use of GRS funds, for the current and the\nexpenditures.\ntwo previous entitlement periods and must compare\nthem to items in budget.\nProposed Use Reports must specify whether the use\nis for new expanded, a continuation of activity\nor tax stabilization or reduction.\nActual Use Reports must be filed with ORS. Any differ -\nerences between planned and actual uses must be explained.\nBudgets and Use Reports must be available at principal\ngovernment office and libraries.\nBudget Summary must be published in newspaper 30 days\nafter adoption with explanation of changes between\nthe proposed and actual Use Reports.\nAnti-\nLaw contains strong anti-dis-\nClarifies the Secre-\nDiscrimination prohibited on basis of race,\nDiscrimination\ncrimination requirement. Secre-\ntary's authority to\ncolor, religion, sex, age, national origin, or\nProvisions\ntary's enforcement powers are\ninvoke one or more\nhandicapped status under any State or local pro-\nstated in general terms: to\nremedies where a reci-\ngram except where recipient can prove \"with clear\nrefer matter to Attorney General\npient government is\nand convincing evidence\" that program was not\nfor functions provided by Title VI\nfound to have used\nfunded with GRS monies.\nof Civil Rights Act of 1964, or to\nrevenue sharing funds\ntake such other action as may be\nin a discriminatory\nExtensive hearing and compliance procedures are\nprovided by law.\nfashion. This includes\nspelled out requiring time limits for investi-\nthe authority to with-\ngations, compliance, administrative procedures, and\nhold all or a portion\ncourt actions.\nof entitlement funds\ndue to the government\nPrivate civil suits are permitted after the\nand require repayment\nexhaustion of administrative remedies.\nof funds expended in a\ndiscriminatory fashion.\nMatching\nRevenue Sharing funds may not be\nNo change.\nMatching prohibition eliminated.\nProhibition\nutilized to meet Federal grant\nmatching requirements.\nDavis-Bacon\nDavis-Bacon (minimum-wage) applies\nNo change.\nNo change.\nProvision\nto construction projects using\n25 percent or more of revenue\nsharing monies.\nPriority\nLocal governments may use funds for\nNo change.\nPriorities eliminated.\nCategories\nany capital projects but only for\noperating and maintenance expenses\nof programs in eight priority ex-\npenditure categories (public safety,\nenvironmental protection, public\ntransportation, health, recreation,\nlibraries, social services, for the\npoor or aged, and financial adminis-\ntration.)\nCongressional\nNo general review of program\nNo general review of the\nSecretary of Treasury must make an annual report.\nReview\nis required.\nprogram is required.\nComptroller General is to review compliance.\nState mainten-\nStates must maintain level of fund\nNo change.\nState must maintain level of funds transferred\nance of Effort\ntransfers to localities as of\nto localities as of Fiscal '76.\nFiscal '72.\nRecipient governments must use fiscal No change.\nAnnual \"independent\" audit required of all State\nAuditing\nand local finances except where the cost of such audits\nRequirements\naccounting and auditing procedures\nis disproportionately large in relation to GRS funds.\nthat permit Federal government to audit.\nAnti-lobbying\nNo provision.\nNo provision.\nProvisions\nNo recipient governments may use directly\nor indirectly any GRS funds for \"lobbying\nor to influence any legislation regarding\nthe Act. \""
}