Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "506678721",
    "label": "President's Handwriting, September 9-30, 1973 [2 of 3]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/506678721"
}

{
    "id": "506678721",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/506678721",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "President's Handwriting, September 9-30, 1973 [2 of 3]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/506678721",
    "collections": [
        "White House Staff Member and Office Files (Nixon Administration)",
        "President's Office Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/876218/Batch0002/37-sf-smof-pof-876218-22-09/37-sf-smof-pof-876218-22-09-001.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/876218/Batch0002/37-sf-smof-pof-876218-22-09/37-sf-smof-pof-876218-22-09-001.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/876218/Batch0002/37-sf-smof-pof-876218-22-09/37-sf-smof-pof-876218-22-09-001.jpg",
    "imageCount": 29,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/506678721",
    "naId": 506678721,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 29,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.dualstack.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/nixon/rn-smof/876218/Batch0002/37-sf-smof-pof-876218-22-09/37-sf-smof-pof-876218-22-09.pdf",
    "mediaId": "372234a655908765",
    "ocrText": "PHW\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN\nTHE CHAIRMAN OF THE\nCOUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1973\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nSubject: August Housing Starts\nHousing starts fell 6 percent from July to August\non a seasonally adjusted basis. The annual rate of\nprivate starts in August -- 2,045,000 units -- was the\nlowest since September 1971.\nThe housing decline so far this summer is about in\nline with our projections and has been of moderate pro-\nportions. Our projections do not involve the annual rate\nof starts falling below 1.8 million in any quarter of\n1974. We believe the action announced in the Housing\nMessage, especially the commitments by the Federal Home\nLoan Bank Board, will help to prevent starts from falling\nbelow that level.\nThese data are for release September 19 at 2:00 p.m.\nHerbert Herberf Sten Stein\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 19, 1973\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMR. HERBERT STEIN\nFROM:\nBRUCE KEHRLI BAK\nSUBJECT:\nAugust Housing Starts\nReferring to the bracketed section of your September 19 memo\n(copy attached), it was noted that this action is good and that\nthis situation should be watched closely. It was requested that\nyou keep the President posted.\nCC: A1 Haig\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nVETOED 9/22/73\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 20, 1973\nMEMORANDUM FOR\nTHE PRESIDENT\nVIA:\nKEN COLE\n5.1672\nFROM:\nDANA MEAD\nSUBJECT:\nVETO OF THE SBA AMENDMENTS BILL\nBACKGROUND\nThe SBA Loan Amendments bill, which greatly expands disaster loan\nforgiveness, lowers loan interest rates for SBA and FHA disaster loans,\nand includes other undesirable budget busting provisions, is now before\nyou for consideration.\nThe Administration has consistently opposed this bill on the Hill. The\nrestoration of large amounts of loan forgiveness, regardless of the need\nof the disaster victim, is particularly costly and undesirable. This bill\nwill cost between $200-$500 million more per year depending upon the\ndisaster level. For example, had it been in effect in fiscal year 1973\nthe additional cost would have been $800 million.\nLast April 20th you signed a bill which eliminated the forgiveness pro-\nvisions of the old disaster legislation and put all SBA and FHA disaster\nassistance on a 5% loan basis. This would undo that recent action.\nDISCUSSION\nTimmons, Harlow, Ash, Laird and Cole agree that you should veto the\nbill. The major questions revolve about the probability of being able to\nsustain the veto at this time and ways in which to increase that probability.\nA. Probability of Sustaining the Veto\nTimmons believes that the vote to sustain will be very close.\nIn the Senate there was only one vote against the bill. It passed\nthe House on a voice vote. On the only test vote in the House;\none eliminating the generous forgiveness provisions, we lost\n167-245.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n2\n(1) Democrat Support\nThe 36 Democrats voting with us in the House were\nmostly Liberals; we can expect 30 of them to desert\nus on a tough vote to override. Furthermore, there\nseems to be a real effort building on the Hill to break\nthe string of six consecutive veto victories you have\nenjoyed.\n(2) Republican Support\nThe Republican leadership (Ford, Arends, Rhodes) has\nexpressed strong objection to the bill and will work very\nhard to sustain your veto. Subtracting the soft Democrat\nsupport would leave us with approximately 142 votes.\nHowever, some of the continued Republican support is\nalso uncertain. Nearly 20 major disasters have been\ndeclared since April and the retroactive provisions of\nthe bill would make many Congressional districts eligible\nfor generous Federal handouts if the forgiveness were\nrestored.\n(3) Other Support\nThere are no indications that there will be organized\nspecial interest group activity working against the veto.\nThe Red Cross has expressed support of the disaster\nprovisions of the bill, however, it will not actively lobby\nto have the veto overridden. The governors are lukewarm\nand will not actively work to override.\nB. The Veto Message\nTo increase the probability of sustaining the veto, in the\nmessage we will include a promise to work with the Congress\nto develop a fiscally responsible interim measure pending\nfinal passage of your comprehensive proposal. The message\nwill also stress the human aspects of disaster assistance and\nyour desire to insure responsive and effective help for disaster\nvictims.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n3\nBill Timmons believes that promising to work with the\nCongress to develop an interim measure leaving the details\nto be worked out by his people on the Hill, is the best course.\nIn his view, it is committal enough to measurably improve\nthe prospects of sustaining the veto.\nRECOMMEND\nIn light of the foregoing, recommend:\n(1)\nThat you veto the bill.\n(Ash, Laird, Harlow, Timmons and Cole favor this)\nAgree\nDisagree\nComment\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 21, 1973\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMR. KEN COLE\nFROM:\nBRUCE KEHRLY AMP\nSUBJECT:\nVeto of the SBA Amendments Bill\nYour September 20 memorandum to the President on the above\nsubject has been reviewed and your recommendation -- that\nthe President veto the bill -- was approved.\nPlease follow up with the appropriate action.\nCC: Dana Mead\nA1 Haig\nBill Timmons\nBryce Harlow\nRoy Ash\nMelLaird\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 23, 1973\nMr. President:\nI agree this is one of those\noccasions when we should accept\nthe inevitable in the interest of\npositive movement.\nI recommend Option 2.\n@\nA1 Haig\nAttachment\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPHW\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 21, 1973\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nVIA:\nKEN COLE\nFROM:\nJIM CAVANAUGHT\nSUBJECT:\nManpower Revenue Sharing Decision Paper\nBACKGROUND\nIn view of your earlier concern about public service employ-\nment, we wanted to give you an assessment of where we are with\nthe manpower revenue sharing proposal and receive your guidance\non how we should proceed.\nYou originally proposed a manpower revenue sharing program two\nyears ago. When the Congress failed to act, you directed, in\nJanuary, that the Secretary of Labor move towards implementing\nas much of the revenue sharing proposal as possible by adminis-\ntrative action. The Department developed a set of regulations\nand began consultations with members of Congress as well as\nGovernors and Mayors.\nThis action triggered the Congress into seriously considering\nmanpower revenue sharing legislation.\nCURRENT STATUS\nThe Senate has passed a comprehensive manpower bill as well as\na $1.25 billion extension of the Emergency Employment Act. We\ncan live with parts of the Senate Bill, but not with the\nEmergency Employment Act. The House Labor Committee is currently\nin the process of marking up a manpower bill. We have been\nadvised by House Republicans that it will not be possible to\nobtain a Senate-House compromise manpower bill that is compatible\nwith your policy on manpower revenue sharing unless we reverse\nour total opposition to a separate program of public service\nemployment and accept a $250-300 million limited public service\nemployment program tied into manpower revenue sharing.\nSecretary Brennan shares this view.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n- 2 -\nOPTIONS\nOption 1\nThis choice represents our current position. If you choose this\noption, we would again inform the House Committee that public\nservice employment would be an allowable activity under the overall\nmanpower revenue sharing program but that we would oppose a\nseparate title for public service employment and separate dollar\nauthorizations.\nAdvantages\n1. Allows us to support the concept of local discretion on\nmanpower revenue sharing dollars in that they could be\nexpended for public service employment if deemed advisable\nby local officials.\n2. If acceptable to the Congress, would permit us to seek a\nlower appropriation level than with Option 2.\nDisadvantage\n1. Is not acceptable to the House Committee as a constructive\ncompromise, and could lead to passage of unacceptable man-\npower legislation.\nOption 2\nAgree to a separate public service employment title which has\ntwo provisions:\n(a) at local discretion the funds under this title could be\nexpended for any other activity authorized by manpower\nrevenue sharing legislation if local officials did not\nwish to spend the money for public service employment;\n(b) the funds could only be expended for public service\nemployment if a set level of high unemployment (8.0%)\npersisted in the labor market area where the funds would\nbe used.\nAdvantages\n1. Would result in developing a manpower bill that we could\nlive with in all other respects.\n2. Would put the House in a good position to go into a House-\nSenate Conference to work on removing the Senate passed\nEmergency Employment Act.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n- 3 -\n3. If the Emergency Employment Act is not removed in Con-\nference, we have a justifiable position for a veto.\n4. Would be widely acclaimed by the Mayors.\nDisadvantages\n1. Reverses our previous opposition to any public service\nemployment that is not a part of our overall manpower\nrevenue sharing program.\n2. Would cost an additional $250 million.\n3. Provides a separate categorical title in the overall\nmanpower revenue sharing legislation.\nRECOMMENDATION\nSecretary Brennan - \"Unless Option 2 is adopted, the Adminis-\ntration will not be able to secure enactment of an acceptable\nManpower Revenue Sharing Bill and avoid the problem of vetoing\na large Emergency Employment Act extension bill. Despite\nearly apprehensiveness over a national public service employ-\nment program, the Emergency Employment Act program worked well\nand the Administration received substantial credit. Moreover,\npublic service employment is extremely popular in the Congress\nand with State-local officials, so that there is significant\npolitical support for some kind of provision for it in manpower\nlegislation. Acceptance of Option 2 by the Administration can\nalso be defended on programmatic grounds, since the additional\nfunds would be targeted for a limited number of high unemploy-\nment areas. \"\nBill Timmons, Roy Ash, Mel Laird, Bryce Harlow and I also\nrecommend Option 2.\nWe should inform Al Quie that we will agree with a separate\npublic service employment title with an authorization of\n$250 million but only in exchange for a firm commitment by\nthe Congressional leadership to a bill with the following\nprovisions:\nA. That the money could be expended for other manpower\ntraining activities authorized under other titles of\nthe bill at the discretion of local officials;\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n- 4 -\nB. That the money would only be expended for public service\njobs if a persistent predetermined level of unemployment\nexisted in the labor market area where the funds are\nallocated;\nC. That does not mandate categorical programs in States\nand localities;\nD. That does not specify design or organization for their\noperations;\nE. That there be no Federal approval or performance review\nof the plans for the actual expenditure of the funds;\nF. That the bill not include any provisions which could\nlead toward additional or specific funding for the\nsummer youth employment programs.\nAl Quie advises that Chairman Daniels would agree to manpower\nrevenue sharing legislation if we would go along with Option 2.\nDECISION\nOPTION 1\nFunds could be used for public service\nemployment but no separate title or\nauthorization.\nOPTION 2\nPar\nSeparate title and authorization, but\nfunds could be used for other manpower\nactivities at local discretion.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 24, 1973\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMR. KEN COLE\nFROM:\nBRUCE KEHRLI\\\nBAC\nSUBJECT:\nManpower Revenue Sharing\nDecision Paper\nThe attached memorandum to the President on the above subject\nhas been reviewed and Option 2 - - Separate title and authorization\nbut funds could be used for other manpower activities at local\ndiscretion -- was approved.\nPlease follow up with the appropriate action.\nCC: Al Haig\nJim Cavanaugh\nBill Timmons\nRoy Ash\nMel Laird\nBryce Harlow\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nR- ATTOCLE PO\nMANPOWE AN ur\nrevenue Strong,\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nB.\nWASHINGTON\nTO:\nBruce\nFROM:\nCRAIG GOSDEN\nThis hAs been cleared\nby TiMMONS\nHarlow\nCoLE\nLAIRD\nAsH(Edwards a grees with\nO'nill that Paul can\none - PAul hAs signed off.)\nsign off for Roy on this\nBreman\nWe need an answer\nby MONDAY As you know -\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE WHITE House\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 22, 1973\nTO:\nGENERAL HAIG\nFROM:\nBRUCE KEHR BAR\nThis should go into the President as\nsoon as possible as we need a decision\nby Monday morning.\nThank you.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPHW\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN. K.\nTHE WHITE house\nwAshington\nSeptember 21, 1973\nRECOMMENDED TELEPHONE CALL\nTO:\nSenator Strom Thurmond (R-SC)\nRECOMMENDED BY:\nTom C. Korologos\nAPPROVED BY:\nWilliam E. Timmons\nPURPOSE:\nTo thank him for his opening statement\nyesterday on the Defense bill and to urge\nhim to stand tough on the Senate Floor during\nthe next week or ten days on this bill.\nBACKGROUND:\n1. On Thursday, Thurmond gave quite a well\ndone opening statement on the Defense bill, which\noutlined its purposes very well and of which\nhe is very proud.\n2. Thurmond said he shot down three mis-\nconceptions\na) that defense spending is\nbankrupting the country; b) that because of\ndetente we should slow down or stop building\nnew weapon systems; and c) that we can achieve\npeace by undertaking unilateral force reductions\nin NATO and elsewhere.\n3. Because of absentees on our side, we are\ndelaying any of the big votes on this bill until\nnext week.\nTALKING POINTS:\n1. Express knowledge of his well done opening\nstatement which was in the Congressional Record\nthis morning.\n2. Urge him as our \"leader\" to make sure the\nRepublicans watch the Floor at all times lest\nSymington sandbags us some way.\n3. Inquire how we will do on NATO, Trident\nand F-14 amendments.\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n10-11 Tom Karologos has taken\ncare of matter No lts required.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\n10-3\nBruce: We received from the outbox yes-\nterday a Recommended Telephone Call to\nSenators Thurmond and Tower. The Pres.\ncalled both of them to thank them for their\nleadership on the Defense Authorization Bill.\nWe have been holding preparation of this\nletter UKLX to Thurmond (the outcome of a\nprevious Rec Tele Call) for the completion\nof the DOD bill on the Hill.\nSince the President called Thurmond yesterday,\nassume that we can file this and not worry about\na letter at this time.\nRight? I THINK BUT\nCHK TOM (Conslegs)\nkaren\nVirginia Olsen Thurmand has made note\nto be sure, lts is included when\ngroup of this are done\nhim; :- lts to Thurmond was not\n10-10 Jan will call back. She thought included P in called 10-9\nbatch of the\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n9xqx 9-25\nBruce: Roland called to say he had talked\nwith Korologos who said they should wait\nfor final action on DOD bill before sending\na letter. Roland and Korologos will follow\nup\nor\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nACTION MEMORANDUM\nWASHINGTON\nLOG NO.:\nDate:\nSeptember 24, 1973\nTime:\nFOR ACTION: Roland Elliott\nCC (for information): Timmons\nKonologos\nFROM THE STAFF SECRETARY\nDUE: Date: September 25, 1973\nTime:\nSUBJECT:\nRequest for letter to Senator Strom Thurmond thanking him\nfor his opening statement on the Defense bill\nACTION REQUESTED:\nFor Necessary Action\nFor Your Recommendations\nPrepare Agenda and Brief\nDraft Reply\nFor Your Comments\nDraft Remarks\nREMARKS:\nThe President did not make the atta ched telephone call but\nrequested instead a brief note to Senator Thurmond.\nWould you please forward this short letter, ready for signature,\nto the Office of the Staff Secretary.\nThank youl\nPLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED\nBALL\nIf you have any questions or if you anticipate a\ndelay in submitting the required material, please\nK. R. COLE, JR.\ntelephone the Staff Secretary immediately.\nFor the President\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nPITW\nTHE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN 14.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nINFORMATION\nSeptember 24, 1973\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nROY N ASH\nSUBJECT:\nCongressional Spending\ncopies\nalready\nsent\nThe charge has been made by Senator Mansfield, and echoed\n9.24\nby Speaker Albert this week, that the Congress, far from\nspending more than the President budgets, is actually\nreducing expenditures. This common charge is based on a\nsleight-of-hand distinction between how much is appropriated\nin a particular year and how much is actually spent.\nI have prepared a careful rebuttal of these charges at Tab A,\nwhich I am distributing to top staff. Following are the\nsalient points:\n1. When all factors are considered (action on appropriations,\n\"back-door spending\", and inaction on proposed reductions) the\nCongress adds significantly to the President's budget: a\ntotal of $11.9 billion in outlays in the years 1970-1974. In\n1973 and 1974 so far, $9.3 billion has been added to outlays.\n2. Even these figures substantially understate the true result\nof Congressional actions, which result in large future-year\ncommitments. For example, in the 1974 Public Works appropria-\ntion the Congress added $11 million in 1974 outlays for 34\nunbudgeted construction starts. But it will cost $1.2 billion\nto complete the projects, and they will be said to be\nattributable to the Administration since they would be included\nin the President's future budgets - - yet the Administration\nopposes the projects!\n3. Thus, while it is true that the Congress each year\nappropriates less than the President requests, this is merely\nan accounting technicality: the Congress spends, through\ntheir overall actions, sums greatly in excess of the budget\n$9.3 billion in 1973 and SO far in 1974 alone and even this\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n- 2 -\nunderstates the real picture, since actions on budget\nauthority in effect force billions of dollars of future\nyear outlays.\nAttachment\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nA\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nSEP 17 1973\nCONGRESSIONAL ACTION ON THE BUDGET\nThe record of Congressional action on the budgets submitted\nby President Nixon has become a subject of public debate.\nAdministration spokesmen state, with reports of the Congres-\nsional Joint Committee on Reduction of Federal Expenditures\nsupporting them, that the Congress has increased the\nPresident's budget over the past four years. Some members\nof the Congress, whether for partisan reasons or because\nthey do not understand how Congressional actions affect the\nbudget, assert that the Congress has cut each of the budgets\nsubmitted by the Nixon Administration.\nThe facts are that the Congress has added to the budgets\nduring the first four years of the Nixon Administration and\nis adding to the one currently before it.\nThose who assert that the Congress has reduced the budget\nfocus on only one measure of Congressional action - appro-\npriations --- and consider only the first-year effect of\nthese actions. This measure does show reductions. The\nmore comprehensive and correct measure prepared by the\nCongressional Joint Committee on Reduction of Federal Ex-\npenditures tells the opposite story, even though it, too,\nshows only the first-year effect and, therefore, understates\nthe magnitude of the Congressional add-ons.\nThe attached Table 1 summarizes the first-year effect of\nCongressional action on budget authority and outlays for\nfiscal years 1970 through 1974 to date. Clearly, Congres-\nsional reductions in appropriations bills and, as a result\nof inaction on Administration proposals, are more than off-\nset by increases that result from Congressional action on\nother legislation.\nTable 2 summarizes the first-year effect of Congressional\naction to date on the fiscal year 1974 budget.\nThe following propositions explain how Congress is adding\nto the budget and why even the attached tables understate\nthe increase.\nI. The reduction shown in overall appropriations can\nbe misleading. Included in those overall reductions are\nsmall additions to appropriations that may require the\nPresident to make subsequent requests for large appropria-\ntions. For example, the Congress added $11 million for 38\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n2\nunbudgeted planning and construction starts to the fiscal\nyear 1974 Public Works Appropriation Act. Thus, $11 million\nis reported as the first-year effect. If these starts are\ninitiated, the Administration will have to request $1.2 bil-\nlion of future appropriations to complete them. The future\noutlays will then be attributable to the Administration\nrather than to the Congress because they would be included\nin the President's budget.\nII. Congress directly changes the budget in many ways\nother than through its action on appropriations.\na. Some legislation provides obligational authority\ndirectly (backdoor authority) and avoids the need for appro-\npriations committee approval prior to the obligation of funds.\nA case in point is the Environmental Protection Agency grant\nprogram for waste treatment works.\nb. Some legislation makes spending mandatory.\nWhen such mandated spending requires higher appropriations,\nas it does for veterans benefits, the President has no choice\nbut to include a request for the higher amount in his budget.\nThe first-year effect of such legislation is generally attri-\nbuted to the Congress in the Joint Committee report referred\nto above, but all the later-year effects are attributed to\nthe President. In addition, some mandated spending, like\nincreases in social security benefits, requires no appropria-\ntions action at all. Again, while the first-year effect of\nCongressionally-initiated increases in such spending is\nattributable to the Congress, the effect on all later years\nis part of the President's budget.\nC. The budget can be increased -- as well as de-\ncreased by Congress' failure to enact proposed legisla-\ntion. The 1974 budget proposes enactment of legislation\nthat would result in nearly $1-1/2 billion of savings. If\nthe Congress fails to enact these proposals, and so far no\naction has been taken on them, 1974 spending for the affected\nprograms will be about $1-1/2 billion higher.\nIII. Congress changes the budget by its indirect action\non authorizations for appropriation. Comprehensive summaries\nof the effect of Congressional action like the Joint Com-\nmittee report normally exclude authorizations with discre-\ntionary funding levels because those levels will be determined\nlater in appropriation acts. However, these authorizations\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\n3\ncreate expectations that programs will be started or expanded.\nBoth the Congress and the Executive Branch are sometimes un-\nable to resist the greater pressure for higher appropriations\nonce the authorizations have been enacted.\nOne measure of the \"gap\" between amounts authorized for\nappropriation and amounts appropriated is cited in the April\nreport of the Joint Study Commission on Budget Control. The\nStudy Commission referred to a 1970 analysis of the Advisory\nCommission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) which\nshowed that the \"gap\" for certain grant appropriation authori-\nzations (health, education, highways, mass transit, et al)\nhad increased as follows:\n(Fiscal years. In millions)\n1966\n1970\nAuthorized\n14,246\n24,381\nAppropriated\n11,561\n15,928\nGap: Amount\n2,685\n8,453\nPercent of authorization\n18.8\n34.7\nClearly, since 1970, further increases in this \"gap\" have\noccurred. Further, the ACIR analysis does not include\nauthorizations for direct Federal programs. The \"gap\" for\npublic works projects alone is now over $25 billion more than\nappropriation levels.\nThe growing \"gap\" caused the Study Commission to note that\n\"Pressure to increase spending has come as a result of the\nannual authorization process.'\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTable 1. CONGRESSIONAL CHANGES TO THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST 1/\n(In billions of dollars)\nBudget Authority\nOutlays\nOther\nInaction\nOther\nInaction\nAppropria-\nlegisla-\non legis-\nTotal\nAppropria-\nlegisla-\non legis-\nTotal\ntions\ntion 2/\nlation\ntions\ntion 2/\nlation\n1970\n-5.4\n5.7\n1.5\n1.7\n-2.9\n1.5\n1.4\n*\n1971\n-2.6\n8.4\n-4.6\n1.1\n-0.7\n4.2\n-0.2\n3.3\n1972\n-3.0\n0.7\n-5.5\n-7.8\n-1.1\n3.7\n-3.3\n-0.7\n1973\n-4.9\n15.6\n-4.7\n6.0\n-1.6\n7.9\n-0.1\n6.1\nSubtotal\n-15.9\n30.4\n-13.3\n1.1\n-6.3\n17.3\n-2.2\n8.7\n1974 to date\n0.3\n5.2\n0.5\n6.1\n0.5\n1.3\n1.4\n3.2\nTotal\n-15.6\n35.6\n-12.8\n7.1\n-5.7\n18.5\n-0.9\n11.9\n*\nLess than $50 million.\n1/\nBased on the Budget Scorekeeping Report (Staff Report No. 6) to the Joint Committee on Reduction of Federal\nExpenditures.\n2/ Includes: backdoor authority (authority to obligate funds outside appropriation acts); mandatory authority\n(bills requiring subsequent appropriation action, adjustments and other changes, e.g., REA loans put off\nbudget); and shifts of FY 1973 requests to FY 1974.\nNote: Details may not add to totals because of rounding.\nSeptember 10, 1973\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTable 2. CONGRESSIONAL CHANGES TO DATE TO THE\nPRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 1974 BUDGET REQUEST 1/\n(In millions of dollars)\nBudget\nItems\nAuthority\nOutlays\nAppropriation bills\n+303\n+519\nLegislation other than appropriation bills:\nBackdoor (authority to obligate funds outside\nappropriation acts)\n+1,588\n+20\nMandatory (bills requiring subsequent\nappropriation action)\n+350\n+1,458 2/\nAdjustments and other changes\n-579\n-146 3/\nShifts of FY 1973 requests to FY 1974\n+3,890\n-\nSubtotal, legislative bills\n5,249\n1,332\nInaction on proposed legislation\n512 4/\n+1.362 4/\nTotal\n6,064\n3,213\n1/ Based on the Budget Scorekeeping Report (Staff Report No. 6) to the\nJoint Committee on Reduction of Federal Expenditures.\n2/ Modified to include effect of Bread Tax Repeal.\n3/ REA loans off-budget adjusted from -$157 million to reflect best estimate.\n4/ Adjusted to exclude Duplicate Burial Benefits and Federal Crop Insurance\nCorporation listings.\nSeptember 10, 1973\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE president HAS SEEN\nCOUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY\ncc: Limler\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20500\nSeptember 24, 1973\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT\nFROM:\nDEANE HINTON NTON SAC ACTING DIRECTOR\nSUBJECT:\nCAB Suspension of Proposed U.S. -Manila\nGroup Excursion fares for Philippine\nAir Lines, Japan Air Lines and China\nAirlines\nPhilippine Air Lines, Japan Air Lines and China\nAirlines recently filed tariff revisions to implement new\ngroup excursion fares from the U.S. to Manila. The new\nfares have been attacked by U.S. carriers as being dis-\ncriminatory, uneconomic and prejudicial to the competitive\nposition of U.S. airlines. The CAB proposes to suspend\nthe rates to keep them from being used for up to a year\nwhile the Board completes an investigation to determine\nwhether or not the proposed rates are unreasonable and\ndiscriminatory.\nBy statute you are authorized to review any CAB\norder of this nature and either veto it or allow it to\nstand. If you choose to veto the CAB action, you must do\nso by notifying the Board to that effect on or before\nThursday, September 27, 1973.\nAttached at Tab A are the CAB order and the OMB cover\nmemorandum.\nRecommendation\nThat you take no action, thus allowing the Board's\norder to come into effect. Messrs. Shultz and Garment\nconcur as do NSC, OMB, State, DOT and Justice.\nApprove, Take No Action\nDisapprove, Veto Action\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 26, 1973\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMR. DEANE HINTON\nFROM:\nBRUCE KEHRLI\nBAL\nSUBJECT:\nCAB Suspension of Proposed US-Manila\nGroup Excursion fares for Philippine Air\nLines, Japan Air Lines and China Airlines\nYour September 24 memorandum to the President on the above\nsubject has been reviewed and your recommendation - -that the\nPresident take no action, thus allowing the Board's order to come\ninto effect -- was approved.\nW\nPlease follow up with the appropriate action.\nCC: Al Haig\nGeorge Shultz\nLen Garment\nHenry Kissinger\nRoy Ash\nReproduced at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum"
}