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
1563141
label
Revenue Sharing Renewal Legislation (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1563141
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Revenue Sharing Renewal Legislation (1)
citationUrl
collections
John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)
John Marsh's General Subject Files
subjects
Legislation
Revenue sharing
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1563141
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-09-30
month
9
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-03-01
month
3
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b8f4d4017360d524
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 29, folder "Revenue Sharing Renewal
Legislation (1)" of the John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 29 of The John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
[1976]
PROJECTED TIMETABLE AND PROCEDURES FOR CONGRESSIONAL LIBRARY
ACTION ON GENERAL REVENUE SHARING RENEWAL LEGISLATION
GERALD
NOVEMBER
JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
-DECEMBER
(15-23 Recess)
(5-16 Recess)
(II-20 Recess)
15th
15th
13th
15th
25th
1st
31st
HOUSE GOVERNMENT
SUBCOMMITTEE
FULL COMMITTEE MARK UP
OPERATIONS
MARK-UP
COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE
CONSIDERATION
OF RULE2
HOUSE RULES
FLOOR CONS
IDERATION
COMMITTEE
LINAL
COMMITTEE VIEWS AND ESTIMATES ON 1977 FUNDING LEVEL DUE TO BUDGET COMMITTEES
REPORT AND
MARK
CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION
ACTION COMPLETED ON 1ST BUDGET RESOLUTION FESOL AND DEADLINE for REPORDING AUTHORIZATION Bills
PREPARATION AND
ADOPTION OF
HOUSE BUDGET
COMMITTEE HEARINGS
UP
OF 1st BUDGET RESOLUTION
2ND BUDGET RESOLUTION
COMMITTEE
HOUSE
APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTE
MARK UP AND FLOOR
CONSIDERATION OF
APPROPRIATIONS BILL3
COMMITTEE
ACTION BILLS
COMPLETED ON ALL ALL BUDGET AND S
ACTION COMPLETED ON 2ND PUDGE RESOLUTION:
ACTION RESOLUTION
SNOTE
ATHIK
SENATE FINANCE
"WILL NOT CONSIDER BILL UNTIL HOUSE ACTS, MUST
FULL COMM TTEE MARK UP AND FLOOR CONSIDERATION
COMMITTEE
OBTAIN WAIVER TO CONSIDER BILL AFTER MAY 15.
REPORT AND CONGRESSIONAL
PREPARATION AND
MARK
ADOPTION OF FIRST
ADOPTION OF 2ND
SENATE BUDGET
COMMITTEE HEARINGS
UP
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BUDGET RESOLUTION
COMMITTEE
SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE MARK UP AND FLOOR CONSIDERATION OF
APPROPRIATIONS BILL3
COMMITTEE
1The General Revenue Sharing program, authorized by the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act.
2No new budget authority or spending bills may be considered prior to adoption of May 15th
3 Appropriations Committee action necessary if existing GRS authorization/appropriations
expires on December 31. 1976 As a combined authorization/appropriations measure, existing
1st Budget Resolution; waiver procudure necessary for either earlier consideration and the
provision IS modified by renewal bill.
funds are not subject to the Congressional Budget Control Act. However, any renewal
appropriation of funds by an authorization committee.
legislation is subject to the various constraints of the Budget Act.
1. Ford's background
2- Budget V. W+M/App.
MAR 3 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 3, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
PAUL JACK MYER MARSH
FROM
SUBJECT:
General Revenue Sharing
Legislative Situation
Attached for your information are some current docu-
ments which relate to our discussion with the
President last night.
You may know that I received a phone call from Cong.
Fountain's office last night informing me that the
Democratic Subcommittee Members will be holding at
least one more private caucus. He anticipates the
beginning of Subcommittee mark-up next week, but
could not give me a firm commitment.
Attachments
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
March 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
GRS -- Potential Motion
to Discharge Government
Operations Committee
from Consideration
Following our brief discussion this morning on the
President's expression of interest in House action
to discharge the Government Operations Committee
from consideration of General Revenue Sharing bill,
Jim Cannon discussed this with me in even greater
depth.
This matter will be the subject of discussion with
the President today at 5:00 p.m., and I believe that
this attempt should be given the most careful con-
sideration with respect to timing, support of the
Republican Leadership, the potential to attract
Democratic support, and our ability to win. The
use of the discharge motion is really the ultimate
weapon and should only be used if we believe there
will be no other opportunity to ensure House con-
sideration of the legislation. At the present time,
I am awaiting word from L. II. Fountain with respect
to completion of private deliberations among his
Subcommittee Democratic colleagues and announcement
of a firm mark-up schedule.
For Jim's background information on the procedures
governing a discharge motion, I have sent him the
attached memorandum.
Attachment
GERALE FORD LIBRART
March 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
House Rules Governing
the Discharge of Com-
mittees
Procedures to discharge a House committee from the
consideration of a public bill or resolution are
governed by Clause 4, Rule XXVII, of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
In outline form, the following steps are involved:
1.
The filing of a motion to discharge.
2.
Accumulation of 218 signatures.
3.
A vote to approve the motion to discharge.
4.
A vote to consider the bill should a motion
to discharge be successful.
5.
Consideration of the bill under the general
rules of the House.
Attached for your information is a more detailed
explanation of the discharge procedures.
As you know, a discharge motion is presently pending
in the House. If a decision were made to take this
approach, the existing motion would become the
vehicle for this effort.
Attachment
FORD LIBRARY
RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO
MOTIONS TO DISCHARGE A COMMITTEE
(Clause 4, Rule XXVII)
Any Member may file a motion to discharge a committee
from the consideration of a public bill or resolution which
has been pending in a committee for at least thirty days.
Only one such motion may be presented for each bill or reso-
lution.
This motion shall be placed in the custody of the
Clerk of the House and made available for Members to sign.
(A Member may also remove his name.) When a majority of
the total Membership of the House shall have signed the
motion (218 Members), it is then placed on the House Cal-
endar of Motions to Discharge Committees. No subsequent
action may be taken for at least seven legislative days.
On the second and fourth Mondays of each month, any
Member who signed the discharge motion may be recognized
for the purpose of calling up the motion and the House
shall proceed to its consideration without any intervening
motions. Following 20 minutes of debate, the House pro-
ceeds to an immediate vote on the motion to discharge.
If the motion prevails, it shall then be in order for
any Member who signed the motion to move that the House
proceed to the immediate consideration of such bill or
resolution. This motion is of high privilege and is not
debatable. If this motion is decided in the affirmative,
the bill shall be immediately considered under the general
rules of the House. If the House should vote against
immediate consideration, the bill is then referred to its
proper calendar and be entitled to the same rights and
privileges that it would have had if the committee to which
it was referred had duly reported it to the House for con-
sideration.
This rule would not apply to a bill that has been
reported by a committee during the interval between the
placing of the motion to discharge on the calendar and
the day when such motion is called up for action in the
House.
FORD & LIBRARY 07V835
THE WHITE HOUSE
INFORMATION
WASHINGTON
February 28, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JAMES M. CANNON
FROM:
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
General Revenue Sharing--House
Legislative Status
On Thursday, February 26, Democratic members of the
House Subcommittee held a private caucus to discuss
legislation to renew the General Revenue Sharing
program. Committee Chairman Brooks also attended and
played an active role in the meeting. The purpose of
this session was to determine the interest and concerns
of the majority and develop a course of action. It is
their intention to seek a consensus on the content of a
renewal bill. No date for formal, public mark-up
meetings has been scheduled, and no such announcement is
anticipated until the Democrats have concluded their
private deliberations. Officially, Subcommittee
Chairman Fountain noted that "substantial progress" is
being made and that the Democrats will meet again on
Monday, March 2, to continue their discussion.
Based on available information about the meeting, the
following facts are known:
1.
The Democrats are committed to reporting a bill by
May 15; however, they want it to be a "Congressional"
bill as opposed to the President's proposal.
2.
Chairman Brooks wants the Subcommittee to draft a
bill which recognizes his personal views and would
enjoy his support.
3. The major issues they are seeking to resolve reflect
opposition to key points in the President's proposal:
length of program authorization; amount of funds to
be made available and the manner in which such
appropriations are made; modification of the existing
formula in order to allocate more funds to jurisdictions
of greater "need"; possible inclusion of a "countercyclical
aid" provision; and stronger civil rights enforcement
and citizen participation requirements.
GERALD FORD LIBRADE
-2-
Personal discussions with all members prior to and
after this meeting, as well as the observations of
others, indicate that the Democrats are under great
pressure to move, but are uncertain as to how they
can accommodate the competing and diversified demands
now associated with this issue. According to one
source, the Democrats are clearly "frightened" by the
prospects confronting them. Strong Committee leadership
is lacking, and staff support is weak. Few of these
Democrats have any experience in dealing with legislation
involving such political or substantial issues.
Importantly, there is little confidence that whatever
they do would be acceptable to a majority of their
colleagues in the House.
I will have an additional report for you following the
Democrats' Monday caucus.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
MAR 12 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
FOR JACK MARSH
FYI
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTO:
March 11, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Review of House Subcom-
mittee Actions on General
Revenue Sharing Renewal --
Thursday, March 11, 1976
The House Government Operations Subcommittee met this morn-
ing to begin mark-up of General Revenue Sharing renewal
legislation. Only one Democratic Member was absent (Glenn
English) and both Jack Brooks and Frank Horton, as ex
officio members, actively participated in the session.
The Subcommittee tentatively decided two major issues:
(1) to extend the program's authorization for a 3 3/4-year
period and (2) to "freeze" the level of funding at the
current amount with no annual increment; however, providing
an unspecified authorization of additional funds in order
to "hold harmless" any recipient governments who would lose
funds as a result of prospective formula changes.
The Subcommittee is now working off an "issues paper", not
an actual bill. Under this procedure, these and all subse-
quent decisions will be reviewed when the Members are pro-
vided with a staff draft of a clean bill reflecting the
Subcommittee's actions on specific issues. The Subcommittee
will meet again on Monday, March 15, at 2:00 p.m. and will
be moving into various proposals to change the allocation
formula.
The following is a more detailed analysis of the Subcom-
mittees actions:
1.
Duration of Extension: The Subcommittee voted to
extend the program's authorization for an additional
3 3/4 years (January 1, 1977-September 30, 1980).
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
This vote followed the defeat of an earlier motion to
extend the program for only 1 3/4 years.
Essentially the Subcommittee felt that the duration
of extension was an arbitrary decision and that the
period adopted was an acceptable compromise. However,
a number of Democrats clearly desire the shorter
period on the basis that the next President would be
able to affect any future decision on the desirability
and nature of the program during his term. The Presi-
dent has proposed a 5 3/4-year extension, reflecting
a balance between a permanent program and the need to
review all Federal programs.
2.
Level of Funding: The Subcommittee voted to authorize
funding the program at the current level ($6.35 billion)
with no annual increase, providing that a separate
unspecified amount would be authorized to "hold harmless"
any recipient jurisdiction from a reduction in the first
year due to anticipated allocation formula changes. In
effect, this "freeze" means a no-growth, phased-down
program. Compared to the President's proposal to con-
tinue the current funding level with an annual $150 mil-
lion increase, all recipient jurisdictions will lose
funds, including those which might gain slightly due to
any changes in the allocation formula.
This decision reflects the clear desire of the majority
to allocate anticipated domestic appropriation increases
in other programs, such as existing categorical grants
and a countercyclical aid program. This latter program
was briefly discussed and will be reviewed in greater
depth next week when formula issues are considered.
Attached is a complete record of all actions and roll
call votes taken by the Subcommittee.
Attachment
FORD & LIBRARY
I.
Duration of Extension
1. Motion by Brown to extend program authorization
for 5 3/4 years (President's proposal).
Defeated Jordan amendment for 1 3/4-year exten-
sion by vote of 5-9:
YEA
NAY
Mezvinsky
Fountain
Jordan
Fuqua
Burton
English (proxy)
Drinan
Levitas
Brooks
Wydler
Brown
Steelman
Horton
Adopted Drinan amendment for 3 3/4-year exten-
sion by vote of 7-6:
YEA
NAY
Mezvinksy
Fountain
Jordan
Fuqua
Burton
Wydler
Drinan
Brown
English (proxy)
Steelman
)
Levitas
Horton
Brooks
2. Adopted amended Brown motion for 3 3/4-year
extension by vote of 7-5:
YEA
NAY
Fuqua
Fountain
Mezvinksy
Wydler
Jordan
Brown
Drinan
Steelman
English (proxy)
Horton
Levitas
Brooks
PASS
Burton
STATES FORD LIBRARY
II.
Level of Funding
1. Defeated Horton motion to fund program at current
level with annual $150 million increment (Presi-
dent's proposal) by vote of 5-7:
YEA
NAY
Fountain
Fuqua
Wydler
Mezvinsky
Brown
Burton
Steelman (proxy)
Jordan
Horton
Drinan
Levitas
Brooks
NOT VOTING -- English
2. Defeated Horton motion to fund program at current
level with annual $150 million increment, plus an
unspecified "hold harmless" amount by a vote of
5-7:
YEA
NAY
Fountain
Fuqua
Wydler
Mezvinsky
Brown
Burton
Steelman (proxy)
Jordan
Horton
Drinan
Levitas
Brooks
NOT VOTING -- English
3. Adopted Drinan motion to freeze funding at current
level (no annual increment) with an unspecified
"hold harmless" amount by a vote of 7-5:
YEA
NAY
Fuqua
Fountain
Mezvinsky
Wydler
Jordan
Brown
Burton
Steelman (proxy)
Drinan
Horton
Levitas (proxy)
Brooks
NOT VOTING -- English
FORD & LIBRARY GRAND
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 10, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
GRS Mark-up - Possible
Subcommittee Actions
Based upon my most recent discussions with Members and staff,
the following appears to be the general direction which the
Democrats will seek to move as GRS mark-up begins tomorrow,
Thursday, March 11. The Subcommittee will continue mark-up
on Monday, March 15 at 2:00.
1.
Duration of Extension: 4 3/4 years (if authoriza-
zation only); some support for 1-1 3/4 years only.
(Administration Position --- 5 3/4 years.)
2.
Level of Funding: continue at present level, use
$150 million stairstep increment as "hold harmless"
pot to lessen possible formula change impact; add
some funds in required Budget Committee estimate
for a countercyclical program.
(Administration Position -- $6.5 billion for FY77;
$39.85 billion permanent appropriations for 5 3/4
years, including $150 million annual increase.)
3.
Method of Funding: authorization only, Appropria-
tions Committee jurisdiction with 1-2 years
advance funding; some support for combined
authorization/appropriations for 1-1 3/4 years
only.
(Administration Position -- combined authorization/
appropriations.)
FORD :- LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
4.
Formula Changes:
a) redefinition of eligible units of government
to drop many townships;
b) substitute poverty population for per capita
personal income factor;
c) raise 145% per capita ceiling to 175-300%,
reduce and/or re-order application of 20%
floor-50% limitation, establish "hold harmless"
provision (see #2 above)
(Administration Position -- No change, except raise
145% ceiling to 175% by 6% over 5 years.)
5.
Priority Expenditures: eliminate categories.
(Administration Position -- no change.)
6.
Non-discrimination: strengthen civil rights provi-
sions, probably along lines recommended by House
Judiciary Subcommittee, to remove discretionary
authority and require more forceful enforcement.
(Administration Position -- authorize Treasury to
withhold funds, require repayment and terminate
payments where civil rights violations are found.)
7.
Citizen Participation: adopt Administration proposal
plus additional provisions similar to CD block grant
program; perhaps require "advisory committees" and
improve existing reporting requirements.
(Administration Position --- require certification of
public access to decision-making on use of funds.)
8.
Reporting Requirements: revise reporting require-
ments to provide more useful information for
citizens, Congress and the Administration.
(Administration Position -- give Treasury discretion
to determine form and content of reports.)
FORD & BENALD LIBRAR
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 15, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Review of House Subcom-
mittee Actions on General
Revenue Sharing Renewal --
Monday, March 15, 1976
The House Government Operations Subcommittee met this after-
noon to continue mark-up of General Revenue Sharing renewal
legislation. Mayors and city officials from all States and
districts represented by Subcommittee Members were in
attendance.
The Subcommittee tentatively decided (7-6) to draft a General
Revenue Sharing renewal bill as authorization legislation
only. Although the question of advance appropriations was
discussed, the adopted motion is silent on this point. This
decision followed defeat of the President's proposal to con-
tinue the present combined authorization/appropriations
method of funding the program (6-7) and a compromise pro-
posal providing for a 1 3/4-year authorization/appropriation
with annual appropriations thereafter (4-9).
The Republican Members held firm for the President's pro-
posal throughout the mark-up session. A review of the votes
indicates that additional support might be obtained from
the Democratic side for the President's proposal in subse-
quent Subcommittee mark-up sessions or at the Full Committee
level. It is obvious from the two meetings that the two
Freshmen Subcommittee Democrats, English and Levitas, will
be swing votes on these and other issues. The only two
Democrats to vote consistently with the President were Sub-
committee Chairman Fountain and Don Fuqua.
The Subcommittee will continue its deliberations on Tuesday,
March 16, at 10:00 a.m. to consider the allocation formula.
larger delegation of mayors and other city officials is
anticipated.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
-2-
Attached is a complete record of all actions and roll call
votes taken by the Subcommittee today.
Attachment
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Method of Funding
1. Defeated Horton motion to continue present com-
bined authorization/appropriation method of funding
for duration of extension (President's proposal) by
vote of 6-7:
YEA
NAY
Fountain
Mezvinsky
Fuqua
Jordan
Wydler
Burton
Brown
Drinan
Steelman
English
Horton
Levitas
Brooks
2.
Defeated Levitas motion to provide combined
authorization/appropriation method of funding for
1 3/4 years with annual appropriations in subse-
quent years by a vote of 4-9:
YEA
NAY
Fountain
Mezvinsky
Fuqua
Jordan
English
Burton
Levitas
Drinan
Brooks
Wydler
Brown
Steelman
Horton
3.
Defeated Wydler motion to designate GRS as an
"entitlement" program in accordance with Congres-
sional Budget Act provisions, in effect providing
combined authorization/appropriations for duration
of extension by vote of 6-7:
YEA
NAY
Fountain
Mezvinsky
Fuqua
Jordan
Wydler
Burton
Brown (proxy)
Drinan
Steelman
English
Horton
Levitas
FORD & LIBRARY 570239
Brooks
4. Adopted Burton motion to provide for an authoriza-
tion only for duration of extension by vote of 7-6:
YEA
NAY
Mezvinsky
Fountain
Jordan
Fuqua
Burton
Wydler
Drinan
Brown (proxy)
English
Steelman
Levitas*
Horton
Brooks
*Note: passed on first round.
FORD & LIBRARY SERVIC
MAR 16 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
FROM
faul PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Review of House Subcom-
mittee Actions on General
Revenue Sharing Renewal --
Tuesday, March 16, 1976
The House Government Operations Subcommittee continued to
mark-up General Revenue Sharing renewal legislation today,
considering various allocation formula modifications.
The key action taken was defeat of a proposal to substitute
a "need" factor (number of individuals below poverty level)
for the current per capita personal income factor; and
thus, shift substantial funds to large urban areas and
drop one-third of the present recipients from the program.
This was a proposal included in the Fascell bill and
endorsed by those Congressmen and national organizations
seeking to modify the program. The decision came on a 10-1
vote in support of continuing to use the present data ele-
ments. This was a major endorsement of the President's
proposal.
In addition, the Subcommittee unanimously agreed to retain
the 1/3-2/3 State-local split distribution of funds.
Also discussed were changes in the definition of eligible
units of government. At issue is the inclusion of town-
ships. Although the Subcommittee defeated a motion to
leave the definition unchanged, they agreed to delay action
on this issue until the next session when more detailed
information will be available. Pending is a Drinan motion
to remove townships.
FORD LIBRARY is 038870
-2-
The Subcommittee will reconvene on Thursday morning,
March 18, to continue its deliberations. Additional formula
modifications will be considered at that time.
Attached is a complete record of all actions and roll call
votes taken by the Subcommittee today.
Attachment
FORD is LIBRAST 076830
Eligible Units of Government
1. Defeated Wydler motion to retain existing defini-
tion by a vote of 5-7:
YEA
NAY
Fountain
Mezvinsky
Wydler
Jordan
Brown
Burton
Steelman
Drinan
Horton
English
Levitas
Brooks
NOT VOTING -- Fuqua
2. Agreed by unanimous consent to Levitas motion to
delay vote on a Drinan motion to modify existing
definition and possibly exclude townships.
Formula Provisions
1. Adopted Jordan motion to retain 1/3-2/3 State-
local split by unanimous voice vote.
2. Adopted Wydler motion to continue the use of per
capita personal income instead of poverty data as
a major formula factor by a vote of 10-1:
YEA
NAY
Fountain
Burton
Mezvinsky
Jordan
English
Levitas (proxy)
Brooks (proxy)
Wydler
Brown (proxy)
Steelman (proxy)
Horton
PASS -- Drinan
NOT VOTING -- Fuqua
FORD & LIBRARY GIVEN
MAR 18 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 18, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORE
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Review of House Subcom-
mittee Actions on General
Revenue Sharing Renewal --
Thursday, March 18, 1976
The House Government Operations Subcommittee continued
to mark-up General Revenue Sharing renewal legislation
today.
As a first order of business, the Subcommittee resumed
consideration of possible changes in the definition of
eligible units of government. Pending was a Drinan
motion to continue to limit eligibility to States and
general purpose local governments, but re-define the
latter to mean local units which meet Census Bureau
criteria and also perform, or impose taxes to provide,
two or more municipal-type services. After consider-
able discussion, the Subcommittee approved this motion.
The new definition would become effective October 1,
1977, and, depending on the availability of data, could
drastically affect townships and smaller communities.
The Administration's position on this issue should
have prevailed. However, due to the unresponsiveness
of certain "departmental experts", particularly those
of Treasury's Office of Revenue Sharing, the issue
was greatly confused and resulted in a shift of three
Democratic votes in favor of Drinan's motion.
The Subcommittee also decided to retain the existing
145% per capita ceiling. The Administration had pro-
posed to gradually raise the 145% ceiling to 175% in
an effort to permit some hard-pressed urban jurisdic-
tions now constrained to receive more money. The
FORD i LIBRARY
-2-
Subcommittee's action was somewhat surprising since
many of the Democratic Members had previously indi-
cated a desire to raise the constraint beyond the
Administration request. It was obvious from the
debate today that the desire to avoid the expenditure
of additional funds on revenue sharing (i.e. the need
for a "hold harmless" provision) and a growing sensi-
tivity to the political impact of any formula changes
led to their decision to leave this formula element
unchanged.
The Subcommittee will reconvene on Tuesday morning,
March 23, 1976, to continue its deliberations. Addi-
tional formula modifications will be considered at
that time.
Attached is a complete record of all actions and roll
call votes taken by the Subcommittee today.
Attachment
3 R. FORD LIBRARY
Eligible Units of Government
Adopted Drinan motion to modify definition of
eligible units of government in order to make
certain townships and smaller communities
ineligible to receive funds by a vote of 8-5:
YEA
NAY
Fountain
English
Fuqua
Wydler
Mezvinsky
Brown (proxy)
Jordan
Steelman (proxy)
Burton (proxy)
Horton
Drinan
Levitas
Brooks (proxy)
Formula Provisions
Adopted Fuqua motion to retain 145% per capita
constraint by a vote of 7-5:
YEA
NAY
Fuqua
Fountain
Mezvinsky
Wydler
Jordan
Brown (proxy)
Burton (proxy)
Steelman (proxy)
English
Horton (proxy)
Levitas
Brooks (proxy)
PASS -- Drinan
FORD it LIBRARY
JackMarsh
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 23, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Review of House Subcom-
mittee Actions on General
Revenue Sharing Renewal --
Tuesday, March 23, 1976
The House Government Operations Subcommittee resumed con-
sideration of General Revenue Sharing renewal legislation
today.
The Subcommittee completed action on the remaining formula
issues, deciding by voice votes to retain major features
of the existing formula (20% per capita floor, 50% limita-
tion and $200 minimum entitlement provisions).
In a related decision, the Subcommittee rejected an
attempt to add "user charges", such as those for water,
sewage and sanitation services, to a local government's
tax effort calculations. This calculation is one factor
in determining the allocation each local government
receives and was the subject of lengthy debate. Although
the Subcommittee voted to retain the existing language,
additional amendments to revise this provision are antici-
pated.
The Subcommittee also decided to eliminate the priority
expenditure categories for which local governments may
now use shared revenues. Many Members believe that the
categories are meaningless in light of the "fungibility"
or displacement factor; others strongly supported elimi-
nation as being more consistent with the revenue sharing
concept. The President had rejected this option in con-
sidering his proposals for renewal legislation, and it is
likely that the Subcommittee will carefully re-examine
this action following consideration of proposals to
GENAL FORD LIBRARY
-2-
revise the nondiscrimination and citizen participation
requirements. The extent and nature of those decisions
could have far-reaching implications if the existing
categories are eliminated.
The Subcommittee is presently considering the matter of
prohibiting use of revenue sharing funds to meet the
matching requirements of other Federal programs, and will
be moving into the nondiscrimination, citizen participa-
tion and reporting requirement issues in subsequent ses-
sions.
The Subcommittee will meet again tomorrow morning at
10 a.m. to continue its deliberations. It is possible
that all actions will be completed this week on their
issue working paper, enabling the staff to draft a bill
reflecting those decisions for final Subcommittee con-
sideration and reporting prior to the April 15 recess
deadline.
Attached is a complete record of all actions and roll
call votes taken by the Subcommittee today.
Attachment
FORD & LIBRARY GENALD
I.
Formula Provisions
1.
Adopted Levitas motion to retain the 20%
per capita floor on minimum allocations
to local governments by voice vote.
2.
Adopted Wydler motion to retain the exist-
ing limitation providing that no allocation
to a local government can exceed 50% of its
adjusted taxes by voice vote.
3.
Adopted Mezvinsky motion to retain provi-
sion for a $200 minimum entitlement by
voice vote.
II.
Priority Expenditure Categories
Adopted Levitas motion to eliminate the priority
expenditure categories for revenue sharing funds
by local governments by a vote of 10-3:
YEA
NAY
Fuqua
Fountain
Mezvinsky
Burton
Jordan
English
Drinan
Levitas
Brooks
Wydler
Brown
Steelman (proxy)
Horton
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
Jack march
THE WHITE HOUSE
MAR 24 :376
WASHINGTON
March 24, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
Part
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Review of House Subcom-
mittee Actions on General
Revenue Sharing Renewal --
Wednesday, March 24, 1976
The House Government Operations Subcommittee met this
morning to continue mark-up of General Revenue Sharing
renewal legislation.
In actions taken today the Subcommitiee agreed to con-
tinue various operating provisions of the existing
program without modification:
1.
Retain prohibition on use of revenue
sharing funds to fulfill the local
matching requirement for Federal
categorical grant programs;
2.
Retain mainterance of effort require-
ment on State assistance to local units
of government; and
3.
Retain Davis-Bacon Act coverage for
construction projects funded with
shared revenues.
The Subcommittee also considered the required reporting
by recipient governments, adopting a modification of
the present provision which incorporates some of the
Administration's recommendations, specifically contain-
ing language giving Treasury flexibility in establish-
ing such requirements in the case of smaller
jurisdictions.
FORD LIBRARY s DERALD
-2-
The Subcommittee will not meet again until the after-
noon of Monday, March 29, 1976. At that time, the
Subcommittee will consider the two remaining issues:
proposals to modify the nondiscrimination and citizen
participation provisions.
An effort is being made to reach a compromise on the
civil rights issue. This issue was the subject of
some private discussions I initiated this morning with
Wydler, Brown, Fountain, Jordan, Levitas and Dick
Albrecht of Treasury. As a result of these discus-
sions, consideration of the issue was delayed until
Monday. Action today may have resulted in the adop-
tion of unacceptable provisions. I believe that the
private discussions which will take place between
now and Monday may fashion an approach which will be
acceptable to the Administration and a majority of the
Subcommittee.
Attached is a complete record of all actions and roll
call votes taken by the Subcommittee today.
Attachment
FORD & LIBRARY 93
I.
Matching Provisions
Adopted Horton motion to retain prohibition on use of
funds to meet matching requirements for Federal grant
programs by voice vote.
II.
Maintenance of Effort
Adopted Mezvinsky motion to retain present maintenance
of effort provision requiring State to maintain the
aggregate level of assistance it provided local govern-
ments during calendar year 1976 by voice vote.
III.
Davis-Bacon Act
Adopted Wydler motion to retain present Davis-Bacon
Act applicability by voice vote.
IV.
Reporting Requirements
Adopted Wydler motion to expand content of reports with
respect to the relationship of revenue sharing funds to
the budget of a recipient government and grant Treasury
discretion to draft more flexible regulations by voice
vote.
FORD is LIBRARY SALD
MAR 30 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 29, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Review of House Subcom-
mittee Actions on General
Revenue Sharing Renewal --
Monday, March 29, 1976
The House Government Operations Subcommittee continued con-
sideration of General Revenue Sharing renewal legislation
this afternoon. The only issue considered was the scope of
citizen participation provisions.
The Subcommittee adopted a concept which is somewhat broader
than that proposed by the Administration; however, it incor-
porates a number of the President's recommended changes in
the existing program. Under the Subcommittee concept, more
detailed public information would be made available and
related to the revised reporting requirements. Treasury
and the public interest groups believe the approach is con-
sistent with existing regulations and should not be unduly
burdensome.
The Subcommittee had earlier rejected a proposal to require
the establishment of local government budget process stan-
dards and the creation of citizen advisory committees to
govern the decision-making on the use of revenue sharing
funds.
The Subcommittee will resume its deliberations on Tuesday
morning, March 30. Discussion of the nondiscrimination
provisions is the only remaining substantive item on the
agenda.
Attached is a complete record of all actions and roll call
votes taken by the Subcommittee today.
Attachment
FORD LIBRARY + QERALD
Citizen Participation
1.
Defeated Drinan motion to establish local govern-
mental budget process standards and create
"citizen advisory committees" with respect to uses
of revenue sharing funds by a vote of 4-8:
YEA
NAY
Mezvinsky (proxy)
Fountain
Jordan
Fuqua
Burton
English
Drinan
Levitas
Wydler
Brown (proxy)
Steelman (proxy)
Horton
NOT VOTING -- Brooks
2.
Adopted Levitas motion to broaden existing require-
ments in order to provide information and access
regarding revenue sharing funding decisions by a
vote of 10-3:
YEA
NAY
Fountain
Burton
Fuqua
Drinan
Mezvinsky (proxy)
English
Jordan
Levitas
Brooks
Wydler (proxy)
Brown (proxy)
Steelman (proxy)
Horton
FORD LIBRARY
MAR 31 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 30, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Review of House Subcom-
mittee Actions on General
Revenue Sharing Renewal --
Tuesday, March 30, 1976
The House Government Operations Subcommittee met this
morning to continue consideration of General Revenue
Sharing renewal legislation. The only action taken
was adoption, by voice vote, of a Wydler-Mezvinsky pro-
posal to revise the program's auditing and accounting
provisions. As adopted, the present provisions
governing fiscal accounting and audit procedures would
be retained; however, the Secretary of the Treasury
would be required to promulgate regulations to insure
an independent audit of a recipient government's finan-
cial accounts where revenue sharing funds are involved
and provide assurances for the public disclosure of
such information.
The Subcommittee once again deferred action on the non-
discrimination provision in an effort to give Members
more time to work out a satisfactory compromise.
Fountain, Jordan, Wydler, Horton and Brown are meeting
this afternoon in a final attempt to secure an agree-
ment. This effort was undertaken in order to avoid a
serious civil rights fight that could hamper the
progress of this legislation in committee and on the
floor.
The Subcommittee will meet again on Wednesday morning,
March 31, 1976.
FORD is LIBRARY QERALD
ms. marsh
APR 1 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 31, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Review of House Subcom-
mittee Actions on General
Revenue Sharing Renewal ---
Wednesday, March 31, 1976
The House Government Operations Subcommittee continued its
mark-up of legislation to extend the General Revenue Shar-
ing program, adopting a revised approach to prohibit the
discriminatory use of revenue sharing funds.
The Subcommittee adopted a Jordan proposal which reflected
a concensus agreement supported by most Democrats and all
Republicans on the Subcommittee. It was strongly opposed
by Drinan.
In concept, the Jordan proposal extends the prohibition
against discrimination to all activities of a recipient
jurisdiction, except where a recipient government can pro-
vide "clear and convincing evidence" that the program or
activity in question was not funded with revenue sharing
funds, and require the suspension of revenue sharing pay-
ments where compliance is not secured.
The Administration did not take a position on this specific
approach and will withhold comment until actual legislative
language is drafted. This matter will require review by
representatives from Treasury, Justice and the White House.
A tentative review indicated that the proposal was consis-
tent with the Administration's objectives but went beyond
the proposed legislative recommendations.
The Republican Members worked with Jordan to reach a concen-
sus in order to avoid a major civil rights dispute. The
fact that Jordan introduced this amendment and argued
against Drinan and other proponents of stronger language
FORD i LIBRARY 033470
-2-
was an important development in the mark-up of this legis-
lation.
The Subcommittee is scheduled to meet again tomorrow morning
to resolve miscellaneous issues and should conclude this
first phase of its mark-up process.
Attached is a complete record of all actions and roll call
votes taken by the Subcommittee today.
Attachment
FORD :- LIBRARY CIVE
Civil Rights
1.
Adopted Jordan motion to clarify and
strengthen the present nondiscrimination
provision by voice vote.
2.
Rejected Brooks motion to amend the Jordan
proposal significantly broaden the nature
and scope of the program's nondiscrimina-
tion provision by a vote of 5-8:
YEA
NAY
Mezvinsky
Fountain
Jordan*
Fuqua
Burton
English
Drinan
Levitas
Brooks
Wydler
Brown
Steelman (proxy)
Horton
* (Jordan was prepared to pass if necessary
to defeat this amendment. )
FORD & LIBRARY 078838 &
mr. march
APR 2 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
FROM
PAUL JIM CANNON MYER Paul ton
SUBJECT:
Review of House Subcom-
mittee Actions on General
Revenue Sharing Renewal --
Thursday, April 1, 1976
The House Government Operations Subcommittee met this morn-
ing, ending the first phase of its General Revenue Sharing
renewal legislation mark-up.
Staff has been directed to draft a clean bill reflecting the
Subcommittee's tentative substantive decisions on various
issues. It is anticipated that the Subcommittee will resume
formal mark-up of the actual bill next Wednesday, April 7,
1976, and complete action just prior to the scheduled recess.
In actions taken today, the Subcommittee rejected motions to
prohibit recipient governments from using their revenue shar-
ing funds to lobby and to require a reduction in General
Revenue Sharing funding equal to any prospective Congressional
tax reduction. This latter motion was the subject of con-
siderable partisan debate.
Also discussed was the intention of some Members to re-offer
a modified "need" distribution formula amendment next week.
The amendment will be a form of countercyclical-type
assistance program with a cost of roughly $400,000,000.
Attached is a complete record of all actions and roll call
votes taken by the Subcommittee today.
Attachment
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
1.
Rejected Brooks motion to prohibit recipient
governments from using revenue sharing funds
for lobbying purposes by a vote of 6-7:
Yea
Nay
Mezvinsky
Fountain
Burton
Fuqua
Jordan
Levitas
Drinan (proxy)
Wydler
English
Brown
Brooks
Steelman (proxy)
Horton
2.
Rejected English motion to require reduction
in General Revenue Sharing funding level to
reflect any Federal tax reduction by a vote of
5-7:
Yea
Nay
Jordan
Fountain
Burton
Fuqua
Drinan
Mezvinsky
English
Wydler
Brooks
Brown
Steelman (proxy)
Horton
PASSING -- Levitas
FORD & LIBRARY exprag arex
APR 8 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 8, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
FROM
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
eview of House Subcom-
mittee Actions on General
Revenue Sharing Renewal --
Thursday, April 8, 1976
The House Government Operations Subcommittee resumed
consideration of legislation to extend the General
Revenue Sharing program this morning. Pending before
the Subcommittee was a draft bill reflecting their
earlier "conceptual" decisions.
In the only action taken today, the Subcommittee
reversed its earlier decision to subject General Reve-
nue Sharing to the annual appropriations process and
voted to redesign General Revenue Sharing as a 3 3/4-
year entitlement program. No action was taken to
increase the level of funding.
While there is little difference between the entitle-
ment approach and the combined authorization-
appropriation method of funding proposed by the
President, the Democratic Members advocating this
amendment stressed that it was a satisfactory
response to charges that the current funding provision
by-passed the traditional Congressional appropriations
process and circumvented newly-established Budget Act
procedures designed to control long-term spending
actions. Although the Republican Members voted for
this amendment, they established an excellent record
for future reconsideration of the President's proposal
in the full committee.
Prior to the adoption of this entitlement amendment,
the Subcommittee rejected, on a straight party roll
call vote, the President's proposal, and a Drinan
amendment by voice vote.
FORD & LIBRARY 078870
-2-
The Subcommittee will not meet again until Monday
afternoon, April 12, 1976. Brooks urged the Subcom-
mittee to complete its mark-up prior to the Easter
Recess in order to allow time for all Committee
Members to study the bill and proceed to early con-
sideration after the recess. If the Subcommittee
does not reconsider today's action or get delayed
over the controversial civil rights issue, it should
be possible for them to report a bill by April 14.
Attached is a complete secord of all actions and
roll call votes taken by the Subcommittee today.
Attachment
FORD & LIBRARY
1.
Adopted Levitas amendment making General Revenue Shar-
ing a 3 3/4-year entitlement program by a vote of 7-6:
YEA
NAY
Fountain
Mezvinsky
Fuqua
Jordan
Levitas
Burton
Wydler
Drinan
Brown (proxy)
English
Steelman (proxy)
Brooks
Horton
2.
Rejected Wydler amendment to adopt 5 3/4-year program
with combined authorization-appropriation funding pro-
vision (President's proposal) by a vote of 9-4:
YEA
NAY
Wydler
Fountain
Brown (proxy)
Fuqua
Steelman (proxy)
Mezvinsky
Horton (proxy)
Jordan
Burton
Drinan
English
Levitas (proxy)
Brooks
3.
Rejected Drinan amendment providing that GRS be an
entitlement program for 1 3/4 years with annual appro-
priations thereafter by voice vote.
FORD + LIBRARY DERALD
APR 16 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 15, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF
JIM CANNON
FROM:
PAUL MYER
SUBJECT:
Review of House Subcommittee
Actions on General Revenue
Sharing Renewal
On Wednesday, April 14, 1976, the House Government
Operations Subcommittee completed markup of legislation
to extend and revise the General Revenue Sharing program.
A clean bill will be introduced and reported to the full
Committee after the recess.
During the final days of the markup, the Subcommittee
reversed a number of earlier tentative decisions, taking
actions which improved the bill. While it does not en-
dorse the President's proposal, it is generally consistent
with its basic principle and represents a good markup
vehicle in the full Committee for purposes of strengthen-
ing the bill further.
In summary, the Subcommittee bill would:
* extend the program's authorization for 3 3/4
years;
* establish entitlement financing for the program,
providing funds for the total authorization period;
* freeze funding at its present level $6.6 billion)
specifically rejecting any annual increase;
*
retain the present distribution formula);
* delete present priority expenditure categories
and matching prohibition;
FORD i LIBRARY DERALD
- 2 -
*
strengthen scope and enforcement of non-
discrimination provisions, however, providing
that all administrative remedies be exhausted
prior to court action; and
*
expand present, reporting, auditing and citizen
participation requirements.
I have asked Treasury to prepare a detailed analysis of
the Subcommittee bill.
Full Committee markup should begin shortly after the
recess. Jack Brooks and the Subcommittee's liberal
Democrats are not happy with the final bill. Brooks
will clearly revisit all the major issues in Committee
(i.e., method of funding and civil rights) and liberals
may seek to revise the distribution formula in some way.
It is anticipated that the Committee will report a bill
prior to the May 15 deadline.
FORD & LIBRARY
APR 28 1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
SCHEDULE PROPOSAL
DATE: April 28, 1976
FROM: Jim Cannon
VIA: Bill Nicho son
MEETING:
Staff briefing on General Revenue
Sharing legislative situation.
DATE:
Saturday, May 1, 1976 or Tuesday,
May 4, 1976
PURPOSE:
To brief the President on status of
General Revenue Sharing renewal
legislation.
FORMAT:
Oval Office
Participants: See Tab A
Time: 20 minutes
CABINET
PARTICIPATION:
None
SPEECH
MATERIAL:
Briefing paper to be submitted.
PRESS COVERAGE:
None
STAFF:
Paul J. Myer
RECOMMEND:
Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Ed Schmults
FORD is LIBRARY SERALD
OPPOSED:
None
PREVIOUS
PARTICIPATION:
The President last discussed this
matter with staff on March 2, 1976.
BACKGROUND:
On April 25, 1976, the President asked
Congress to continue the General Reve-
nue Sharing program. The House Govern-
ment Operations Subcommittee is finally
scheduled to begin consideration of a
renewal bill recently reported by the
Fountain Subcommittee.
PARTICIPANTS
The Vice President
Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Jim Lynn
Paul O'Neil
Jim Cannon
Ed Schmults
Paul Myer
FORD & LIBRARY G7V878
[Rev, sharing mtg]
APR 28 1976
Possible
THE WHITE HOUSE
Sat/Tues
WASHINGTON
Full Commit
April 28, 1976
next week
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
langth
President's Proposal: 5 3/4 years; total fund-
ing of $39.5 billion, including $150 million annual
level
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: 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
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
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.
FORD LIBRAS
-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).
FORD
LIBRARY
- -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
FORD & LIBRARY STREET
#1
FORD i LIBRARY DERALD
BASIC PROVISIONS
CURRENT LAW
PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL
SUBCOMMITTEE DRAFT BILL
(P. L. 92-512)
H. R. 6558
LIBRARY
Funding level
$30.2 billion to be distributed
$39.5 billion to dis-
$24.9 billion to be distributed Jan. 1, 1977
Jan. 1, 1972 to Dec. 31, 1976.
tributed Jan. 1, 1977
to Sept. 30, 1980.
FORD
to Sept. 30, 1982.
Funding
5 year trust fund.
5 3/4 year trust fund.
3 3/4 year entitlement. (Note: an entitlement
073835
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
LIBRARY
be explained.
FORD
Budget documents and Use Reports must be available
at principal government office and libraries.
GERALD
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
LIBRARY
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,
FORD
of Effort
as of Fiscal '72.
it
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
OFFICE
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."
Z #
&
FORD
CERALD
POROTIBRARY
LIBRARY
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.
LIBRARY BERALD ? FORD
-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
FORD is LIBRARY
-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
FORD : LIBRARY
-4-
recipients, the annual process is pro forma and the
results would be nearly identical to the funding
provisions of the current Act and the President's
renewal bill.
Attached per your request is a copy of the entitle-
ment financing amendment adopted by the Subcommittee
on Thursday, April 8. As I noted in our phone con-
versation, it does not address the level of funding
or duration of the program issues. These matters
are still open and will, be considered in full com-
mittee.
Attachment
CC: Jim Cannon
Max Friedersdorf
Art Quern
FORD : OTHER LIBRARY
orts Drin enset al associa founds
ed
bluow
adiseex
to
enolalvorg
.ffid Iswanex
add 10 e et desupos sway reg
hamoodu? Hatch and vd Bedgebs /Them - looks good Snow
esed? пазрозд orts to moldsmub TO
1107 ni bas nogo
Day Can - looks bad
For aid - veto quick
Comes mic IDD
xsM
day
FEC- -
TRANSIS DEBUTO GNOF
Marsh
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.
FORD & LIBRARY EARAD
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.
GSRALO FORD LIBRARY
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
FORD
to control long-term spending actions.
LIBRARY
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.
FORDO & GERALD LIBRARY
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
-
103
--
157
TOTAL, 94th
--
145
--
287
--
432*
Congress
* 2 vacancies, Speaker not voting.
GERALD
?
FORD
LIBRARY
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.)
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
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
FORD & GENALD LIBRARY