Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "1563141",
    "label": "Revenue Sharing Renewal Legislation (1)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563141"
}

{
    "id": "1563141",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563141",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Revenue Sharing Renewal Legislation (1)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563141",
    "collections": [
        "John O. Marsh Files (Ford Administration)",
        "John Marsh's General Subject Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Legislation",
        "Revenue sharing"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/41/5631/1563141/content/library/document/0067/1563141.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/41/5631/1563141/content/library/document/0067/1563141.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/41/5631/1563141/content/library/document/0067/1563141.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/1563141",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/41/5631/1563141/content/library/document/0067/1563141.pdf",
    "mediaId": "b8f4d4017360d524",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 29, folder \"Revenue Sharing Renewal\nLegislation (1)\" of the John Marsh 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 Gerald R. Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain.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 29 of The John Marsh Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\n[1976]\nPROJECTED TIMETABLE AND PROCEDURES FOR CONGRESSIONAL LIBRARY\nACTION ON GENERAL REVENUE SHARING RENEWAL LEGISLATION\nGERALD\nNOVEMBER\nJANUARY\nFEBRUARY\nMARCH\nAPRIL\nMAY\nJUNE\nJULY\nAUGUST\nSEPTEMBER\nOCTOBER\n-DECEMBER\n(15-23 Recess)\n(5-16 Recess)\n(II-20 Recess)\n15th\n15th\n13th\n15th\n25th\n1st\n31st\nHOUSE GOVERNMENT\nSUBCOMMITTEE\nFULL COMMITTEE MARK UP\nOPERATIONS\nMARK-UP\nCOMMITTEE\nCOMMITTEE\nCONSIDERATION\nOF RULE2\nHOUSE RULES\nFLOOR CONS\nIDERATION\nCOMMITTEE\nLINAL\nCOMMITTEE VIEWS AND ESTIMATES ON 1977 FUNDING LEVEL DUE TO BUDGET COMMITTEES\nREPORT AND\nMARK\nCONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION\nACTION COMPLETED ON 1ST BUDGET RESOLUTION FESOL AND DEADLINE for REPORDING AUTHORIZATION Bills\nPREPARATION AND\nADOPTION OF\nHOUSE BUDGET\nCOMMITTEE HEARINGS\nUP\nOF 1st BUDGET RESOLUTION\n2ND BUDGET RESOLUTION\nCOMMITTEE\nHOUSE\nAPPROPRIATIONS\nCOMMITTE\nMARK UP AND FLOOR\nCONSIDERATION OF\nAPPROPRIATIONS BILL3\nCOMMITTEE\nACTION BILLS\nCOMPLETED ON ALL ALL BUDGET AND S\nACTION COMPLETED ON 2ND PUDGE RESOLUTION:\nACTION RESOLUTION\nSNOTE\nATHIK\nSENATE FINANCE\n\"WILL NOT CONSIDER BILL UNTIL HOUSE ACTS, MUST\nFULL COMM TTEE MARK UP AND FLOOR CONSIDERATION\nCOMMITTEE\nOBTAIN WAIVER TO CONSIDER BILL AFTER MAY 15.\nREPORT AND CONGRESSIONAL\nPREPARATION AND\nMARK\nADOPTION OF FIRST\nADOPTION OF 2ND\nSENATE BUDGET\nCOMMITTEE HEARINGS\nUP\nBUDGET RESOLUTION\nBUDGET RESOLUTION\nCOMMITTEE\nSENATE\nAPPROPRIATIONS\nCOMMITTEE MARK UP AND FLOOR CONSIDERATION OF\nAPPROPRIATIONS BILL3\nCOMMITTEE\n1The General Revenue Sharing program, authorized by the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act.\n2No new budget authority or spending bills may be considered prior to adoption of May 15th\n3 Appropriations Committee action necessary if existing GRS authorization/appropriations\nexpires on December 31. 1976 As a combined authorization/appropriations measure, existing\n1st Budget Resolution; waiver procudure necessary for either earlier consideration and the\nprovision IS modified by renewal bill.\nfunds are not subject to the Congressional Budget Control Act. However, any renewal\nappropriation of funds by an authorization committee.\nlegislation is subject to the various constraints of the Budget Act.\n1. Ford's background\n2- Budget V. W+M/App.\nMAR 3 1976\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 3, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nPAUL JACK MYER MARSH\nFROM\nSUBJECT:\nGeneral Revenue Sharing\nLegislative Situation\nAttached for your information are some current docu-\nments which relate to our discussion with the\nPresident last night.\nYou may know that I received a phone call from Cong.\nFountain's office last night informing me that the\nDemocratic Subcommittee Members will be holding at\nleast one more private caucus. He anticipates the\nbeginning of Subcommittee mark-up next week, but\ncould not give me a firm commitment.\nAttachments\nGERALD R. LIBRARY FORD\nMarch 2, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nGRS -- Potential Motion\nto Discharge Government\nOperations Committee\nfrom Consideration\nFollowing our brief discussion this morning on the\nPresident's expression of interest in House action\nto discharge the Government Operations Committee\nfrom consideration of General Revenue Sharing bill,\nJim Cannon discussed this with me in even greater\ndepth.\nThis matter will be the subject of discussion with\nthe President today at 5:00 p.m., and I believe that\nthis attempt should be given the most careful con-\nsideration with respect to timing, support of the\nRepublican Leadership, the potential to attract\nDemocratic support, and our ability to win. The\nuse of the discharge motion is really the ultimate\nweapon and should only be used if we believe there\nwill be no other opportunity to ensure House con-\nsideration of the legislation. At the present time,\nI am awaiting word from L. II. Fountain with respect\nto completion of private deliberations among his\nSubcommittee Democratic colleagues and announcement\nof a firm mark-up schedule.\nFor Jim's background information on the procedures\ngoverning a discharge motion, I have sent him the\nattached memorandum.\nAttachment\nGERALE FORD LIBRART\nMarch 2, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nHouse Rules Governing\nthe Discharge of Com-\nmittees\nProcedures to discharge a House committee from the\nconsideration of a public bill or resolution are\ngoverned by Clause 4, Rule XXVII, of the Rules of\nthe House of Representatives.\nIn outline form, the following steps are involved:\n1.\nThe filing of a motion to discharge.\n2.\nAccumulation of 218 signatures.\n3.\nA vote to approve the motion to discharge.\n4.\nA vote to consider the bill should a motion\nto discharge be successful.\n5.\nConsideration of the bill under the general\nrules of the House.\nAttached for your information is a more detailed\nexplanation of the discharge procedures.\nAs you know, a discharge motion is presently pending\nin the House. If a decision were made to take this\napproach, the existing motion would become the\nvehicle for this effort.\nAttachment\nFORD LIBRARY\nRULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RELATING TO\nMOTIONS TO DISCHARGE A COMMITTEE\n(Clause 4, Rule XXVII)\nAny Member may file a motion to discharge a committee\nfrom the consideration of a public bill or resolution which\nhas been pending in a committee for at least thirty days.\nOnly one such motion may be presented for each bill or reso-\nlution.\nThis motion shall be placed in the custody of the\nClerk of the House and made available for Members to sign.\n(A Member may also remove his name.) When a majority of\nthe total Membership of the House shall have signed the\nmotion (218 Members), it is then placed on the House Cal-\nendar of Motions to Discharge Committees. No subsequent\naction may be taken for at least seven legislative days.\nOn the second and fourth Mondays of each month, any\nMember who signed the discharge motion may be recognized\nfor the purpose of calling up the motion and the House\nshall proceed to its consideration without any intervening\nmotions. Following 20 minutes of debate, the House pro-\nceeds to an immediate vote on the motion to discharge.\nIf the motion prevails, it shall then be in order for\nany Member who signed the motion to move that the House\nproceed to the immediate consideration of such bill or\nresolution. This motion is of high privilege and is not\ndebatable. If this motion is decided in the affirmative,\nthe bill shall be immediately considered under the general\nrules of the House. If the House should vote against\nimmediate consideration, the bill is then referred to its\nproper calendar and be entitled to the same rights and\nprivileges that it would have had if the committee to which\nit was referred had duly reported it to the House for con-\nsideration.\nThis rule would not apply to a bill that has been\nreported by a committee during the interval between the\nplacing of the motion to discharge on the calendar and\nthe day when such motion is called up for action in the\nHouse.\nFORD & LIBRARY 07V835\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nINFORMATION\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 28, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJAMES M. CANNON\nFROM:\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nGeneral Revenue Sharing--House\nLegislative Status\nOn Thursday, February 26, Democratic members of the\nHouse Subcommittee held a private caucus to discuss\nlegislation to renew the General Revenue Sharing\nprogram. Committee Chairman Brooks also attended and\nplayed an active role in the meeting. The purpose of\nthis session was to determine the interest and concerns\nof the majority and develop a course of action. It is\ntheir intention to seek a consensus on the content of a\nrenewal bill. No date for formal, public mark-up\nmeetings has been scheduled, and no such announcement is\nanticipated until the Democrats have concluded their\nprivate deliberations. Officially, Subcommittee\nChairman Fountain noted that \"substantial progress\" is\nbeing made and that the Democrats will meet again on\nMonday, March 2, to continue their discussion.\nBased on available information about the meeting, the\nfollowing facts are known:\n1.\nThe Democrats are committed to reporting a bill by\nMay 15; however, they want it to be a \"Congressional\"\nbill as opposed to the President's proposal.\n2.\nChairman Brooks wants the Subcommittee to draft a\nbill which recognizes his personal views and would\nenjoy his support.\n3. The major issues they are seeking to resolve reflect\nopposition to key points in the President's proposal:\nlength of program authorization; amount of funds to\nbe made available and the manner in which such\nappropriations are made; modification of the existing\nformula in order to allocate more funds to jurisdictions\nof greater \"need\"; possible inclusion of a \"countercyclical\naid\" provision; and stronger civil rights enforcement\nand citizen participation requirements.\nGERALD FORD LIBRADE\n-2-\nPersonal discussions with all members prior to and\nafter this meeting, as well as the observations of\nothers, indicate that the Democrats are under great\npressure to move, but are uncertain as to how they\ncan accommodate the competing and diversified demands\nnow associated with this issue. According to one\nsource, the Democrats are clearly \"frightened\" by the\nprospects confronting them. Strong Committee leadership\nis lacking, and staff support is weak. Few of these\nDemocrats have any experience in dealing with legislation\ninvolving such political or substantial issues.\nImportantly, there is little confidence that whatever\nthey do would be acceptable to a majority of their\ncolleagues in the House.\nI will have an additional report for you following the\nDemocrats' Monday caucus.\nBERALD FORD LIBRARY\nMAR 12 1976\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFOR JACK MARSH\nFYI\nFORD LIBRARY is GERALD\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTO:\nMarch 11, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcom-\nmittee Actions on General\nRevenue Sharing Renewal --\nThursday, March 11, 1976\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee met this morn-\ning to begin mark-up of General Revenue Sharing renewal\nlegislation. Only one Democratic Member was absent (Glenn\nEnglish) and both Jack Brooks and Frank Horton, as ex\nofficio members, actively participated in the session.\nThe Subcommittee tentatively decided two major issues:\n(1) to extend the program's authorization for a 3 3/4-year\nperiod and (2) to \"freeze\" the level of funding at the\ncurrent amount with no annual increment; however, providing\nan unspecified authorization of additional funds in order\nto \"hold harmless\" any recipient governments who would lose\nfunds as a result of prospective formula changes.\nThe Subcommittee is now working off an \"issues paper\", not\nan actual bill. Under this procedure, these and all subse-\nquent decisions will be reviewed when the Members are pro-\nvided with a staff draft of a clean bill reflecting the\nSubcommittee's actions on specific issues. The Subcommittee\nwill meet again on Monday, March 15, at 2:00 p.m. and will\nbe moving into various proposals to change the allocation\nformula.\nThe following is a more detailed analysis of the Subcom-\nmittees actions:\n1.\nDuration of Extension: The Subcommittee voted to\nextend the program's authorization for an additional\n3 3/4 years (January 1, 1977-September 30, 1980).\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n-2-\nThis vote followed the defeat of an earlier motion to\nextend the program for only 1 3/4 years.\nEssentially the Subcommittee felt that the duration\nof extension was an arbitrary decision and that the\nperiod adopted was an acceptable compromise. However,\na number of Democrats clearly desire the shorter\nperiod on the basis that the next President would be\nable to affect any future decision on the desirability\nand nature of the program during his term. The Presi-\ndent has proposed a 5 3/4-year extension, reflecting\na balance between a permanent program and the need to\nreview all Federal programs.\n2.\nLevel of Funding: The Subcommittee voted to authorize\nfunding the program at the current level ($6.35 billion)\nwith no annual increase, providing that a separate\nunspecified amount would be authorized to \"hold harmless\"\nany recipient jurisdiction from a reduction in the first\nyear due to anticipated allocation formula changes. In\neffect, this \"freeze\" means a no-growth, phased-down\nprogram. Compared to the President's proposal to con-\ntinue the current funding level with an annual $150 mil-\nlion increase, all recipient jurisdictions will lose\nfunds, including those which might gain slightly due to\nany changes in the allocation formula.\nThis decision reflects the clear desire of the majority\nto allocate anticipated domestic appropriation increases\nin other programs, such as existing categorical grants\nand a countercyclical aid program. This latter program\nwas briefly discussed and will be reviewed in greater\ndepth next week when formula issues are considered.\nAttached is a complete record of all actions and roll\ncall votes taken by the Subcommittee.\nAttachment\nFORD & LIBRARY\nI.\nDuration of Extension\n1. Motion by Brown to extend program authorization\nfor 5 3/4 years (President's proposal).\nDefeated Jordan amendment for 1 3/4-year exten-\nsion by vote of 5-9:\nYEA\nNAY\nMezvinsky\nFountain\nJordan\nFuqua\nBurton\nEnglish (proxy)\nDrinan\nLevitas\nBrooks\nWydler\nBrown\nSteelman\nHorton\nAdopted Drinan amendment for 3 3/4-year exten-\nsion by vote of 7-6:\nYEA\nNAY\nMezvinksy\nFountain\nJordan\nFuqua\nBurton\nWydler\nDrinan\nBrown\nEnglish (proxy)\nSteelman\n)\nLevitas\nHorton\nBrooks\n2. Adopted amended Brown motion for 3 3/4-year\nextension by vote of 7-5:\nYEA\nNAY\nFuqua\nFountain\nMezvinksy\nWydler\nJordan\nBrown\nDrinan\nSteelman\nEnglish (proxy)\nHorton\nLevitas\nBrooks\nPASS\nBurton\nSTATES FORD LIBRARY\nII.\nLevel of Funding\n1. Defeated Horton motion to fund program at current\nlevel with annual $150 million increment (Presi-\ndent's proposal) by vote of 5-7:\nYEA\nNAY\nFountain\nFuqua\nWydler\nMezvinsky\nBrown\nBurton\nSteelman (proxy)\nJordan\nHorton\nDrinan\nLevitas\nBrooks\nNOT VOTING -- English\n2. Defeated Horton motion to fund program at current\nlevel with annual $150 million increment, plus an\nunspecified \"hold harmless\" amount by a vote of\n5-7:\nYEA\nNAY\nFountain\nFuqua\nWydler\nMezvinsky\nBrown\nBurton\nSteelman (proxy)\nJordan\nHorton\nDrinan\nLevitas\nBrooks\nNOT VOTING -- English\n3. Adopted Drinan motion to freeze funding at current\nlevel (no annual increment) with an unspecified\n\"hold harmless\" amount by a vote of 7-5:\nYEA\nNAY\nFuqua\nFountain\nMezvinsky\nWydler\nJordan\nBrown\nBurton\nSteelman (proxy)\nDrinan\nHorton\nLevitas (proxy)\nBrooks\nNOT VOTING -- English\nFORD & LIBRARY GRAND\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 10, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nGRS Mark-up - Possible\nSubcommittee Actions\nBased upon my most recent discussions with Members and staff,\nthe following appears to be the general direction which the\nDemocrats will seek to move as GRS mark-up begins tomorrow,\nThursday, March 11. The Subcommittee will continue mark-up\non Monday, March 15 at 2:00.\n1.\nDuration of Extension: 4 3/4 years (if authoriza-\nzation only); some support for 1-1 3/4 years only.\n(Administration Position --- 5 3/4 years.)\n2.\nLevel of Funding: continue at present level, use\n$150 million stairstep increment as \"hold harmless\"\npot to lessen possible formula change impact; add\nsome funds in required Budget Committee estimate\nfor a countercyclical program.\n(Administration Position -- $6.5 billion for FY77;\n$39.85 billion permanent appropriations for 5 3/4\nyears, including $150 million annual increase.)\n3.\nMethod of Funding: authorization only, Appropria-\ntions Committee jurisdiction with 1-2 years\nadvance funding; some support for combined\nauthorization/appropriations for 1-1 3/4 years\nonly.\n(Administration Position -- combined authorization/\nappropriations.)\nFORD :- LIBRARY GERALD\n-2-\n4.\nFormula Changes:\na) redefinition of eligible units of government\nto drop many townships;\nb) substitute poverty population for per capita\npersonal income factor;\nc) raise 145% per capita ceiling to 175-300%,\nreduce and/or re-order application of 20%\nfloor-50% limitation, establish \"hold harmless\"\nprovision (see #2 above)\n(Administration Position -- No change, except raise\n145% ceiling to 175% by 6% over 5 years.)\n5.\nPriority Expenditures: eliminate categories.\n(Administration Position -- no change.)\n6.\nNon-discrimination: strengthen civil rights provi-\nsions, probably along lines recommended by House\nJudiciary Subcommittee, to remove discretionary\nauthority and require more forceful enforcement.\n(Administration Position -- authorize Treasury to\nwithhold funds, require repayment and terminate\npayments where civil rights violations are found.)\n7.\nCitizen Participation: adopt Administration proposal\nplus additional provisions similar to CD block grant\nprogram; perhaps require \"advisory committees\" and\nimprove existing reporting requirements.\n(Administration Position --- require certification of\npublic access to decision-making on use of funds.)\n8.\nReporting Requirements: revise reporting require-\nments to provide more useful information for\ncitizens, Congress and the Administration.\n(Administration Position -- give Treasury discretion\nto determine form and content of reports.)\nFORD & BENALD LIBRAR\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 15, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcom-\nmittee Actions on General\nRevenue Sharing Renewal --\nMonday, March 15, 1976\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee met this after-\nnoon to continue mark-up of General Revenue Sharing renewal\nlegislation. Mayors and city officials from all States and\ndistricts represented by Subcommittee Members were in\nattendance.\nThe Subcommittee tentatively decided (7-6) to draft a General\nRevenue Sharing renewal bill as authorization legislation\nonly. Although the question of advance appropriations was\ndiscussed, the adopted motion is silent on this point. This\ndecision followed defeat of the President's proposal to con-\ntinue the present combined authorization/appropriations\nmethod of funding the program (6-7) and a compromise pro-\nposal providing for a 1 3/4-year authorization/appropriation\nwith annual appropriations thereafter (4-9).\nThe Republican Members held firm for the President's pro-\nposal throughout the mark-up session. A review of the votes\nindicates that additional support might be obtained from\nthe Democratic side for the President's proposal in subse-\nquent Subcommittee mark-up sessions or at the Full Committee\nlevel. It is obvious from the two meetings that the two\nFreshmen Subcommittee Democrats, English and Levitas, will\nbe swing votes on these and other issues. The only two\nDemocrats to vote consistently with the President were Sub-\ncommittee Chairman Fountain and Don Fuqua.\nThe Subcommittee will continue its deliberations on Tuesday,\nMarch 16, at 10:00 a.m. to consider the allocation formula.\nlarger delegation of mayors and other city officials is\nanticipated.\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\n-2-\nAttached is a complete record of all actions and roll call\nvotes taken by the Subcommittee today.\nAttachment\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nMethod of Funding\n1. Defeated Horton motion to continue present com-\nbined authorization/appropriation method of funding\nfor duration of extension (President's proposal) by\nvote of 6-7:\nYEA\nNAY\nFountain\nMezvinsky\nFuqua\nJordan\nWydler\nBurton\nBrown\nDrinan\nSteelman\nEnglish\nHorton\nLevitas\nBrooks\n2.\nDefeated Levitas motion to provide combined\nauthorization/appropriation method of funding for\n1 3/4 years with annual appropriations in subse-\nquent years by a vote of 4-9:\nYEA\nNAY\nFountain\nMezvinsky\nFuqua\nJordan\nEnglish\nBurton\nLevitas\nDrinan\nBrooks\nWydler\nBrown\nSteelman\nHorton\n3.\nDefeated Wydler motion to designate GRS as an\n\"entitlement\" program in accordance with Congres-\nsional Budget Act provisions, in effect providing\ncombined authorization/appropriations for duration\nof extension by vote of 6-7:\nYEA\nNAY\nFountain\nMezvinsky\nFuqua\nJordan\nWydler\nBurton\nBrown (proxy)\nDrinan\nSteelman\nEnglish\nHorton\nLevitas\nFORD & LIBRARY 570239\nBrooks\n4. Adopted Burton motion to provide for an authoriza-\ntion only for duration of extension by vote of 7-6:\nYEA\nNAY\nMezvinsky\nFountain\nJordan\nFuqua\nBurton\nWydler\nDrinan\nBrown (proxy)\nEnglish\nSteelman\nLevitas*\nHorton\nBrooks\n*Note: passed on first round.\nFORD & LIBRARY SERVIC\nMAR 16 1976\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 16, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nfaul PAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcom-\nmittee Actions on General\nRevenue Sharing Renewal --\nTuesday, March 16, 1976\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee continued to\nmark-up General Revenue Sharing renewal legislation today,\nconsidering various allocation formula modifications.\nThe key action taken was defeat of a proposal to substitute\na \"need\" factor (number of individuals below poverty level)\nfor the current per capita personal income factor; and\nthus, shift substantial funds to large urban areas and\ndrop one-third of the present recipients from the program.\nThis was a proposal included in the Fascell bill and\nendorsed by those Congressmen and national organizations\nseeking to modify the program. The decision came on a 10-1\nvote in support of continuing to use the present data ele-\nments. This was a major endorsement of the President's\nproposal.\nIn addition, the Subcommittee unanimously agreed to retain\nthe 1/3-2/3 State-local split distribution of funds.\nAlso discussed were changes in the definition of eligible\nunits of government. At issue is the inclusion of town-\nships. Although the Subcommittee defeated a motion to\nleave the definition unchanged, they agreed to delay action\non this issue until the next session when more detailed\ninformation will be available. Pending is a Drinan motion\nto remove townships.\nFORD LIBRARY is 038870\n-2-\nThe Subcommittee will reconvene on Thursday morning,\nMarch 18, to continue its deliberations. Additional formula\nmodifications will be considered at that time.\nAttached is a complete record of all actions and roll call\nvotes taken by the Subcommittee today.\nAttachment\nFORD is LIBRAST 076830\nEligible Units of Government\n1. Defeated Wydler motion to retain existing defini-\ntion by a vote of 5-7:\nYEA\nNAY\nFountain\nMezvinsky\nWydler\nJordan\nBrown\nBurton\nSteelman\nDrinan\nHorton\nEnglish\nLevitas\nBrooks\nNOT VOTING -- Fuqua\n2. Agreed by unanimous consent to Levitas motion to\ndelay vote on a Drinan motion to modify existing\ndefinition and possibly exclude townships.\nFormula Provisions\n1. Adopted Jordan motion to retain 1/3-2/3 State-\nlocal split by unanimous voice vote.\n2. Adopted Wydler motion to continue the use of per\ncapita personal income instead of poverty data as\na major formula factor by a vote of 10-1:\nYEA\nNAY\nFountain\nBurton\nMezvinsky\nJordan\nEnglish\nLevitas (proxy)\nBrooks (proxy)\nWydler\nBrown (proxy)\nSteelman (proxy)\nHorton\nPASS -- Drinan\nNOT VOTING -- Fuqua\nFORD & LIBRARY GIVEN\nMAR 18 1976\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 18, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORE\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcom-\nmittee Actions on General\nRevenue Sharing Renewal --\nThursday, March 18, 1976\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee continued\nto mark-up General Revenue Sharing renewal legislation\ntoday.\nAs a first order of business, the Subcommittee resumed\nconsideration of possible changes in the definition of\neligible units of government. Pending was a Drinan\nmotion to continue to limit eligibility to States and\ngeneral purpose local governments, but re-define the\nlatter to mean local units which meet Census Bureau\ncriteria and also perform, or impose taxes to provide,\ntwo or more municipal-type services. After consider-\nable discussion, the Subcommittee approved this motion.\nThe new definition would become effective October 1,\n1977, and, depending on the availability of data, could\ndrastically affect townships and smaller communities.\nThe Administration's position on this issue should\nhave prevailed. However, due to the unresponsiveness\nof certain \"departmental experts\", particularly those\nof Treasury's Office of Revenue Sharing, the issue\nwas greatly confused and resulted in a shift of three\nDemocratic votes in favor of Drinan's motion.\nThe Subcommittee also decided to retain the existing\n145% per capita ceiling. The Administration had pro-\nposed to gradually raise the 145% ceiling to 175% in\nan effort to permit some hard-pressed urban jurisdic-\ntions now constrained to receive more money. The\nFORD i LIBRARY\n-2-\nSubcommittee's action was somewhat surprising since\nmany of the Democratic Members had previously indi-\ncated a desire to raise the constraint beyond the\nAdministration request. It was obvious from the\ndebate today that the desire to avoid the expenditure\nof additional funds on revenue sharing (i.e. the need\nfor a \"hold harmless\" provision) and a growing sensi-\ntivity to the political impact of any formula changes\nled to their decision to leave this formula element\nunchanged.\nThe Subcommittee will reconvene on Tuesday morning,\nMarch 23, 1976, to continue its deliberations. Addi-\ntional formula modifications will be considered at\nthat time.\nAttached is a complete record of all actions and roll\ncall votes taken by the Subcommittee today.\nAttachment\n3 R. FORD LIBRARY\nEligible Units of Government\nAdopted Drinan motion to modify definition of\neligible units of government in order to make\ncertain townships and smaller communities\nineligible to receive funds by a vote of 8-5:\nYEA\nNAY\nFountain\nEnglish\nFuqua\nWydler\nMezvinsky\nBrown (proxy)\nJordan\nSteelman (proxy)\nBurton (proxy)\nHorton\nDrinan\nLevitas\nBrooks (proxy)\nFormula Provisions\nAdopted Fuqua motion to retain 145% per capita\nconstraint by a vote of 7-5:\nYEA\nNAY\nFuqua\nFountain\nMezvinsky\nWydler\nJordan\nBrown (proxy)\nBurton (proxy)\nSteelman (proxy)\nEnglish\nHorton (proxy)\nLevitas\nBrooks (proxy)\nPASS -- Drinan\nFORD it LIBRARY\nJackMarsh\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 23, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcom-\nmittee Actions on General\nRevenue Sharing Renewal --\nTuesday, March 23, 1976\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee resumed con-\nsideration of General Revenue Sharing renewal legislation\ntoday.\nThe Subcommittee completed action on the remaining formula\nissues, deciding by voice votes to retain major features\nof the existing formula (20% per capita floor, 50% limita-\ntion and $200 minimum entitlement provisions).\nIn a related decision, the Subcommittee rejected an\nattempt to add \"user charges\", such as those for water,\nsewage and sanitation services, to a local government's\ntax effort calculations. This calculation is one factor\nin determining the allocation each local government\nreceives and was the subject of lengthy debate. Although\nthe Subcommittee voted to retain the existing language,\nadditional amendments to revise this provision are antici-\npated.\nThe Subcommittee also decided to eliminate the priority\nexpenditure categories for which local governments may\nnow use shared revenues. Many Members believe that the\ncategories are meaningless in light of the \"fungibility\"\nor displacement factor; others strongly supported elimi-\nnation as being more consistent with the revenue sharing\nconcept. The President had rejected this option in con-\nsidering his proposals for renewal legislation, and it is\nlikely that the Subcommittee will carefully re-examine\nthis action following consideration of proposals to\nGENAL FORD LIBRARY\n-2-\nrevise the nondiscrimination and citizen participation\nrequirements. The extent and nature of those decisions\ncould have far-reaching implications if the existing\ncategories are eliminated.\nThe Subcommittee is presently considering the matter of\nprohibiting use of revenue sharing funds to meet the\nmatching requirements of other Federal programs, and will\nbe moving into the nondiscrimination, citizen participa-\ntion and reporting requirement issues in subsequent ses-\nsions.\nThe Subcommittee will meet again tomorrow morning at\n10 a.m. to continue its deliberations. It is possible\nthat all actions will be completed this week on their\nissue working paper, enabling the staff to draft a bill\nreflecting those decisions for final Subcommittee con-\nsideration and reporting prior to the April 15 recess\ndeadline.\nAttached is a complete record of all actions and roll\ncall votes taken by the Subcommittee today.\nAttachment\nFORD & LIBRARY GENALD\nI.\nFormula Provisions\n1.\nAdopted Levitas motion to retain the 20%\nper capita floor on minimum allocations\nto local governments by voice vote.\n2.\nAdopted Wydler motion to retain the exist-\ning limitation providing that no allocation\nto a local government can exceed 50% of its\nadjusted taxes by voice vote.\n3.\nAdopted Mezvinsky motion to retain provi-\nsion for a $200 minimum entitlement by\nvoice vote.\nII.\nPriority Expenditure Categories\nAdopted Levitas motion to eliminate the priority\nexpenditure categories for revenue sharing funds\nby local governments by a vote of 10-3:\nYEA\nNAY\nFuqua\nFountain\nMezvinsky\nBurton\nJordan\nEnglish\nDrinan\nLevitas\nBrooks\nWydler\nBrown\nSteelman (proxy)\nHorton\nFORD i LIBRARY GERALD\nJack march\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nMAR 24 :376\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 24, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nPart\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcom-\nmittee Actions on General\nRevenue Sharing Renewal --\nWednesday, March 24, 1976\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee met this\nmorning to continue mark-up of General Revenue Sharing\nrenewal legislation.\nIn actions taken today the Subcommitiee agreed to con-\ntinue various operating provisions of the existing\nprogram without modification:\n1.\nRetain prohibition on use of revenue\nsharing funds to fulfill the local\nmatching requirement for Federal\ncategorical grant programs;\n2.\nRetain mainterance of effort require-\nment on State assistance to local units\nof government; and\n3.\nRetain Davis-Bacon Act coverage for\nconstruction projects funded with\nshared revenues.\nThe Subcommittee also considered the required reporting\nby recipient governments, adopting a modification of\nthe present provision which incorporates some of the\nAdministration's recommendations, specifically contain-\ning language giving Treasury flexibility in establish-\ning such requirements in the case of smaller\njurisdictions.\nFORD LIBRARY s DERALD\n-2-\nThe Subcommittee will not meet again until the after-\nnoon of Monday, March 29, 1976. At that time, the\nSubcommittee will consider the two remaining issues:\nproposals to modify the nondiscrimination and citizen\nparticipation provisions.\nAn effort is being made to reach a compromise on the\ncivil rights issue. This issue was the subject of\nsome private discussions I initiated this morning with\nWydler, Brown, Fountain, Jordan, Levitas and Dick\nAlbrecht of Treasury. As a result of these discus-\nsions, consideration of the issue was delayed until\nMonday. Action today may have resulted in the adop-\ntion of unacceptable provisions. I believe that the\nprivate discussions which will take place between\nnow and Monday may fashion an approach which will be\nacceptable to the Administration and a majority of the\nSubcommittee.\nAttached is a complete record of all actions and roll\ncall votes taken by the Subcommittee today.\nAttachment\nFORD & LIBRARY 93\nI.\nMatching Provisions\nAdopted Horton motion to retain prohibition on use of\nfunds to meet matching requirements for Federal grant\nprograms by voice vote.\nII.\nMaintenance of Effort\nAdopted Mezvinsky motion to retain present maintenance\nof effort provision requiring State to maintain the\naggregate level of assistance it provided local govern-\nments during calendar year 1976 by voice vote.\nIII.\nDavis-Bacon Act\nAdopted Wydler motion to retain present Davis-Bacon\nAct applicability by voice vote.\nIV.\nReporting Requirements\nAdopted Wydler motion to expand content of reports with\nrespect to the relationship of revenue sharing funds to\nthe budget of a recipient government and grant Treasury\ndiscretion to draft more flexible regulations by voice\nvote.\nFORD is LIBRARY SALD\nMAR 30 1976\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 29, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcom-\nmittee Actions on General\nRevenue Sharing Renewal --\nMonday, March 29, 1976\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee continued con-\nsideration of General Revenue Sharing renewal legislation\nthis afternoon. The only issue considered was the scope of\ncitizen participation provisions.\nThe Subcommittee adopted a concept which is somewhat broader\nthan that proposed by the Administration; however, it incor-\nporates a number of the President's recommended changes in\nthe existing program. Under the Subcommittee concept, more\ndetailed public information would be made available and\nrelated to the revised reporting requirements. Treasury\nand the public interest groups believe the approach is con-\nsistent with existing regulations and should not be unduly\nburdensome.\nThe Subcommittee had earlier rejected a proposal to require\nthe establishment of local government budget process stan-\ndards and the creation of citizen advisory committees to\ngovern the decision-making on the use of revenue sharing\nfunds.\nThe Subcommittee will resume its deliberations on Tuesday\nmorning, March 30. Discussion of the nondiscrimination\nprovisions is the only remaining substantive item on the\nagenda.\nAttached is a complete record of all actions and roll call\nvotes taken by the Subcommittee today.\nAttachment\nFORD LIBRARY + QERALD\nCitizen Participation\n1.\nDefeated Drinan motion to establish local govern-\nmental budget process standards and create\n\"citizen advisory committees\" with respect to uses\nof revenue sharing funds by a vote of 4-8:\nYEA\nNAY\nMezvinsky (proxy)\nFountain\nJordan\nFuqua\nBurton\nEnglish\nDrinan\nLevitas\nWydler\nBrown (proxy)\nSteelman (proxy)\nHorton\nNOT VOTING -- Brooks\n2.\nAdopted Levitas motion to broaden existing require-\nments in order to provide information and access\nregarding revenue sharing funding decisions by a\nvote of 10-3:\nYEA\nNAY\nFountain\nBurton\nFuqua\nDrinan\nMezvinsky (proxy)\nEnglish\nJordan\nLevitas\nBrooks\nWydler (proxy)\nBrown (proxy)\nSteelman (proxy)\nHorton\nFORD LIBRARY\nMAR 31 1976\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 30, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcom-\nmittee Actions on General\nRevenue Sharing Renewal --\nTuesday, March 30, 1976\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee met this\nmorning to continue consideration of General Revenue\nSharing renewal legislation. The only action taken\nwas adoption, by voice vote, of a Wydler-Mezvinsky pro-\nposal to revise the program's auditing and accounting\nprovisions. As adopted, the present provisions\ngoverning fiscal accounting and audit procedures would\nbe retained; however, the Secretary of the Treasury\nwould be required to promulgate regulations to insure\nan independent audit of a recipient government's finan-\ncial accounts where revenue sharing funds are involved\nand provide assurances for the public disclosure of\nsuch information.\nThe Subcommittee once again deferred action on the non-\ndiscrimination provision in an effort to give Members\nmore time to work out a satisfactory compromise.\nFountain, Jordan, Wydler, Horton and Brown are meeting\nthis afternoon in a final attempt to secure an agree-\nment. This effort was undertaken in order to avoid a\nserious civil rights fight that could hamper the\nprogress of this legislation in committee and on the\nfloor.\nThe Subcommittee will meet again on Wednesday morning,\nMarch 31, 1976.\nFORD is LIBRARY QERALD\nms. marsh\nAPR 1 1976\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nMarch 31, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcom-\nmittee Actions on General\nRevenue Sharing Renewal ---\nWednesday, March 31, 1976\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee continued its\nmark-up of legislation to extend the General Revenue Shar-\ning program, adopting a revised approach to prohibit the\ndiscriminatory use of revenue sharing funds.\nThe Subcommittee adopted a Jordan proposal which reflected\na concensus agreement supported by most Democrats and all\nRepublicans on the Subcommittee. It was strongly opposed\nby Drinan.\nIn concept, the Jordan proposal extends the prohibition\nagainst discrimination to all activities of a recipient\njurisdiction, except where a recipient government can pro-\nvide \"clear and convincing evidence\" that the program or\nactivity in question was not funded with revenue sharing\nfunds, and require the suspension of revenue sharing pay-\nments where compliance is not secured.\nThe Administration did not take a position on this specific\napproach and will withhold comment until actual legislative\nlanguage is drafted. This matter will require review by\nrepresentatives from Treasury, Justice and the White House.\nA tentative review indicated that the proposal was consis-\ntent with the Administration's objectives but went beyond\nthe proposed legislative recommendations.\nThe Republican Members worked with Jordan to reach a concen-\nsus in order to avoid a major civil rights dispute. The\nfact that Jordan introduced this amendment and argued\nagainst Drinan and other proponents of stronger language\nFORD i LIBRARY 033470\n-2-\nwas an important development in the mark-up of this legis-\nlation.\nThe Subcommittee is scheduled to meet again tomorrow morning\nto resolve miscellaneous issues and should conclude this\nfirst phase of its mark-up process.\nAttached is a complete record of all actions and roll call\nvotes taken by the Subcommittee today.\nAttachment\nFORD :- LIBRARY CIVE\nCivil Rights\n1.\nAdopted Jordan motion to clarify and\nstrengthen the present nondiscrimination\nprovision by voice vote.\n2.\nRejected Brooks motion to amend the Jordan\nproposal significantly broaden the nature\nand scope of the program's nondiscrimina-\ntion provision by a vote of 5-8:\nYEA\nNAY\nMezvinsky\nFountain\nJordan*\nFuqua\nBurton\nEnglish\nDrinan\nLevitas\nBrooks\nWydler\nBrown\nSteelman (proxy)\nHorton\n* (Jordan was prepared to pass if necessary\nto defeat this amendment. )\nFORD & LIBRARY 078838 &\nmr. march\nAPR 2 1976\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 1, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nFROM\nPAUL JIM CANNON MYER Paul ton\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcom-\nmittee Actions on General\nRevenue Sharing Renewal --\nThursday, April 1, 1976\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee met this morn-\ning, ending the first phase of its General Revenue Sharing\nrenewal legislation mark-up.\nStaff has been directed to draft a clean bill reflecting the\nSubcommittee's tentative substantive decisions on various\nissues. It is anticipated that the Subcommittee will resume\nformal mark-up of the actual bill next Wednesday, April 7,\n1976, and complete action just prior to the scheduled recess.\nIn actions taken today, the Subcommittee rejected motions to\nprohibit recipient governments from using their revenue shar-\ning funds to lobby and to require a reduction in General\nRevenue Sharing funding equal to any prospective Congressional\ntax reduction. This latter motion was the subject of con-\nsiderable partisan debate.\nAlso discussed was the intention of some Members to re-offer\na modified \"need\" distribution formula amendment next week.\nThe amendment will be a form of countercyclical-type\nassistance program with a cost of roughly $400,000,000.\nAttached is a complete record of all actions and roll call\nvotes taken by the Subcommittee today.\nAttachment\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\n1.\nRejected Brooks motion to prohibit recipient\ngovernments from using revenue sharing funds\nfor lobbying purposes by a vote of 6-7:\nYea\nNay\nMezvinsky\nFountain\nBurton\nFuqua\nJordan\nLevitas\nDrinan (proxy)\nWydler\nEnglish\nBrown\nBrooks\nSteelman (proxy)\nHorton\n2.\nRejected English motion to require reduction\nin General Revenue Sharing funding level to\nreflect any Federal tax reduction by a vote of\n5-7:\nYea\nNay\nJordan\nFountain\nBurton\nFuqua\nDrinan\nMezvinsky\nEnglish\nWydler\nBrooks\nBrown\nSteelman (proxy)\nHorton\nPASSING -- Levitas\nFORD & LIBRARY exprag arex\nAPR 8 1976\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 8, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\neview of House Subcom-\nmittee Actions on General\nRevenue Sharing Renewal --\nThursday, April 8, 1976\nThe House Government Operations Subcommittee resumed\nconsideration of legislation to extend the General\nRevenue Sharing program this morning. Pending before\nthe Subcommittee was a draft bill reflecting their\nearlier \"conceptual\" decisions.\nIn the only action taken today, the Subcommittee\nreversed its earlier decision to subject General Reve-\nnue Sharing to the annual appropriations process and\nvoted to redesign General Revenue Sharing as a 3 3/4-\nyear entitlement program. No action was taken to\nincrease the level of funding.\nWhile there is little difference between the entitle-\nment approach and the combined authorization-\nappropriation method of funding proposed by the\nPresident, the Democratic Members advocating this\namendment stressed that it was a satisfactory\nresponse to charges that the current funding provision\nby-passed the traditional Congressional appropriations\nprocess and 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.\nFORD & LIBRARY 078870\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 secord of all actions and\nroll call votes taken by the Subcommittee today.\nAttachment\nFORD & LIBRARY\n1.\nAdopted Levitas amendment making General Revenue Shar-\ning a 3 3/4-year entitlement program by a vote of 7-6:\nYEA\nNAY\nFountain\nMezvinsky\nFuqua\nJordan\nLevitas\nBurton\nWydler\nDrinan\nBrown (proxy)\nEnglish\nSteelman (proxy)\nBrooks\nHorton\n2.\nRejected Wydler amendment to adopt 5 3/4-year program\nwith combined authorization-appropriation funding pro-\nvision (President's proposal) by a vote of 9-4:\nYEA\nNAY\nWydler\nFountain\nBrown (proxy)\nFuqua\nSteelman (proxy)\nMezvinsky\nHorton (proxy)\nJordan\nBurton\nDrinan\nEnglish\nLevitas (proxy)\nBrooks\n3.\nRejected Drinan amendment providing that GRS be an\nentitlement program for 1 3/4 years with annual appro-\npriations thereafter by voice vote.\nFORD + LIBRARY DERALD\nAPR 16 1976\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 15, 1976\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nFROM:\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nReview of House Subcommittee\nActions on General Revenue\nSharing Renewal\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:\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*\nretain the present distribution formula);\n* delete present priority expenditure categories\nand matching prohibition;\nFORD i LIBRARY DERALD\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.\nFORD & LIBRARY\nAPR 28 1976\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSCHEDULE PROPOSAL\nDATE: April 28, 1976\nFROM: Jim Cannon\nVIA: Bill Nicho son\nMEETING:\nStaff briefing on General Revenue\nSharing legislative situation.\nDATE:\nSaturday, May 1, 1976 or Tuesday,\nMay 4, 1976\nPURPOSE:\nTo brief the President on status of\nGeneral Revenue Sharing renewal\nlegislation.\nFORMAT:\nOval Office\nParticipants: See Tab A\nTime: 20 minutes\nCABINET\nPARTICIPATION:\nNone\nSPEECH\nMATERIAL:\nBriefing paper to be submitted.\nPRESS COVERAGE:\nNone\nSTAFF:\nPaul J. Myer\nRECOMMEND:\nJack Marsh\nMax Friedersdorf\nEd Schmults\nFORD is LIBRARY SERALD\nOPPOSED:\nNone\nPREVIOUS\nPARTICIPATION:\nThe President last discussed this\nmatter with staff on March 2, 1976.\nBACKGROUND:\nOn April 25, 1976, the President asked\nCongress to continue the General Reve-\nnue Sharing program. The House Govern-\nment Operations Subcommittee is finally\nscheduled to begin consideration of a\nrenewal bill recently reported by the\nFountain Subcommittee.\nPARTICIPANTS\nThe Vice President\nJack Marsh\nMax Friedersdorf\nJim Lynn\nPaul O'Neil\nJim Cannon\nEd Schmults\nPaul Myer\nFORD & LIBRARY G7V878\n[Rev, sharing mtg]\nAPR 28 1976\nPossible\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nSat/Tues\nWASHINGTON\nFull Commit\nApril 28, 1976\nnext week\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nJACK MARSH\nMAX FRIEDERSDORF\nJIM CANNON\nED SCHMULTS\nFROM\nPAUL MYER\nSUBJECT:\nBackground for General\nRevenue Sharing Meeting\nWednesday, April 28\n4:30 p.m.\nThe House Government Operations Committee will soon begin\nconsideration of the General Revenue Sharing renewal bill\nreported today by the Fountain Subcommittee. Although\nthe Subcommittee did not endorse the President's proposal,\nthe reported bill is not far from his position. Attached\nfor your review is a comparative analysis of the current\nprogram, the President's proposal and the Subcommittee\nbill. (Attachment 1)\nThe following issues are relevant to our discussion of a\nlegislative strategy from this point:\n1.\nLength of Program and Level of Funding\nlangth\nPresident's Proposal: 5 3/4 years; total fund-\ning of $39.5 billion, including $150 million annual\nlevel\nincrease.\nSubcommittee Bill: 3 3/4 years; total funding\nof $24.9 billion, with no annual increase (funds\nfrozen at 1976 level of $6.65 billion).\nComment: 3 3/4 years represents a compromise\nafter Democratic attempt to get only 1 3/4-year\nperiod. PIGS support compromise in light of fund-\ning level problems; longer extension obtainable in\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nthe Senate.\nAll attempts to increase funding, including\nthose advanced by those wanting to change allocation\nformula to help big cities, were rejected.\n-2-\n$150 million increment provision is not worth a\nfight; PIGS want greater increase; liberal Demo-\ncrats want major formula change or add-on funds\nfor distribution on basis of need.\nUnless a substantial annual increase or other\n\"sweetener\" is advocated, it is advisable to hold\nSubcommittee position in House.\n2.\nMethod of Funding\nPresident's Proposal: Continue present com-\nbined authorization-appropriation approach.\nSubcommittee Bill: Establish \"entitlement\"\nfinancing approach.\nComment: Clearly the most controversial and\nsensitive issue. The entitlement financing approach\nadopted by the Subcommittee was developed as a\nrealistic approach to the highly controversial ques-\ntion of how General Revenue Sharing should be funded.\nIt does 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 (e.g. Brooks,\nMahon). See Attachment 2 for a detailed explanation.\nThe entitlement financing approach is desirable\nbecause --\na.\nits impact is identical to the President's\nproposal;\nb.\nit does not by-pass appropriations and is\nconsistent with the new Budget Act;\nC.\nit negates the need for a special rule\nwaiving points of order; and\nd.\nits chances of adoption are far greater\nthan the combined authorization-\nappropriations approach and would place us\nin a favorable position in the Senate.\nFORD LIBRAS\n-3-\n3.\nCivil Rights\nPresident's Proposal: Clarifies the Secretary's\nauthority to invoke one or more remedies where a reci-\npient government is found to have used revenue sharing\nfunds in a discriminatory fashion. This includes the\nauthority to withhold all or a portion of entitlement\nfunds due to the government and to require repayment\nof funds expended in a discriminatory fashion.\nSubcommittee Bill: Discrimination prohibited on\nbasis of handicapped status, age and religion in\naddition to race, color, sex, and national origin\nunder all State and local programs except where\nrecipient can prove \"with clear and convincing evi-\ndence\" that program was not funded, directly or\nindirectly, with GRS monies.\nExtensive hearing and compliance procedures are\nspelled out requiring time limits for investigations,\ncompliance, administrative procedures and court\nactions.\nPrivate civil suits are authorized after the\nexhaustion of administrative remedies.\nComment: There has been a substantial amount of\ncriticism, much of it legitimate, about the failure to\nenforce the nondiscrimination provision of the current\nAct. The Subcommittee bill contains a greatly\nstrengthened provision, originally viewed as a compro-\nmise which would neutralize the issue.\nCivil rights community now opposed, particularly\nto restriction on right of private action, but is a\nreflection of their total opposition to the program;\nmost moderate and conservative Members may feel that\nSubcommittee provision goes too far.\nEffort should be made to return to a position\nmore consistent with, but stronger than, the President's\nproposal (e.g. a variation of Senate countercyclical\nbill nondiscrimination provision).\nAll other issues and points of difference are either\nrelatively technical in nature or do not involve substantial\npolicy decisions and may be worked out in Committee or can\nbe easily revised in the Senate (e.g. citizen participation\nand reporting requirements).\nFORD\nLIBRARY\n- -4-\nRecommendation: The Subcommittee bill, with some modi-\nfication, should be viewed as the best vehicle available\nto insure House passage of a General Revenue Sharing bill\nwhich maintains the basic program concept and will enable\nus to work for Senate adoption and eventual enactment of a\nbill consistent with the President's objectives.\nAttachments\nFORD & LIBRARY STREET\n#1\nFORD i LIBRARY DERALD\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. (Note: an entitlement\n073835\nMechanism\n(Funds authorized and\n(Funds authorized and\nprogram is not the same as annual appropriations.\nappropriated for entire\nappropriated for entire\nUnder the entitlement provision, the Appropria -\nperiod.)\nperiod.)\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.\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.\nStates receive 1/3 of funds\nNo change.\nNo change.\ndistributed; local governments\nreceive 2/3.\nSets maximum entitlement to local\nRaised to 175 percent\nRetains 145 percent maximum limitation.\ngovernment at 145 percent of the\nby 6 percentage points\naverage statewide per capita\nper entitlement period\nentitlement.\nin five steps.\nSets minimum entitlement to local\nNo change.\nNo change.\ngovernment at 20 percent of the\naverage statewide per capita\nentitlement.\nNo local government to receive\nNo change.\nNo change.\nrevenue sharing funds in excess\nof 50 percent of its own source\nnon-school revenues plus any\nintergovernmental transfer.\nAny general purpose government\nNo change.\nNo change.\ndue to receive less than $200\nannually will not participate\nin the program.\nCitizen\nRecipient governments must publish\nSame, but Secretary of\na) Recipient governments must hold public hear-\nParticipation\nPlanned and Actual Use Reports in\nthe Treasury may autho-\nings on the Proposed Use Report at least 7\nand Public\nnewspapers of general circulation.\nrize other methods to\ndays before the submission of the report to ORS.\nHearing\npublicize use information\nb)\nRecipient governments must hold a second hear-\ntion where such are\ning, at least 7 days before the adoption of\nappropriate.\ntheir budget, showing the relationship of GRS\nfunds to functional items in their budget.\nc) Thirty days before the second hearing, the govern-\nment must publish a summary of its budget and\nProposed Use Report in a general circulation\nnewspaper.\nd) Hearings must be at a place and time that\n\"permits and encourages citizen participation.\"\nNo requirement for public hearing\nRequires assurance that\nor other means of public partici-\nthere will be a public\npation in use of funds.\nhearing or other method\nby which the public may\nparticipate in deciding\nhow the funds are to be\nspent.\nAllocation of GRS monies must be in\nNo change.\nNo change.\naccordance with State and local law.\nReporting\nLaw prescribes reports on amounts\nNo change.\nProposed Use Report must include comparative data\nRequirements\nand purposes of planned and actual\nuse of GRS funds for the current and the two previous\nexpenditures.\nentitlement periods and must compare them to items\nin budget.\nProposed Use Reports must specify whether the use\nis for new or expanded program, a continuation of\nactivity or tax stabilization or reduction.\nActual Use Reports must be filed with ORS. Any\ndifferences between planned and actual uses must\nLIBRARY\nbe explained.\nFORD\nBudget documents and Use Reports must be available\nat principal government office and libraries.\nGERALD\nBudget summary must be published in newpaper 30\ndays after adoption with explanation of changes\nbetween the Proposed and Actual Use Reports.\nAnti-\nLaw contains strong anti-\nClarifies the Secre-\nDiscrimination prohibited on basis of handicapped\nDiscrimination\ndiscrimination requirement where\ntary's authority to in-\nstatus, age and religion in addition to race,\nProvisions\nactivity is funded with revenue\nvoke one or more reme-\ncolor, sex, and national origin under all State\nsharing. Secretary's enforce-\ndies where a recipient\nand local programs except where recipient can\nment powers are stated in general\ngovernment is found to\nprove \"with clear and convincing evidence\" that\nterms: to refer matter to Attorney\nhave used revenue shar-\nprogram was not funded, directly or indirectly,\nGeneral, to exercise powers and\ning funds in a discrim-\nwith GRS monies.\nfunctions provided by Title VI\ninatory fashion. This\nof Civil Rights Act of 1964, or\nincludes the authority\nExtensive hearing and compliance procedures are\nto take such other action as may\nto withhold all or a\nspelled out requiring time limits for investiga-\nbe provided by law.\nportion of entitlement\ntions, compliance, administrative procedures, and\nfunds due to the govern-\ncourt actions.\nment and to require re-\npayment of funds expended\nPrivate civil suits are authorized after the ex-\nin a discriminatory\nhaustion of administrative remedies.\nfashion.\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 funded\n25 percent or more with revenue\nsharing monies.\nPriority\nLocal governments may use funds for\nNo change.\nPriorities eliminated.\nCategories\nany capital projects but only for oper-\nating and maintenance expenses of pro-\ngrams in eight priority expenditure\ncategories (public safety, environmen-\ntal protection, public transportation,\nhealth, recreation, libraries, social\nservices for the poor or aged, and\nfinancial administration.)\nCongressional\nNo general review of program\nSecretary of the Treasury\nSecretary of Treasury must make an annual report\nReview\nis required.\nto report to Congress two\non program. Comptroller General is to review\nyears before expiration\nORS compliance activities.\ndate.\nState\nLIBRARY\nStates must maintain level of\nNo change.\nStates must maintain level of funds transferred\nMaintenance\nfund transfers to localities\nto localities as of Fiscal '76,\nFORD\nof Effort\nas of Fiscal '72.\nit\nAuditing\nRecipient governments must\nNo change.\nAnnual \"independent\" audit required of all State\nRequirements\nfollow standard fiscal\nand local finances except where the cost of such\nOFFICE\naccounting and auditing\naudits is disproportionately large in relation\nprocedures. Federal govern-\nto GRS funds.\nment is permitted to audit\nany recipient.\nAnti-lobbying\nNo provision.\nNo provision.\nNo recipient governments may use, directly or in-\nProvisions\ndirectly, any GRS funds for \"lobbying or to\ninfluence any legislation regarding the Act.\"\nZ #\n&\nFORD\nCERALD\nPOROTIBRARY\nLIBRARY\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-\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.\nLIBRARY BERALD ? FORD\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\nFORD is LIBRARY\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\nFORD : LIBRARY\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 : OTHER LIBRARY\norts Drin enset al associa founds\ned\nbluow\nadiseex\nto\nenolalvorg\n.ffid Iswanex\nadd 10 e et desupos sway reg\nhamoodu? Hatch and vd Bedgebs /Them - looks good Snow\nesed? пазрозд orts to moldsmub TO\n1107 ni bas nogo\nDay Can - looks bad\nFor aid - veto quick\nComes mic IDD\nxsM\nday\nFEC- -\nTRANSIS DEBUTO GNOF\nMarsh\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nApril 30, 1976\nSTAFF BRIEFING ON GENERAL REVENUE SHARING\nRENEWAL LEGISLATIVE SITUATION\nSaturday, May 1, 1976\nThe Oval Office\nFrom: Jim Cannon June\nI. PURPOSE\nTo brief the President on the status of General\nRevenue Sharing renewal legislation, and to get\nPresidential guidance on strategy as the bill is\ntaken up by the full Committee.\nII. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN\nA.\nBackground: On Tuesday, May 4, the House\nGovernment Operations Committee will begin\nconsideration of the General Revenue Sharing\nbill reported by the Fountain Subcommittee.\nAlthough the Subcommittee did not endorse\nthe President's proposal, the reported bill\nincludes most of the major elements proposed\nby the President.\nCongressmen Frank Horton and Jack Wydler,\nranking minority members of the Committee\nand Subcommittee respectively, need guidance\non your strategy for the Committee sessions\nnext week and the floor battles to follow.\nFour major issues will dominate full Commit-\ntee consideration:\n1.\nlength of program and level of funding;\n2.\nmethod of funding;\n3.\ncivil rights; and\n4.\nformula revision.\nTab A is a summary of these points.\nFORD & LIBRARY EARAD\nB.\nLegislative Assessment: There has been a\n36.5% turnover in the House since 1972 when\nGeneral Revenue Sharing was enacted.\nThe key House vote in 1972 was on a motion\nto adopt a \"closed rule\" for consideration\nof the General Revenue Sharing bill.\nIn 1972, the motion passed by a vote of\n223-185 (R 113-57; D 110-128). Today, 63%\nof the Members (141 Members) who supported\nGeneral Revenue Sharing on this critical\nvote are still serving, while nearly 70%\n(126 Members) of those opposed remain Members.\nThere are 157 new Members since 1972 (103 D;\n54 R). Tab B is a statistical display of\nthe key rule vote.\nThe opposition represented a coalition of\nliberal Democrats opposed to \"no strings\"\nspending, and conservative Democrats and\nRepublicans who opposed the program for a\nvariety of philosophical reasons including\nincreased spending and the funding method\nwhich by-passed the traditional appropriations\nprocess. With respect to the latter, current\nMembers of the Appropriations Committee voted\n31-15 (R 8-7; D 23-8) against General Revenue\nSharing on this vote. Members of the new\nBudget Committee voted 14-9 (R 4-4; D 10-5)\nagainst. Tab C is a list of all current\nRepublican Members who voted \"wrong\" on this\nrule vote in 1972.\nThe nature of the opposition in the 94th\nCongress closely parallels that expressed in\n1972, reflecting the same philosophical\ndifferences over the control and distribution\nof Federal funds and appropriate Congressional\nprocedures.\nC.\nParticipants: See Tab D.\nD. Press Plan: To be announced.\nGSRALO FORD LIBRARY\nTAB A -- REVIEW OF MAJOR ISSUES\n1.\nLength of Program and Level of Funding\nPresident's Proposal: 5 3/4 years; total funding\nof $39.5 billion, including $150 million annual\nincrease.\nSubcommittee Bill: 3 3/4 years; total funding\nof $24.9 billion, with no annual increase (funds\nfrozen at 1976 level of $6.65 billion).\nComment: Committee Democrats may attempt to\nget a 1 3/4-year extension. Governors and Mayors\nare willing to accept a 3 3/4-year compromise. A\nlonger extension may be obtainable in the Senate.\nAll attempts to increase funding, including those\nadvanced by Members wanting to change the formula,\nwere rejected. No serious effort is anticipated\nto increase the level of funding, except to the\nextent the formula is modified.\n2.\nMethod of Funding\nPresident's Proposal: Continue the present\ncombined authorization-appropriation approach.\nSubcommittee Bill: Establishes an \"entitlement\"\nfinancing approach.\nComment: The entitlement financing adopted by the\nSubcommittee was developed as a realistic approach\nto the highly controversial question of how\nGeneral Revenue Sharing should be funded. It does\nnot substantially modify the basic tenets of the\nrevenue sharing concept, but it does answer the\nargument of influential Members such as George\nMahon and Jack Brooks who have charged that the\nexisting funding provision bypasses the traditional\nCongressional appropriations process and circumvents\nthe newly-established Budget Act procedures designed\nFORD\nto control long-term spending actions.\nLIBRARY\n3.\nCivil Rights\nPresident's Proposal: Retains current nondiscrimination\nrequirement, but clarifies the Secretary's authority\nto withhold all or a portion of entitlement funds,\n2\nto require repayments, and terminate eligibility\nwhere revenue sharing funds have been expended\nin a discriminatory fashion.\nSubcommittee Bill: Expands nondiscrimination\nrequirements to cover all State and local programs\nexcept where recipient can prove \"with clear and\nconvincing evidence\" that the program was not funded,\ndirectly or indirectly, with revenue sharing funds.\nExtensive hearing and compliance procedures are\nspelled out requiring time limits for investigations,\ncompliance, administrative procedures and court\nactions. Private civil suits are authorized only\nafter the exhaustion of administrative remedies.\nComment: There has been substantial criticism\nof the enforcement record under the current Act.\nThe subcommittee provision was drafted as a\ncompromise which the Members hoped would neutralize\nthe issue and gain some liberal support.\nIt now appears that the civil rights community\nand their Congressional allies will not support\nthe bill without more drastic changes, and the\nSubcommittee provision may go too far for most\nmoderate and conservative Members. An effort will\nbe made to return to a position more consistent\nwith, but possibly stronger than, the President's\nproposal.\n4.\nFormula Provisions\nPresident's Proposal: Retains current formula\nwith a slight increase in upper constraint.\nSubcommittee Bill: Retains current formula\nwithout change, but attempts to tighten eligibility\ncriteria.\nComment: Liberal Democrats will renew their\nattempts to modify formula or add a new provision\nfor the distribution of increased payments to\n\"needy\" governments.\nFORDO & GERALD LIBRARY\nTAB B --\nSTATISTICAL DISPLAY\nHouse vote on motion to end debate and adopt \"closed rule\" for\nconsideration of H. R. 14370. Motion agreed to, 223-185,\nJune 21, 1972. A yea vote was in support of General Revenue\nSharing.\nRepublicans\nDemocrats\nTotal\n1972\n1976\n1972\n1976\n1972\n1976\nYEA\n113\n57\n110\n84\n223\n141\nNAY\n57\n32\n128\n94\n185\n126\nNOT VOTING\n8\n2\n16\n6\n24\n8\nTOTAL, 92nd\n178\n91\n254\n184\n432*\n267\nCongress\n\"NEW\" MEMBERS\n--\n54\n-\n103\n--\n157\nTOTAL, 94th\n--\n145\n--\n287\n--\n432*\nCongress\n* 2 vacancies, Speaker not voting.\nGERALD\n?\nFORD\nLIBRARY\nTAB C - ALL CURRENT REPUBLICAN MEMBERS VOTING\nAGAINST GENERAL REVENUE SHARING ON KEY\nVOTE IN 1972\nRepublicans\nAndrews\nHutchinson\nArcher\nLujan\nAshbrook\nMichel\nBroyhill\nMyers (Ind.)\nBurke\nRhodes\nCarter\nRobinson\nCederberg\nRousselot\nClancy\nRuppe\nClawson\nSchneebeli\nCollins\nSebelius\nCrane\nSkubitz\nDerwinski\nSpense\nDevine\nSnyder\nEdwards\nTalcott\nFindley\nVander Jagt\nFrey\nYoung (Fla.)\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nTAB D -- PARTICIPANTS\nThe Vice President\nJack Marsh, Counsellor to the President\nJames Cannon, Assistant to the President\nJames Lynn, Director of the Office of\nManagement and Budget\nEd Schmults, Deputy Counsel to the\nPresident\nPaul O'Neill, Deputy Director of the\nOffice of Management and\nBudget\nCharles Leppert, Deputy Assistant to\nthe President\nRobert Wolthuis, Deputy to the Assistant\nto the President\nPaul Myer, Assistant Director, Domestic\nCouncil\nRichard Albrecht, General Counsel,\nDepartment of the Treasury\nFORD & GENALD LIBRARY"
}