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
148855
label
Government Organization, 11/76-1/77
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
148855
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Government Organization, 11/76-1/77
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Staff Secretary
1976 Campaign Transition File
subjects
President (1974-1977 : Ford). Council on Environmental Quality. (1974 - 1977)
Energy policy
Government reorganization
Administrative agencies
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
148855
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-01
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-11-01
month
11
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e1218b29d579eb7b
ocrText
Government Organization, 11/76-1/77
Folder Citation: Collection: Office of Staff Secretary; Series: 1976 Campaign Transition File;
Folder: Government Organization, 11/76-1/77; Container 2
To See Complete Finding Aid:
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/library/findingaids/Staff_Secretary.pdf
Staff meet ime before
Cabinet Selections
Be tough on WH staff
Non statutory A's-Rerg
?'son memo
-
301' 648. 52"
STATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
RESERVATION PURPOSES
LECTROS
PR
MADE FOR
Separations*
(Full Time Permanent)
GS and Similar
Total
1-4
5-8
9-12
13-15
16-18
Separations
April '73 thru March '74
130,438
51,667
37,844
28,953
11,366
608
Average Employment
1,272,487
279,298
390,704
425,426
171,968
5,091
Separation Rate
10.2
18.5
9.7
6.8
6.6
12.0
*Separation include Retirements, Resignation, Separation (due to declinations,)
Termination and Removal, Reduction In Force, Death, Supension (schedule to exceed
30 Calendar days), Furlough-MIL, LWOP (scheduled to exceed 30 Calendar days) and
Furlough NTE (scheduled to exceed 30 Calendar days upon expiration of seasonal work)
Source: U.S. Civil Service Commission, Central Personnel Data File
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
Disusse 6 c Jack
JC
TRANSITION STAFFING PATTERN FOR GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION
>
Subject to further guidance from Governor Carter, the
Government Organization Team will work in the following
areas:
1. Prepare a management and staffing study of the White
House and Executive Office.
Under the direction of Ham Jordan and Jack Watson,
Harrision Wellford will coordinate a task force to
study the day-to-day operations and staffing of the
Presidency. The goal is to prepare a memorandum by
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
Christmas which will: a) identify areas where White
House staff and budget can be cut without compromising
efficiency; b) identify ways to reduce the staff
perquisites and privileges which contribute to the
atmosphere of the "imperial" Presidency; c) to have
a smoothly running operation ready to be plugged in by
January 20. Members of the task force will be:
Jim Gammill, Richard Hardin, Joe Mitchell, Ray Calamaro
(from the Vice-President's staff), Katie Beardsley, and
John Harmon.
2. Develop proposals for changing the Departmental and
agency structure to reduce overlap, waste, and duplication
in government.
Governor Carter promised in the campaign to bring about
major consolidation at the bureau and program level
-2-
(Department of Energy, drug abuse and control, health
programs, welfare programs, etc.). Once we have clear
signals from Governor Carter, work in this area should
proceed on two levels:
a. develop some short term options into legislative
proposals which can be initiated during the "honey-
moon" period. Some early action on "ripe" pro-
posals will help telegraph the seriousness of your
commitment to government reorganization. The best
bets are developing a Dept. of Energy, reorganizing
or abolishing the CAB, and creating an Agency for
Consumer Advocacy. Action on each of these pro-
posals is pending in Congress. You must act soon
or lose the initiative. Development of any one of
these proposals will require discussion with citizens
groups, Congressional committees, affected indus-
tries and trade associations, development of de-
tailed option papers for Governor Carter, and drafting
of legislation and backup documents.
b. set up a study commission or a task force, to consider
major long-term restructuring options at Departmental,
bureau, and program level over next four years. We
will design the study commission and prepare its
agenda.
Doug Costle, John Harmon, Katie Beardsley and Ray Calamaro
will work in this area. They will also coordinate reor-
ganization ideas generated by the agency liaison teams
during the transition period.
3. Prepare reorganization legislation.
Governor Carter has indicated that he will seek reor-
ganization plan authority from Congress after his
inauguration. There are several important issues to
be resolved before the scope of that authority can be
defined:
(1) Whether Governor Carter should seek authority to
create, consolidate or abolish cabinet departments yes
by reorganization plan;
(2) Time period for extension of authoirity;
4 years
(3) Whether legislation should require negative vote
by both Houses to veto reorganization plan, rather
than present single M House veto; prefer this
(4) Whether to seek authority to reorganize the EOP by
executive order without further Congressional yes
scrutiny;
(5) Whether to seek "no-amendment rule," "referral to
Pres
single committee, and "expedited procedures" for amend
the Administration's reorganization bills.
Mary Shuman and
John Harmon will be working closely with the staffs of the
House and Senate Government Operations Committees first to
resolve the legal questions involved in expanding the scope
of the President's reorganization authority and then to draft
the actual reorganization legislation.
4. Develop management and personnel policy options into
programs for first term.
This project will be staffed by Jule Sugarman and
Terrance Deverney, relying heavily on outside consultants
such as Bill Drayton who advised the Policy Planning
Group. This project will:
a). Examine OMB's role in supporting the President as
manager of the government including
consideration of:
1. Presidential Management Review sessions.
2. State of the government reporting.
3. Appraisal of Presidential appointee performance.
b). Develop an approach and process for examining the
administrative feasibility of proposed legislation.
c) Identify problems in the fiscal relationships among
federal, state and local governments.
d). Develop incentives for improving productivity
and good leadership in Civil Service.
e). Study federal pay question.
Best mode
5. Regulatory Reform Analysis
This project will include four specific functions:
(1) Consideration of major current regulatory reform
issues.
On the basis of initiatives generated by the Ford
administration and/or Congress, certain major legislative issues
in the area of regulatory reform must be addressed during
transition, to enable the incoming administration to formulate
its own position and avoid losing control of the course of
legislation in the 95th Congress. The two most important such
issues are, first, airline deregulation and, second, the Agency
for Consumer Advocacy. Major proposals on each of these two
points with substantial backing will probably move forward rapidly
in Congress next year. We understand that the Ford Administration
will propose a new initiative regarding airline deregulation
before January 20, 1977. The new administration needs to develop
its response to these questions, and, if it wishes to adopt a
leadership posture, it must do this in the early months of 1977.
Especially with respect to airline deregulation, assimilation
during transition of a complex set of substantive and political
factors will be required.
In addition to the ACA and Airline deregulation questions
there are a number of other pressing legislative issues in the
regulatory reform area: OSHA, banking, communications.
(2) Agency liaison and policy analysis
The regulatory reform project will be responsible for
Page 2 of 2
performing the functions of general policy analysis and agency
liaison to a number of regulatory agencies. The policy analysis
function will be especially important, as an aid to personnel
selection, with respect to the independent regulatory agencies,
inasmuch as the President will lost much of his capacity to
shape agency policy after his major appointments to such agencies
have been made, since the members such appointees will serve
statutorily fixed terms.
(3) Update Briefing books for appointees to regulatory agencies
Draft briefing books have been prepared, prior to the
election, on most of the sixteen agencies within the scope of this
project. This work must be updated and completed.
(4) Plan apparatus for permanent consideration and
implementation of regulatory reform within the new administration.
This project will be staffed by Si Lazarus, Mary Schuman
and Debbie Gottheil, with Ira Millstein as consultant.
11/22/26 Notes probinet mlgs
with JL
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
BLAIR HOUSE
THE PRESIDENT'S GUEST HOUSE
1651-1653 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
HEW
Role of See. Pres # HEW/Corg
heorg - Richardson. HEW/labor-
Dept of Ed?
welfare reform
Status of Soe See. future?
Health. Talmadge - Prospective Reimb.
Mat, H. Plan $ Res Ded Act expires '77-
Immunizations
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
BLAIR HOUSE
THE PRESIDENT'S GUEST HOUSE
1651-1653 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
OMB
OMB us Pres us Cabinet vs long
need for Domestic Council?
Improve nsc
OMB lead Reorg affort?
Assess 20B
OMB role in Defense/Intal budget
Multiyear budget?
Lynn us new OMB director
Degree ion fact stall
Current spending levels
WN staff size shuc fare
FOR
BLAIR HOUSE
THE PRESIDENT'S GUEST HOUSE
1651-1653 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
Defense
How to mesh state/DoD
Role of Asec Advis = KIS 03 Scowcoft
Defense hojam Review Committee
Presidents role
How centralized should D.D be?
Organizational 1's ? 2 Departies? ?
Role of joint chiefe Qual I advire
need to modify basic deployments
Role of Dir Cent Sitel
How has Def Int As See/Jchiefs
4 in handling not Intel Est
function Mil Asst wh H.- rank ?
When will must decisions be made on:
New tank, 9CBM. MX, arms sales, B-1, cm's
Budget. Services See vs OMB
Issues in dispute
Briefings
Stra Intog op Plan (SIOP) - when, Where?
not Mil Com Center -
"
,
Visit E JCS
NATO
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
My staff have data on military balance
foreign arms sales
shipbuilding claims
SALT - services disagree?
Combat readiness
Evaluation of Korea
Best DoD policy planning organize fion
2. year budget cycle
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
BLAIR HOUSE
THE PRESIDENT'S GUEST HOUSE
1651-1653 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
Treasury
Leverage E OPEC ?
IM7 loan Sritain- Diff. Simon us Kis
LDC's "bankrapteies"
Advisability of Tean Summit m '77
nyc. assessment- moratornim
extend seasonal financing
Econ Policy Bd
Council Int Econ Pop - Organize?
us econ conditions- prospects
Advice on action. - Tax cut,elc elc
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
BLAIR HOUSE
THE PRESIDENT'S GUEST HOUSE
1651-1653 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
Fed Res
Pres /Cong set gools
Advice directly to President
Economic outlooh
Priority for stimulation if needed
Goals '77 6% Growth 6% themp
No 4 in in Hatin
Term of office
Consult on appointments
Gum book - Set up CEA
FOR
Copins Cabinet to
To:
The President-elect
J
From:
Harrison Wellford
Date:
December 1, 1976
Subject:
Government Reorganization - Transition Agenda
After consultation with Jack Watson and Stu
Eizenstat, we have developed the following agenda:
A. Management and staffing study of the White House and
Executive Office.
Harrison Wellford, assisted by Richard Harden and
Jim Gammill, will coordinate a task force to study the day-
to-day operations and staffing of the Presidency (personal
office and institutionalized staff). The goal is to
prepare a memorandum which will: (a) identify areas
where White House staff and budget can be cut without
compromising efficiency and (b) identify ways to reduce
the staff perquisites and privileges which contribute to
the atmosphere of the "imperial" Presidency. (A detailed
work plan will be delivered tomorrow.)
B. Restructuring
Consistent with your meetings with Congressman
Brooks and Senator Ribicoff on November 23, and in order
to put you in a position to move quickly on government
reorganization by January 21, we are developing the fol-
lowing items:
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
1. Reorganization legislation: draft legislation
which will give you the broad authority you need
to reorganize the executive branch;
2. A careful analysis of the several alternatives
available to you in organizing and staffing your
government reorganization efforts; and
3. Recommendations on ways in which the reorganiza-
tion might be carried out.
I. Reorganization Legislation
The Reorganization Act of 1949 (as amended), which expired
in 1973, provided that reorganization plans submitted by the
President would become law if they were not vetoed by either both
House or Senate within 60 days of submission. No amendment was
permitted
by The congers
President was limited to only one plan in a 30-
delets
day period, and each plan could deal with only one "logically
consistent subject matter." Reorganization plans could not be
used to consolidate, abolish or create cabinet level departments.
The latter restriction compelled President Nixon to submit his
Ash Council proposals for departmental consolidation as ordinary
legislation, which significantly decreased their chance of
passage.
We are consulting with Representative Brooks and
Senator Ribicoff and appropriate Congressional staff and are
preparing a detailed options paper for you on the scope of the
authority which you will seek. Our preliminary recommendation
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
is for a strong bill seeking greater Presidential discretion
than existed under the amended 1949 Act. Such a bill would
include:
authority permitting the President to consolidate,
abolish or create new cabinet departments;
a grant of Presidential reorganization authority
extending for four years;
a provision requiring veto by both Houses (rather
than the previous single-House veto) to invalidate
a Presidential reorganization plan;
authority permitting the President to submit omnibus
plans encompassing more than a single "logically
consistent subject matter;" and
exclusive authority for the President to reorganize
the Executive Office of the President.
With the latter exception, all of this authority was given the
President in the original 1949 Act, but was subsequently revoked
by the Congress. Should Congress be unwilling to enact such a
broad grant of authority and require instead that reorganization
proposals be treated as ordinary legislation, then provision should
be made (a) limiting the ability of Congress to amend the Presi-
dent's proposals and (b) providing for expedited consideration
by a single designated committee.
An outline of Reorganization Authority as it existed in
1973 is attached hereto as Appendix A.
- 4 -
II. Alternatives available to you in organizing and staffing
your reorganization efforts.
In recent years, many competent analyses have been done
on reorganization of the executive branch. These approaches
can be quickly developed into detailed options by a compact
staff. The real problem is the absence of a plausible political
strategy or coalition to push established ideas through Congress.
A central issue in organizing your own efforts in this
area will be your decision on how you wish to involve the
Congress in the formulation of reorganization proposals before
they are sent to The Hill. Among your options are:
o
a panel modeled after the first Hoover Commission,
chaired perhaps by a respected former member of
Congress (for example, Mike Mansfield) or some other
respected national figure, and to which Congress
would nominate members (we understand that Senator
Ribicoff is unenthusiastic about this approach).
an entirely Presidentially appointed panel with an
"Executive Committee" consisting of yourself and
key members of Congress to review the panel's recom-
mendations before they are forwarded to Congress.
a Presidential panel or operation responsible solely
to you and serving entirely at your discretion.
a project manager operating out of the
White House or OMB reporting directly to you and
consulting with key Congressional leaders and their
staffg on an informal basis.
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
We are proceeding to develop these alternatives in detail.
Whether your ultimate decision is to follow the
"commission" approach or an alternative option, we recommend
that a careful and detailed agenda be prepared to guide the
effort to assure that government reorganization is broadly
defined recognizing that organizational structure may be only
a part of the process. We are preparing recommendations on
such an agenda for your consideration.
III. Recommendations on ways in which your reorganization
effort might be carried out.
From now on, you will be under pressure to deliver on
your promise to bring about major consolidation of government
agencies and programs. It will be difficult for you to wait
until your reorganization "commission" or in-house staff has
come up with a general plan. Three immediate steps can be
initiated during transition to help you hit the ground running
on January 20:
Step One - Early Executive Order Targets
Develop a series of executive actions which can be
taken by you in the first few months of your administra-
tion and which do not require Congressional concurrence.
Proposals already being developed here include: (1) an
immediate reduction in the number of "advisory" com-
mittees and commissions (now numbering somewhere on
the order of 1250) ; (2) reorganizing the Office
of Management and Budget; (3) reorganizing and
reducing the size of the personal White House staff;
and (4) a range of Executive Order options available
to you which will enable you to make initial downpayments
on your pledge to make government more open and worthy
of trust. (See our earlier memorandum to you on
Government Organization.)
MADE
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
Step Two - Early Legislative Targets
Develop a few "ripe" proposals into legislative
programs which can be initiated during the "honey-
moon" period to telegraph the seriousness of your
commitment to reorganize the government. The best bets
are (1) developing a Department of Energy or Energy
and Natural Resources, (2) reorganizing or abolishing
the CAB, and (3) creating an Agency for Consumer
Advocacy. Action on each of these proposals is
pending in Congress. You must act soon or lose the
initiative. Development of these proposals will require
(a) discussions with citizens groups, Congressional
committees, affected industries and trade associations,
(b) development of detailed option papers for you to
review, and (c) preparation of drafts of legislation
and backup documents for review by your White House
policy aide.
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
- 7 -
Step Three - Program Reorganization
Design a process for analysis and reorganization of the 1,100
programs administered by the federal government. The confusion
and inefficiency with which this complex array of programs is
administered constitute the primary case for governmental reform.
No one has any clear idea about what this maze of programs is
supposed to accomplish or what they in fact do accomplish.
Unless the program structure is streamlined and reformed, start-
ing with a zero base review of the purposes and accomplishments
of each one, no amount of organizational rearrangement will bring
about real and lasting change.
Accordingly, we recommend that reorganization planning begin
with the individual programs administered by federal agencies.
The essential goal should be to give you and your cabinet and
agency heads the means to rationalize existing programs to
eliminate overlap and to reorganize the remaining programs to
make them effective instruments to accomplish the missions they
are supposed to serve. A second goal would be to prepare the
departments for mission budgeting and selective zero base
no
evaluation.
The following is an explanation of the separate stages of this
program analysis and reorganization:
a. Sorting of Programs
The Congressional Budget Office functions/missions should be
the starting point for analysis of each department's programs. For
example, when the 300 plus programs in HEW are sorted into the
14 CBO functions that apply to HEW, they reveal that at least
54 programs overlap with others within the department and 36
overlap with programs elsewhere in the government.
Still, this sorting takes the analysis only partway. While it
permits us to identify all of the HEW programs which fall under
CBO category 502 "Higher Education", for example, it does not
tell us what the various HEW programs relate to what HEW is doing in
other subfunctions, such as Vocational Training. A framework for
cross-cutting the CBO functions must be employed.
The basic tool for this cross-cutting analysis would be a sorting
of all federal programs into "program design categories" that
depict how the federal government carries out its functions or
how the government pursues its goals. For example, all programs
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PURPOSES
- 8 -
at HEW can be sorted into one of the five following program design
categories.
1. providing financial assistance to individuals (i.e., cash
transfers) ;
2. providing financial assistance to state and local governments,
(i.e., categorical matching grants);
3. building the capacity of the public and private sectors to
meet specific needs, (i.e., research and development) ;
4. direct provision of services by the federal government,
(i.e., Indian and migrant education and health services)
5. setting regulations and standards for public and private
activity, (i.e., health and education standards)
This sorting reveals a different sort of overlap. Several
different programs in the department provide financial assistance
to individuals. Many other separate programs provide financial
assistance grants to state and local governments. The efficiencies
which could be achieved through coordination of the programs
within the same class become evident.
This sorting of programs first into CBO functions and then into
program design categories should be the first phase of the re-
organization study.
b. Analysis of Information
The use of this new management tool will give you several
different kinds of information both by department and by
budget mission. For HEW, for example, you will see that
0 there are presently 35 separate programs providing payments
to state and local governments for elementary and secondary
education;
o there are at least nine different public health programs;
o
there are 46 different programs providing construction loan
guarantees and subsidies, and technical assistance to state
social service agencies; these programs fit into five logical
groups;
o there are 23 major R & D programs in HEW which perform six
basic functions;
For the "community and regional development" budget mission, you
will see all the programs in HUD, HEW, EPA, Labor and Commerce
which distribute funds to the private sector. You will also see
those programs which channel funds to state and local governments
through the various means of tax expenditures, general revenue
sharing, special revenue sharing, categorical matching grants,
and categorical project grants.
- 9 -
C. Organizational Decisions
With this information about the way the government is now
going about the business of trying to accomplish our national
goals in the individual departments and in particular budget
missions, we will be prepared to ask the hard questions about
what the federal government should be doing to pursue those
missions:
o
Which programs duplicate one another and should they be
consolidated or eliminated?
Should programs be shifted from one federal department to
another?
Why do we need so many different programs with apparently
similar goals?
Should we reallocate resources away from categorical grants
toward revenue sharing or toward vouchers given directly to
individuals?
In other words, with this management tool applied to all
agencies (excluding Defense, State, Treasury, and Justice for
the time being), you can begin--a first for any President--
to get an explicit handle on how to think about the relationship
between the government and the governed and on how to get this
relationship under policy control.
d. Steps During Transition
If this approach makes sense to you, we need your authoriza-
tion to commence staff work that can, by January 20, proceed
through the following specific steps:
0 The development of program design categories suitable for
use across the federal domestic agencies (initial categories
have already been done for HEW and, in part, for Interior;
this work must be refined and completed). This work to be
completed by December 15.
o
The completion of a "program sort" into these program de-
sign categories and into budget missions for agencies in three
key policy areas:
- income security and human services;
- energy, environment and national resources; and
- regional and community development,
This work to be completed by January 7.
ELECTROST.ATIC REPRESENTATIVE
- 10 -
(This task will be based on agency budgets, budget justifications,
and budget execution documents and will require assistance from
agency budget/comptroller staffs.)
a The completion of assessments that address the following
questions:
- Based on this analysis, what program reorganizations/
consolidations should be considered?
- What changes in existing statutes, regulations, and
organizations would be required by these reorganizations/
consolidations?
- Which Congressional committees/members and which special
interest constituencies would be most affected by the
changes?
- What reorganizations or realignments of federal departments
should be considered?
- What budget issues are raised? What does the Ford budget
call for in these categories and what amendments should be
considered?
- What implications does the use of this management tool
have for the administration of the various departments?
How would appointments to sub-cabinet and other non-
career posts be affected by a decision to manage each
department using this tool?
This work should be completed for Interior and the environment
and energy agencies by January 20, and should provide the sub-
stantive basis for your proposal to create a Department of Energy
or Department of Energy and Natural Resources. Specific recommenda-
tions for reorganization of HEW could be developed by the end of
February if your proposals for welfare reform and health insurance
have been developed by that time.
e. Staffing
This work, which will be undertaken by a group of 5-8 people
who are experienced in government, policy oriented, and knowledge-
able about programs and program management, can serve as a model
or agenda for review and possible execution by either a White
House Project Manager or by the staff and members of a Presidential
Reorganization Commission.
f. Implementation: Secretary-Led Department Teams
The transition staff will develop the program design categories
and complete the "program sort" for each department. However, the
actual analysis of the information produced by the "program sort",
and the recommendations for rationalization of the department
MADE FC
program structure should be the responsibility of individual
department teams led by the department Secretary and his top
managers. The department team should include, in addition to
budget and policy people, career representatives from program
offices, the personnel office, and the general counsel's office
within the department, so that important details are not over-
looked and so that the line managers who will be charged with
carrying out the reforms understand the reasons for those reforms.
The work of the department teams will clearly require central
coordination. Whether that overall direction will come from a
project manager in the White House or in OMB, or from the executive
staff of a presidential commission or task force will depend on
your decision as to who will lead the reorganization effort.
g. Mission Budgeting
The process of analysis and reorganization of the departmental
program structure by mission is the natural corollary of mission
budgeting. The two processes are at the same time mutually rein-
forcing and mutually dependent.
The current practice of budgeting program by program and
bureau by bureau correctly conforms to the present organizational
structure of the departments. Each program is budgeted the same
way it is administered, 0:1 a virtually independent basis.
To impose mission budgeting on the present structure would risk
giving rise to the same kind of artificial exercises that
accompanied Johnson's PPBS or Ford's "Management Initiatives".
It is quite probable that the budget officer of each department
would go off on a year long exercise to "construct" a mission
budget by piecing together the various budget needs of the
several separate programs in a given mission, while the individual
program directors would continue to administer their individual
programs as before, with little regard for, or knowledge of the
interrelationship of the programs in the same mission.
The program reorganization we recommend would enable the depart-
ments to be organized and administered by mission, as well as
budgeted by mission.
(The agenda for our Regulatory Agency Project and Intergovern-
mental Relations will be delivered tomorrow.)
ELECTROSTATIC
Appendix A
Executive Reorganization Authority Under Act which expired in 1973
(Chapter 9 of title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.
901-913, Reogrganization Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 203, as amended) )
What the President could do
Transfer all or part of an agency or function to another
agency.
Abolish all or part of the functions of an agency or
the agency itself.
Consolidate (or coordinate) all or part of an agency
or function with all or part of another agency or its
functions.
Authorize an officer to delegate his functions.
Change the name of an agency or the title of its head.
Provide for the appointment and pay of the head and
officers resulting from a consolidation or other
reorganization.
What the President could not do
...
Create a new Executive (cabinet level) department.
Abolish or transfer an Executive department.
Abolish or transfer all of the functions of an
Executive department.
Consolidate two or more Executive departments or all
the functions thereof.
Continue an agency or function or office beyond
the time established by law for its termination.
Authorize an agency to perform a function not expressly
authorized by law.
0
In submitting reorganization plans ---
o submit more than one plan within any thirty-day
period;
o submit a plan dealing with more than one logically
consistent subject matter.
Significant provisions in previous versions of executive
reorganization authority not contained in the 1971 version
of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (chapter 9 of title 5
of the United States Code).
O
Permanent authority, not subject to periodic extensions
by the Congress. (Executive Reorganization Act of 1932
(title IV of the act of June 30, 1932, 47 Stat. 413))
0
Authority to create new Executive departments. (Reorganization
Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 203))
0 No congressional disapprovals. (Act of Mar. 3, 1933, 47 Stat.
1517)
O
Congressional rejection by concurrent resolution. (Reorgani-
zation Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 561), Reorganization Act of 1945
(59 Stat. 613)) )
O
Congressional rejection by majority of the authorized
membership of either House. (Reorganization Act of 1949
(63 Stat. 203)) (Under present law, either House of Congress
may reject a reorganization plan by simple majority vote
of those present and voting.)
CARTER - MONDALE
TRANSITION PLANNING GROUP
P.O. Box 2600
C
Washington, D.C. 20013
MEMORANDUM - December 15, 1976
TO:
President-elect Carter
FROM: David Rubenstein
RE:
Energy Reorganization
Stu Eizenstat suggested that you might want to
review this statement before you talked with Senator
Jackson.
Gov-
This was ve'd after your meeting
with Sen Jackson had began.
G3
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
JIMMY CARTER ON ENERGY REORGANIZATION
RELEASED SEPTEMBER 21, 1976
There is one question that surmounts all others in the voters mind during
this campaign. It is how-or even whether--we can make our government work again.
I have made this theme a major focus of my campaign. I have promised to under-
take a major reorganization of the federal government. Today I would like to present
my plan for energy reorganization at the federal level, which will permit us to be
properly organized to carry out the programs necessary to deal with our energy crisis.
Nowhere is the need clearer for a coordinated and coherent policy than in the
area of energy. Two and one half years after the oil embargo our country still has no
energy policy. We have had a parade of energy CZATS, a fragmentation of responsibility,
an absence of accountability. and an ill-conceived proposal for energy independence.
The energy crisis 1a one of leadership and a failure to act aggressively, rather
than not having the resources to get the job done.
The facts are alarming:
--In the first six months of this year we imported 44% of our oil needs--up 25%
from the fall of 1973. The amount of crude oil imported from the Arab countries has
more than doubled. We are more vulnerable than ever to another embargo.
--We had no emergency oil stockpile st the time of the Arab embargo; three years
later we still have no oil stockpile; and under the Ford program it would take us
another 7 years to accumulate a minimum energency supply.
-The OPEC countries have it within their power to prevent economic recovery in
this country through further price increases, yet we have abdicated to the oil companies
our government's responsibility to negotiate with OPEC.
--Our government has as its number one energy priority the proliferation of nuclear
power plants at home and around the world that are increasing the danger of nuclear war.
--Our oil and gas production have gone down since 1970, despite the fact that
the price has more than doubled.
--We have spent billions of dollars to develop a means of transporting Alasket
oil to the West Coast, only to discover that we do not need it on the West Coast and
have no means of getting it to the rest of the country.
--Ever since the embargo we have discussed the need for energy conservation, but
we have no program. Yet the President opposed even such obvious measures as requiring
by law that automobiles meet mandatory fuel efficiency standards, and he fought legis-
lation that would promote development of more fuel-efficient vehicles.
--Coal is our most abundant fuel, but we have no program to expand its use; inst
we continue the wasteful use of our scarce resources, like natural gas.
These problems are not just going to go away. They were created when we assumed
that energy was always going to be abundant and cheap. The embargo dramatically
showed us that this would no longer be true, and yet our government has not rethought
either its policy or its organization to reflect today's energy needs. In fact, just
the opposite has occurred. Rather than creating an effective structure to manage the
energy problem, a structure which is capable of producing and implementing an energy
policy, the President has allowed new agencies, special energy offices and special
assistants for energy to proliferate throughout the government. Right now there are
no less than 20 departments, agencies or commissions that are directly involved and
have their separate views on energy policy development. The fact that there has beer
proliferation of agencies has obscured the fact that none of them are operating
pursuant to a coherent policy.
The chaos created by this lack of organization is apparent:
--Crude oil and natural gas often exist side by side in the same reservoir and
produced from the same wells. Yet the price of natural gas is regulated by the Fede
Power Commission (FPC) under one set of economic standards, and the price of oil and
natural gas liquids extracted from the gas is controlled by the Federal Energy Admin
stration (FEA) under a different set of standards. Before either of these resources
reach the ultimate consumers, they fall under the further regulation of not only the
same two agencies again, but also the ICC, the SEC and state utility commissions.
Seldom do any of these agencies coordinate with each other, although each makes poli
decisions that have a direct and substantial effect not only on the use of the fuel
they regulate, but the demand for all alternative fuels as well.
--Coal is our only domestic energy resource plentiful and readily enough availa
to nee us through the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such
solar energy. Many agencies have a role in its development: ERDA, FEA, Department
Interior. Yet in the end, no agency in the government really has overall responsibi
for its development in an environmentally sound manner, and the development of a
national coal program therefore continues to drift.
--Today most energy research is concentrated in one agency, the Energy Research
and Development Administration (ERDA). But because 1t is an offshoot of the now def
Atomic Energy Commission and is not accountable to the other energy programs, its en
slant is toward the nuclear industry. Sixty-five percent of its research resources
for fiscal year 1977 are oriented toward nuclear fission and fusion, while only 5% V
80 to energy conservation and 6% for solar power. This distribution is folly. We t
now wasting 50% of the energy we are presently using, a figure that could be greatly
reduced through development of aggressive conservation technologies. The technology
harness our renewable resources such as the sun could provide our children and grar
children with a plentiful and environmentally acceptable energy source after our nor
renewable resources are gone.
--The Energy Resources Council 1s the Ford Administration's excuse for energy
policy coordination. It 1s made up of the heads of virtually every agency in Washir
so that it is top-heavy with officials having little knowledge of or interest in ent
policy. Its chairman is the Secretary of Commerce, whose agency has only periphera
involvement in the energy picture and who personally has little or no background or
experience in the area. The ERC is without any staff or resources.
The Ford Administration has done nothing to straighten out this jumble. When
it had the opportunity to make some headway, at the time the life of the FEA expired
on June 30 of this year, it merely perpetuated the chaos by timidly proposing that th
FEA be extended for another 39 months.
I recognize that reorganization of our energy agencies is only the prelude to SC
the energy problems and that is will take new policies and programs--major new
initiatives--to regain strength in energy. I have set out on other occasions the
energy programs s Carter Administration would emphasize, but they are worth repeating
in summary here, to show what the revamped structure will be designed to accomplish:
--I would exercise the federal government's obligation to protect the nation
against an oil embargo and to negotiate on behalf of the consumer to keep OPEC prices
under reasonable control. The present practice ofleaving the consumers' fate in the
hands of the big oil companies and the OPEC cartel will be stopped.
--I would institute an all-out, comprehensive energy conservation program. This
means performance standards, financial incentives, research and development of more (
efficient technology, and conservation pricing of energy. The Carter Administration
will give a higher priority to conservation.
--I would establish a new "clean coal" program, designed to overcome all the
bottlenecks in mining, transportation and conversion of industrial plants but still
protecting the land, air and water, and health and safety of coal miners.
--I would institute a major initiative to develop environmentally safe and rener
energy resources, such as solar power. Its development is being neglected, while nuc
power, which poses many dangers, is being favored.
--I would formulate all of my initiatives in partnership with the states and 100
governments. The best resources of each area of the country will be matched with its
important needs.
In order to implement these energy programs, we must begin by straightening out
bureaucratic jumble in Washington. The general outlines of how to 80 about that are
clear. There should be combined in one cabinet-level Department, under a Secretary 1
would report to the President, all current offices or agencies that presently perform
the energy functions of policy and analysis, conservation, research and development,
data collection and economic regulation of oil, gas, utilities and pipelines.
I intend to abolish the Federal Energy Administration, the Federal Power Commis
the Energy Research and Development Administration, and the Energy Resources Council
Their combined missions will be carried out by the Department, eliminating in the pr
cess the overlap, duplication and inconsistency of our present structure. I would &
bring into the Department those functions of the Departments of Commerce and Treasur
relating solely to energy; those functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission
relating to enforcement of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935; those fun
of the Interntate Commerce Commission relating to pipeline regulation; and the econo
regulatory functions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Within the Department, it will be necessary to clearly define roles and functio
and in certain instances to establish buffers to ensure that functions are insulated
from undue political influence. For example, the economic regulatory functions shou
be properly insulated. Similarly, the energy data collection functions combined in
REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PURPOSES
the Department should be free of the biases of the policymakers, in order to
finally give some credibility to the government's energy statistics.
with this kind of coordinated energy department, we can move ahead with a balan
comprehensive program of increasing energy sources, reducing our consumption and
increasing our energy independence. But I should emphasize with equal force that the
Secretary of this new department will not have unlimited or sole discretion within tl
Executive Branch to develop and promote the energy program. There is no reason why I
balance between energy, on the one hand, and the protection of the environment, the
health and safety of our citizens and the multiple use of our public lands, on the
other, cannot be achieved. To insure that the latter considerations have an equal re
in energy policy, I would keep separate from the new department primarily responsible
energy those agencies whose primary responsiblities are for these other consideration
For example, many of the functions of the Department of Interior relate to ener
but the basic mission of that Department is to manage the nation's natural resources
all the public, not to promote energy development. While a sound energy policy will
permit development and use of some of the energy resources which the government holds
trust for the public, the maintenance of Interior's "stewardship" role for all uses
will assure that energy does not become the dominant factor in public land managemen
Similarly, the agencies which are now charged with protection of public health
safety and with restoring and maintaining the quality of our environment (e.g., the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA) must remain as independent voices for the
goals.
Finally, other departments, such as Transportation and Housing and Urban Develo
must also play an important and upgraded role in carrying out a comprehensive energ:
program, by emphasizing energy conservation in the industries they are charged to
promote or regulate.
As President, I will give the development of a coherent energy policy, and the
creation of a government organization that can put it into effect, the highest prio
This is the kind of thinking that should have been going on inside the White House
the past few years.
What is needed is organization, not continued chaos; leadership, not the passi
of the past two years. The energy problem is not insoluble 1f we meet it with the
vision, determination and competence that will come about only with a change of
leadership.
FOR COMMCENTER USE ONLY
IMM
LINCLAS
PRECEDENCE
CLASSIFICATION
DEX
FROM:
Maxie Wells, Plains
DAC 068
GPS
TO:
LDX
PAGES 11
Jack Watson
(TRANSITION OFFICE HEW)
TTY
CITE
INFO:
DTG: 220218Z DEC 76
RELEASED BY: OF
TOR: 220310Z
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Jack:
Wanted you to know JC saw this, and wanted you to
be able to see where he put check marks.
If his note on page twelve doesn't come through,
it says:
"good, but too lengthy"
WHCA FORM 8, 22 FEB 74
We didn't
- 12 -
tele copy these
C. Regulatory Reform Project
Pages LAST night
Please review them-
The main function of this project is to consider current
legislative proposals to restructure government regulation of
business, which require your immediate attention. Legislative
JW good,but
action is expected early in 1977 on several such areas, including
Too
airline deregulation, consumer representation, and aspects of
lengthy
the regulation of communications, banking, and food and product
safety. Preparation during transition is needed to avoid the
J
risk that significant legislation will move forward without
your leadership or participation. These issues also provide
opportunities for demonstrating quick action to fulfill your
commitment to government reform. To provide you with this
capability, we will first develop the alternative courses of
action you may wish to pursue in each area. After you have
selected among these options, we will proceed accordingly, by
making appropriate contacts, preparing draft legislation, and
so forth.
In addition to its focus on major current legislative
issues, the regulatory reform unit will be responsible for
policy analysis, liaison, and briefing fuctions for twelve
regulatory agencies. The unit will also be responsible for
analysis of consumer protection proposals and for relations
with consumer groups during transition.
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
In the balance of this section, we will outline the
specific projects now contemplated within each of the above
four categories, and specify target dates for completion.
- 13 -
I. Major Current Legislative Issues
A. Airline Deregulation. One of the first items on the
Congressional agenda in 1977 is airline deregulation and general
reform of the CAB. Legislation has been introduced by Sen.
Cannon and Rep. Anderson (chairmen of the Senate and House
Aviation Subcommittees), by President Ford, by Senator Kennedy,
and by the CAB itself. The relevant Senate committee is expected
to act early in 1977.
We propose to complete an option memorandum by December
20 for your review.
B. Agency for Consumer Advocacy. Creating an Agency for
Consumer Advocacy (ACA) is a consumer group priority item and
a campaign commitment. Both Houses passed such legislation last
year and are considered likely to act early in 1977.
We plan to complete by January 1 an option memorandum
on this issue for your consideration. It will refine the analysis
in the paper on the ACA previously given to you, dated November 2,
1976, and will consider certain issues not touched on in that
previous paper. These will include the possibility of folding
an ACA proposal into a larger consumer reform and/or reorganiza-
tion package and the possibility of combining ACA with your
initial package of legislative proposals addressed to reducing
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
government waste and inefficiency.
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
C. Competition in the communications common carrier
industry. Both Houses of Congress will consider legislation to
overturn recent FCC decisions expanding competition in the
- 14 -
common carrier industry. This is a complex issue on which
the new administration will be expected to take an early posi-
tion. Legislative review of this issue could lead to broader
consideration of major reorganization and substantive revision
of the 40-year old structure of communications regulation.
An option memo will be completed by January 5.
D. Additional Legislative Issues. In addition to airline
deregulation, the ACA, and communications common carrier legis-
lation, two other legislative concerns merit attention during
the transition.
1. Regulation of financial institutions. Several
proposals restructuring the several agencies that
currently regulate financial institutions will be
re-introduced in Congress by Senator Proxmire and
Congressman Reuss, who chair the Senate and House
Banking Committees. Both chairman have signifi-
cant interest in these bills and are understood
to be looking to the new administration for support
and leadership in the area.
2. Restructuring the FDA. Senator Kennedy has proposed
splitting the FDA into two bureaus, while House
Commerce Investigation Subcommittee Chairman Moss
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
has proposed consolidation of the agency with two
ELECTROST ATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
other safety commissions (NHTSA and CPSC).
- 15 -
With respect to these and other legislative issues,
the regulatory reform project will prepare briefing
memoranda.
II. Policy Analysis and Agency Liaison
As noted above, the regulatory reform project will be
responsible for general policy analysis and agency liaison for
regulatory agencies. For the independent agencies, policy
analysis during transition appears to us to be especially im-
portant as an aid to personnel selection, since the President
loses much of his capacity to shape agency policy once appoint-
ments have been made. Regarding the executive branch regulatory
entities for which we are responsible, we have coordinated with
the transition staff persons responsible for policy analysis and
liaison with the relevant parent executive departments (e.g.,
HEW for FDA) to eliminate overlapping activity.
In addition to the policy analysis function, the regula-
tory unit will serve as the liaison to each of the independent
agencies. This function will be limited to the collection of
information. Care will be taken to respect the independent
status of these agencies to avoid any appearance of attempting
to influence policy.
III. Updating and Completion of Briefing Books
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
Prior to the election, briefing/options books were
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
prepared on each of the sixteen agencies within the scope of
- 16 -
this project. Final versions will be completed on the basis
of information gained through agency liaison. This work will
be finished by January 5.
IV. Regulatory Reform after January 20
During transition, the regulatory reform project con-
templates laying the groundwork for establishing a permanent
unit to plan and help implement regulatory reform. Under the
Ford administration, such a unit functioned under the direction
of one CEA member (Paul MacAvoy) and the Deputy Counsel to the
President (Roderick Hills and his successory, Edwin Schmults).
This group developed the Ford legislative proposals to de-
regulate surface transportation, air travel, and natural gas
pricing. We understand that the Ford administration plans to
release additional regulatory reform proposals or studies,
although they may be withheld if the incoming administration
so requests.
After discussions with the architects of the Ford
regulatory reform program, we plan to prepare an option memo-
randum describing alternative mechanisms to house the regula-
tory reform activities of the Carter administration. This
memorandum will be completed December 20.
- 17 -
D. Intergovernmental Relations
The intergovernmental issues with the greatest urgency
and the most transcendent importance relate to the design and
administration of the federal aid system.
An extraordinary array of major federal aid programs come
up for renewal in 1977. What this unusual convergence of
federal aid program expirations suggests is that much of the
attention of the Congress will be focused on explicitly
intergovernmental matters in 1977. It also means that the
new Administration will have a better than normal opportunity
to seek any necessary statutory changes in the pattern of
federal aid funding and administration. To the extent practicable
a consistent policy on the appropriate mix from among categorical,
block, and revenue sharing grants should be developed. Because
so much of the federal government's domestic program inevitably
involves the aid system and because a major aspect of the work
program of nearly all federal departments and agencies
includes federal aid administration, intergovernmental concerns
are reflected in the work of many agency liason and policy
planning and government organization staff members.
At least as important as the legislative renewal timing
is the opportunity to use provisions in existing law to
improve the administration of the $60 billion federal aid
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
ELECTROST ATIC REPRODU STION MADE
system. Particular emphasis on management of the aid system
seems justified given the size of the federal expenditure
in the area, the opportunity for early forceful action without
additional statutory authority, the relationship between
federal aid administration and overall management improvement,
and the priority placed on such issues by a crucial
constituency -- state and local government officials.
The underutilization of available management tools is
the result of management problems in the Office of Management
and Budget and the relatively low priority placed on such
management issues by the current Administration. Implementation
of existing management processes and authority has been limited
by insufficient and unqualified staff, inadequate top
management attention, the predominance of budget preparation over
all other OMB activities, and the expected opposition of many
operating agencies. The argument that placement of
management responsibility close to the budget process gives
added leverage in gaining departmental compliance with
management objectives seems compromised by the fact that in
practice the budget staff typically becomes an advocate for
the departments it oversees.
Whether the management functions for intergovernmental
purposes are left in a strengthened OMB, moved to a new
department of policy and management, or located in the White
House, a cluster of existing tools can be put to more effective
use. Such tools would be intended to accomplish the following
objectives:
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION
- 18 -
1. Enforce uniformity in federal regulations regarding
grant recipients' accounting procedures and audit
guidelines. (Achievable through OMB enforcement of
management circulars FMC 74-4 and 74-7)
2. Encourage and facilitate local and state "packaging"
of related grant programs through federal coordination
of audit requirements, filing deadlines, application
procedures, definitions of eligible governments, and
accounting procedures. (Achievable through full
Presidential support and OMB and Federal Regional
Council implementation of the Joint Funding Simplification
Act.)
3. Designate consistent boundaries for federal substate
administrative purposes. (Achievable through implement-
ation of OMB Circular A-95, Part IV, in conjunction with
gubernatorial action.)
4. Institutionalize state-local consultation in the drafting
of intergovernmentally significant federal regulations.
(Achievable through full implementation of OMB Circular
A-85.)
5. Institutionalize the review of the intergovernmental
implications of the Administration's legislative and
budget proposals. (Achievable by implementing the
aspects of the new Budget Reform and Impoundment Act
calling for Inflation Impact and Fiscal Impact State-
ments highlighting the implications of proposals on
state and local governments; and by adjusting OMB's
budget preparation procedures.)
6. Develop conformity on federal requirements regarding
equal opportunity, citizen participation, environmental
impacts, and the like. (Achievable following a
negotiation process involving all interested parties
conducted by the chief management official at OMB or
its successor management agency.)
7. Develop commonly used definitions for the key terms
now being interpreted by each department in administering
federal aid, including: "local government," "tax effort,"
tax capacity," "poverty level. " (Achievable following
a negotiation process involving all interested parties
conducted by the chief management official at OMB or
its successor management agency.)
- 19 -
8. Develop performance standards for testing the
timeliness of federal processing of grant appli-
cations. (Achievable through OMB's existing authority.)
9. Revise the Federal Regional Councils as agents for
coordinating the federal aid system. (Achievable by
either abolishing councils or assigning permanent
staff and a full-time director to each regional office
and developing policy limiting the occasions on which
FRC decisions could be overruled in Washington.)
10. Use letter of credit-type procedures for grant reci-
pients as a way to bridge cash flow problems for
recipients and as an interest savings device for the
federal government. (Achievable following enactment
of federal legislation.)
The Government Organizations Cluster will develop a detailed
options paper/action plan covering actions possible during the
transition and after January 20 for those items from the above
list deemed of high priority. It will also provide liaison
with the large number of groups actively interested in these
interrelated issues.
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESEDVATION
Appendix A
Executive Reorganization Authority Under Act which expired in 1973
(Chapter 9 of title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.
901-913, Reogrganization Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 203, as amended) )
What the President could do
Transfer all or part of an agency or function to another
agency.
Abolish all or part of the functions of an agency or
the agency itself.
Consolidate (or coordinate) all or part of an agency
or function with all or part of another agency or its
functions.
Authorize an officer to delegate his functions.
Change the name of an agency or the title of its head.
Provide for the appointment and pay of the head and
officers resulting from a consolidation or other
reorganization.
What the President could not do
Create a new Executive (cabinet level) department.
Abolish or transfer an Executive department.
Abolish or transfer all of the functions of an
Executive department.
Consolidate two or more Executive departments or all
the functions thereof.
Continue an agency or function or office beyond
the time established by law for its termination.
.N
Authorize an agency to perform a function not expressly
authorized by law.
In submitting reorganization plans ---
submit more than one plan within any thirty-day
period;
?
submit a plan dealing with more than one logically
consistent subject matter.
Significant provisions in previous versions of executive
reorganization authority not contained in the 1971 version
of the Reorganization Act of 1949 (chapter 9 of title 5
of the United States Code).
Permanent authority, not subject to periodic extensions
by the Congress. (Executive Reorganization Act of 1932
(title IV of the act of June 30, 1932, 47 Stat. 413) )
Authority to create new Executive departments. (Reorganization
Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 203) )
No congressional disapprovals. (Act of Mar. 3, 1933, 47 Stat.
1517)
Congressional rejection by concurrent resolution. (Reorgani-
zation Act of 1939 (53 Stat. 561), Reorganization Act of 1945
(59 Stat. 613) )
Congressional rejection by majority of the authorized
membership of either House. (Reorganization Act of 1949
(63 Stat. 203) ) (Under present law, either House of Congress
may reject a reorganization plan by simple majority vote
of those present and voting.)
CARTER - MONDALE
TRANSITION PLANNING GROUP
David Sive
P.O. Box 2600
Washington, D.C. 20013
January 6, 1976 [1977]
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT-ELECT
FROM
:
Barbara Blum
SUBJECT: Council on Environmental Quality
I spoke to Ham on January 3 to discuss with him my
interest in three positions in which I felt I could serve
you well. One of the positions was Under Secretary of
the Interior, one was Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wild-
life and Parks (Interior Department), and the other was
Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. At that
time Ham said that he felt the CEQ would be abolished.
The following is not a plea to save a job for me
because I will, as I always have, serve you in whatever
capacity you need and want me. Rather, the memo is to
alert you to my feelings regarding the major political
and legal liabilities of abolishing the CEQ.
Funds have already been appropriated, authorized and
signed for the CEQ for FY 77 and 78. Under the terms of
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974,
these funds must now be spent for the designated purpose.
Although there are two courses of action you might have fol-
lowed to defer or avoid expending these monies under the Act,
the time limit for such action has long since passed. Had
your deferral or rescission request been timely filed, there
could have been as much as 45 days delay before Congress
voted it up or down. Given the popularity of the CEQ, that
vote would most likely have been negative.
The elimination of the Council on Environmental Quality
therefore must await FY 79 appropriations and even then should
be presented as part of an overall reorganization package, with
its core purposes retained in some other office.
ELECTROSTATIC REPRODUCTION MADE FOR
PRESERVATION PURPOSES
- 2 -
The Council on Environmental Quality has five major
statutory and executive foundations:
1. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
2. The Environmental Quality Improvement Act of
1970.
3. Executive Order 11514 (1970).
4. The Non-Nuclear R&D Act of 1974.
5. Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.
The CEQ has been regarded widely as a high-quality
organization, performing a vital function of independent,
non-mission-oriented, environmental policy coordination and
providing information to the President, the Congress, and
the public on environmental trends. It has succeeded despite
a lack of support from the Administration.
It is not likely CEQ's unique functions could be carried
out by a "mission" agency such as EPA. The necessarily short-
term exigencies of enforcing our pollution control laws make
it improbable that an overworked and law enforcement-focused
agency such as EPA could fill the breach if the CEQ were
abolished. Primary strengths of the CEQ are its independence
from mission and bureaucracy, its ability to flexibly serve
the President, and its mandate to take the broadest view of
environmental issues. Characteristically, it is the CEQ
which brings attention to subtle but significant problems
such as toxic and carcinogenic substances, land use and in-
ternational environmental problems.
I feel strongly that there is a need in the Executive
Office of the President for a broad-scoped view of environ-
mental quality and trends. The responsibilities to oversee
the actions of other federal agencies would be diminished
and perhaps eliminated by removing the CEQ function from the
Executive Office of the President. And a President concerned
about environmental quality would find the Council a tre-
mendously valuable resource.
The CEQ has been a focal point in the federal government
for citizens interested in environmental quality. Indeed,
the environmental community, together with the Congress, would
try to block an attempt to abolish the Council. Amending the
- 3 -
National Environmental Policy Act to abolish the CEQ would
be considered a catastrophic event in the environmental
community. It is an unnecessary battle for FY 77.
A proposal to abolish the CEQ made by you as President
would come at a time when public expectations are that the
harassment of the CEQ by the White House and the OMB will
finally be reversed. The CEQ has been shut out by Presidents
who did not care to pay attention to environmental concerns
and OMB has cut staffing levels over the past few years while
at the same time, the responsibilities and need for complex
and solid environmental information has increased. Instead
of a reasonable staff level of about 65, OMB has ordered the
CEQ to diminish its total staff to 40 people by the end of
FY 77. Contrary to expecting the Carter Administration to
deal a death blow to the CEQ, it is hoped by many -- perhaps
assumed -- that the intention will be to restore the CEQ to
the funding, staffing and prominence it deserves.