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
1554467
label
FY 1976 - 12/18/74 - USDA Food Agencies, Human Resources
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1554467
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
FY 1976 - 12/18/74 - USDA Food Agencies, Human Resources
citationUrl
collections
White House Special Files Unit Files
Budget Review Decision Papers
subjects
Federal budget
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1554467
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-12-31
month
12
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-12-01
month
12
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e09640e14039fb86
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 8, folder "FY 1976 - 12/18/74, USDA Food
Agencies, Human Resources" of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
MEMORANDUM OF PRESIDENTIAL HANDWRITING
FILE CODE
DATE: 12/17/74
SUBJECT:
Meeting with Roy L. Ash, 12/18/74, to make final FY 76
budget decisions for USDA food programs and several agencies
in the human resources and community affairs areas; to consider
appeal of previous Presidential determinations re HEW budget
RECOMMENDED
LETTER
MEMO
PHONE CALL
NEWS SUMMARY
NEWS CLIPPING
OTHER
BRIEFING PAPER
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
TO:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
ROY ASH
NOTE: Above removed from Special Files Box #4
CHECKMARK ONLY
SENSITIVE - NO HANDWRITING
Digitized from Box 8 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 17, 1974
MEETING WITH ROY L. ASH
Wednesday, December 18, 1974
2:15 p.m. (60 minutes)
Oval Office
From: A ROY L. Ash
I. PURPOSE
To make final FY 76 budget decisions for USDA food
programs and several agencies in the human resources
and community affairs areas.
To consider the appeal of previous Presidential
determinations regarding the HEW budget by
Secretary Weinberger.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
II. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS AND PRESS PLAN
A. Background: The FY 76 budget submissions for USDA's
food programs and several agencies in the human
resources and community affairs areas have been
reviewed and the results have been relayed to the
affected agencies. This meeting will focus on the
issues raised during the above reviews that require
Presidential consideration and determinations.
In addition, the meeting will provide an opportunity
for Secretary Weinberger to appeal prior Presidential
determinations regarding the FY 76 budget for HEW.
B. Participants: Roy L. Ash, Paul O'Neill, and Dale McOmber.
For the latter part of the meeting Secretary Weinberger
and perhaps Under Secretary Carlucci, Assistant Secretary
for Education, Virginia Trotter, and Assistant Secretary
for Health, Charles Edwards will attend.
C. Press Plan: David Kennerly photo
III. TALKING POINTS
A. Paul O'Neill, will you describe the issues raised by the
USDA food programs?
ORIGINAL IN PRESIDENTIAL
HANDWRITING FILE
- 2 -
B. Paul O'Neill, which of the agencies in the human resources
or community affairs areas should we consider first?
C. Secretary Weinberger, what is the first issue you would like
to raise as a part of your budget appeal?
(
FORD is LIBRARY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF management AND BUDGET
DECISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
MEMORANDUM FOR, THE PRESIDENT
FROM
:
ROY #.
ASH
SUBJECT: 1976 Budget Decision: Department of Agriculture
(Child Nutrition Program)
In his October budget submission Secretary Butz proposed and
I recommend that the 1976 budget amounts for the Child Nutrition
program include a proposal to substitute a comprehensive bloc
grant program for the present set of fragmented and complex
child feeding programs. Assistant Secretary Feltner is sug-
gesting reconsideration of this recommendation in a recent
letter (Tab A). Secretary Butz has not taken a position.
Background
The USDA goal in food and nutrition programs is to alleviate
poverty-caused hunger and malnutrition by helping assure that
needy families have access to sufficient resources for an
adequate diet. However, the present set of child feeding
programs are far more costly than necessary to achieve that
goal since they:
provide extensive subsidies to non-needy;
duplicate benefits to many participants; and,
result, to a significant extent, in substitutions
rather than net addition to food that would otherwise
be consumed.
Analysis
We have provided a summary of the pros and cons submitted by
USDA to form the basis for your decision on whether to advance
the bloc grant proposal at this time. We have added OMB comment
on these arguments; the three major options together with their
budgetary impact; and our recommendation.
FORD LIBRARY & 93RALD
2
USDA Arguments For:
The child nutrition bloc grant would provide:
a comprehensive approach to program reforms;
complete coverage for all needy children;
simplification of complex and confusing administrative
requirements;
savings of $526 mllion in fiscal year 1976 and $563
million in 1977 and the out years in Federal operating
expenses by elimination of numerous individual child
feeding programs; and,
State flexibility to adjust programs to local preferences.
OMB Comment:
The bloc grant would provide 100% Federal funding to
children for a complete year. However, current reim-
bursement covers approximately 65% of the cost of meals
provided all children for a school year. Thus, States
would be released from their obligation to fund the
matching requirements mandated by P.L. 91-248 of approxi-
mately $400M which they could use to continue subsidy
of non-needy children at their discretion.
USDA Arguments Against:
Any reform which appears to deliberalize the program could
bring a counter-effort for a universal feeding program;
Congressional amendments could scuttle estimated savings;
It would be difficult if not impossible to get Congressional
approval of the proposal due to intense public interest
group pressure;
The Administration would be subject to accusations of
neglecting children in general;
States and especially local jurisdictions could be non-
responsive or unfair in their treatment of needy children,
and;
Should surplus commodities again become available, donations
would be made in addition to cash support for the bloc
grant, rather than in lieu of cash as under current programs.
OMB Comment:
While a universal feeding program is a threat, it is doubt-
ful that there would be any significant support. There is
a general feeling that the current program is more than
sufficient. This is opposed by many because of the ex-
cessive costs and the fact that States and local jurisdic-
tion would have to surrender their perrogatives.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
3
With regard to the consequences of the proposal on the
disposition of surplus commodities, the proposal could be
written to include authority to provide commodities as a
substitute for cash under the bloc grant as long as nu-
tritional requirements could be met.
The USDA bloc grant assumptions underestimate the universe
of needy children by approximately 1.0 million. However,
while immediate savings would not be as large as USDA
estimates, the overall savings in subsequent years will be
substantial.
USDA staff has identified three alternatives:
USDA Child Nutrition Program Alternatives
Outlays
($
millions)
1975
1976
T.Q.
1977
1978
1979
1980
Alternatives:
1.
Do nothing
2,025
2,263
560
2,425
2,568
2,688
2,785
2.
Bloc grant
proposal
--
1,737
434
1,862
1,972
2,065
2,139
(savings)
(526)
(126)
(563)
(596)
(623)
(646)
3.
Pare-down
existing
program
9,830
2,005
500
2,036
2,156
2,257
2,329
Eliminate School Breakfast, Special Milk, Special Supplemental
Feeding program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and
Equipment Assistance programs.
Alternatives 1 and 3 are not responsive to the need for fiscal
restraint, nor do they implement the policy of limiting Federal
feeding subsidies to those in need. If, under alternative 3, we
proposed that the specific needy oriented programs expire, the
Administration would be exposed to the probable extension of those
programs with programmatic increases at least as great as those
experienced in the past.
OMB recommends, therefore, that the acceptance of the Child
Nutrition bloc grant proposal be reaffirmed and that USDA be
encouraged to provide the necessary support.
Decision
Approval
Disapproval
FORD LICRARY 07P835
THE DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20250
December 11, 1974
Mr. Paul H 0'Neill
Deputy Director, Office of
Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
In recent years, there has been a tremendous growth in the Department's
food-oriented welfare programs until they now cost approximately
$6 billion annually, two-thirds of our budget. Each year, Congress
continues to broaden these programs, increasing their coverage and
benefits. The Administration needs to develop a strategy to counter
this trend. Director Ash, in his July 22 policy guidance letter to
the Secretary, requested the Department to search out ways to do this.
Therefore, the Secretary proposed a program of block grants to States
to replace the existing Child Nutrition Programs. We believe this is
a workable alternative to the present programs. However, the recent
election resulted in a Congress which is likely to want to extend benefits
even beyond current levels. With high food costs, it is possible that
public support could be generated for even greater Federal outlays. The
central question, therefore, is whether this is the appropriate time to
advance this block grant proposal. We believe that this may not be the
right time for this proposal and that a better alternative would be to
reduce existing programs. This decision needs careful consideration
beyond the level of the Department of Agriculture. The considerations
are discussed in detail in the attachment to this letter.
I will be happy to discuss this further with you and to provide any
additional information you may need.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Feltner
Assistant Secretary
FORD LIBRARY & SERA
Attachment
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM OPTIONS
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Background
In his policy guidance letter of July 22 to Secretary Butz, Director
Ash said that bringing the budget into balance will require that the
President propose to the Congress both a balanced budget and legisla-
tion to achieve that objective. He asked that we vigorously search
out ways to change entitlement programs or otherwise check the growth
of uncontrollable programs. In response to this request, the Secretary
proposed the replacement of the Child Nutrition programs with block
grants to states. The amount of the block grant would be based on the
total number of needy children in the country. It would provide suffi-
cient funds to meet one-third of the recommended daily allowance for
these children. States would have broad authority to expand the program
to cover all children through either the use of other funds, or by
assessing higher charges to non-needy children, or by a combination
of these.
Advantages. The block grant approach offers several advantages over
existing programs. It would
-- Accept as a Federal responsibility assistance to needy
children, but reject Federal responsibility for feeding
all children;
-- Simplify the administration and reduce costs at the Federal
level by eliminating separate programs now in existence
dealing with school lunch, free lunch for needy children,
school breakfasts, equipment assistance, grants to states
for administrative expenses, non-school food programs,
commodity donations, special milk, and special programs
for infants and pregnant and lactating women;
-- Permit maximum flexibility at the state and local levels in
designing programs which they feel are best adapted to their
needs;
Present a comprehensive approach to program reform, a viable
alternative to the overlapping and duplicative programs now
in existence;
-- Reduce Federal expenditures by about $0.5 billion below the
cost of existing programs.
Disadvantages. Despite the above advantages which the block grant
approach offers, there are problems associated with the program which
should not be overlooked and which may now be more serious than when
the proposal was initially offered. The block grant proposal would
-2-
-- Open up child nutrition to major legislative changes, and
provide the proponents of the "universal free lunch program"
with an opportunity to offer their program as a viable
alternative. This will come at a time when the Congress is
more "one-sided" than it was when the proposal was offered.
The cost of a universal free lunch program far exceeds current
program costs and would come at a time when excess Federal
spending is a critical national problem. (The proponents of
free programs may offer this alternative anyway since several
programs are scheduled to expire on June 30, 1975.)
--- Be subject to amendment by the Congress to increase the
amount of the block grant to the point where it may actually
cost more than current programs;
-- Be difficult to get approval from the Congress. The food
service organizations will almost certainly oppose this
proposal. The Administration could possibly be saddled
with a "failure" in one of its key positions. In addition,
the Administration will already have its hands full
defending the recent decision to revise the food stamp
program.
-- Possibly subject the Administration to accusations of
neglecting children in general and the "near-poor" in
particular, criticism which will have strong emotional
appeal despite the fact that the program as proposed meets
the Administration's commitment to the needy;
-- Result in the states eliminating the program in communities
with a small percentage of poor children;
-- Create problems regarding commodity donations; complete
elimination of commodity donations to schools would cause
states difficulty in maintaining delivery systems for
other donation programs. In fact, it may cause states to
dismantle their commodity handling systems. Though Section
32 would still be available as a surplus removal vehicle,
commodities may have to be donated in addition to cash
support instead of substituting the surplus removal cost for
cash support.
Alternatives. In view of the changes which have occurred since the
initiation of the proposal in October, consideration should be given
to the following alternatives. A table comparing the cost of these
alternatives is attached.
I. Pursue the block grant proposal as orginally suggested
by USDA.
( FORD FARRITY
-3-
II. Do as little as possible to change existing programs on
the premise that the Congress, as it will be constituted,
will only move in one direction -- toward greater Federal
responsibility and larger Federal expenditures in this area.
This assumes that we would support the simple extension of
those programs which would otherwise expire on June 30, 1975.
III. Attempt to pare down existing programs by opposing extension
of the school breakfast, non-school food programs, and
women, infants and childrens programs, all of which expire
on June 30, 1975. This approach might be as difficult
to get through the Congress as the block grant approach,
but it might result in some limited success. The programs
could be pared down to a dollar level consistent with the
block grant approach. WE FEEL THAT IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE
CONSIDERATIONS, THIS ALTERNATIVE IS THE MOST ACCEPTABLE
ALTERNATIVE FOR THE DEPARTMENT.
CERALO FORD LIBRARY
Comparison of Child Nutrition Progarm Alternatives
Alternative
Alternative
III
II
Child Nutrition Programs:
Section 4; regular lunch
$488,000
$488,000
Section 11; Free and reduced-price
lunch
845,000
845,000
School Breakfast 1/
- -
84,525
Equipment assistance
28,000
28,000
State Administrative Expenses
6,700
6,700
Nonschool Food 1/
- -
114,600
Commodities to States
448,750
448,750
Nutritional Training and surveys
....
1,000
1,000
Operating Expenses for Child
Nutrition
13,000
13,000
Subtotal
1,830,450
2,029,575
Special Milk Program 2/
- -
133,563
W.I.C.
- -
100,000
Total
1,830,450
2,263,138
Block grant (Alternative I)
1,737,000
1,737,000
Savings
93,450
526,138
1/
Authorization expires on June 30, 1975.
2/
This program, although authorized, could be eliminated if no funds
are appropriated in 1976.
FORD VIBRARY
December 11, 1974
THE WHITE HOUSE
DECISION
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
ROYAL. ASH
SUBJECT: HEW Appeal of 1976 Presidential Decisions
We have reviewed the HEW memorandum which, although it aggregates
the individual issues, appeals many of your initial 1976 budget
decisions.
Your initial decisions would provide HEW with budget authority
of $124.4 billion and outlays of $120.1 billion -- increases of
$9.9 billion in budget authority and $11.6 billion in outlays
over the 1975 levels. HEW is appealing for an add-back of
$1.1 billion in budget authority and $824 million in outlays.
HEW's appeal acknowledges the validity of higher estimates
for uncontrollable programs resulting in a net increase in
outlays of $412 million over its earlier budget request.
In order to provide an offset of $700 million to fund items
in his appeal, Secretary Weinberger proposes legislation to
limit the statutory Social Security adjustments to 8 percent.
This compares to the estimated cost-of-living indrease of
9 percent otherwise required for July 1, 1975. This is
inconsistent with your public commitment to protect those
hardest hit by inflation, e.g., the aged on fixed incomes.
The Secretary's letter recognizes your public commitment, but
would apply it to programs which are in fact neither income
tested nor provide uniform benefits. We believe there is no
chance of congressional acquiescence in such a proposal. In
fact, such a proposal could stimulate an immediate statutory
increase before the July 1, 1975, date.
We recommend that you reaffirm all but one of your initial
decisions and reject HEW's new proposals for the reasons
discussed in Attachment B. Our recommendation would accept
only the HEW appeal of $12 million for NIH biomedical research.
Attachment A is a summary table that compares your initial
decisions, the HEW appeal, and the 0:1B recommendation on
those items appealed by HEW. Attachment B is a brief
analysis of the proposals at issue and incorporates in full
HEW's specific arguments for each of its appeals. HEW's
appeal memorandum is at Attachment C.
Attachments
F.O.R.D LIBRARY
Attachment A
1976 Budget--Summary Table
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
($ in millions)
1976
BA in
Initial
1975
Pres.
1974
Pres.
Determi-
HEW
OMB
HEW Proposal
Actual Decisions
nations
Appeal
Recom.
Social Services
BA
1,345
1,829
1,300
1,921
1,300
Health Services
BA
2,049
1,847
1,681
1,952
1,681
for the Poor and
Disadvantaged
Health Care system
(HSA and ADAMHA)
Preventive Health BA
307
333
324
341
324
(CDC and FDA)
Health Research
NIH
BA
1,258
1,159
1,159
1,171
1,171
NCI Appeal
BA
527
565
590
(899*)
590
Education Grants
BA
339
291
283
392
283
to States
(State Departments
of Education,
Handicapped Educa-
tion, and State
Student Incentive
40
Toughood
Grants) 4 44
Vocational Reha- BA
734
725
736
776
736
bilitation Grants
Other HEW Program BA
94,237
107,794
118,342
118,343
118,342
Programs
Total BA
100,796
114,
54
124,415
125,486
124,427
Total O
93,635
108,498
120,055
120,871
120,064
*
Cancer Institute appeal amount; HEW accepts the Presidential
decision.
189,
FORD VIBRAST
Attachment B
Individual Discussions
of
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
HEW Appeal Items
(
1976 Budget
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
($ in millions)
1976
1975
Initial
1974
Presidential
Presidential
HEW
OMB
Program
Actual
Decision
Decision
Appeal
Recom.
Social
BA
1,345
1,829
1,300
1,921
1,300
Services
O
1,392
1,806
1,300
1,921
1,300
Initial Presidential Decisions
Your initial decision rests on the principle that a heavier
sharing of the costs of social services by State and local
governments will encourage improved administration and a more
rigorous evaluation of the worth of these services at the local
level. This incentive is consistent with the proposed new
legislation which allows more management discretion at the
local level. The 50% sharing of these costs by the States
by 1977 is consistent with legislation you submitted to require
the same matching in 1975 for medical and social services
financed through the Medicaid program and the AFDC income
support program. This program has never been able to demon-
strate the efficacy of the services financed to a degree which
would justify a higher Federal funding share than that provided
under Medicaid.
HEW Appeal
"The allowance assumes that we will seek legislation to reduce
Federal matching for social services under Public Assistance
from 75 percent to 65 percent in 1976 and to 50 percent in 1977.
Moreover, the dollar allowance is based on the assumption that
States will spend no more than they now do on social service
programs. This would result in a 25 percent reduction in com-
bined Federal and State spending on social services in 1976.
While it can be agreed that the current program is not as
effective as it should be, a reduction of this magnitude is
bound to have a severe impact on the poor.
"We have fought hard for legislation reforming the social
services program, and such a bill recently passed the House
with Administration backing. If this bill is not passed at
this session of Congress, all of our prior negotiations will
be down the drain if we attempt to cut Federal matching next
BERALD FORD LIBRAE
year. If it does pass, and an amendment is submitted next year,
we will be accused of acting in bad faith and the proposal will
very likely be ignored. Thus, I strongly recommend that you
reconsider the decision to submit legislation reducing Federal
matching for social services.
"Furthermore, as you know, there is a $2.5 billion ceiling on
social services which simply means that if the States offer
qualified services programs, they can draw the full amount.
Therefore, all of our social services figures are estimates
at best, and the full $2.5 billion may be required in any
event. By the same token, we could arbitrarily lower our
estimates of the total program level, as OMB has done and
thus we would not need to add the full $621 million in outlays."
OMB Recommendation
We recommend that you affirm your initial decision, which assumes
that State spending will not decline and may even increase
slightly. If in fact the States increase their spending sub-
stantially, Federal spending would have to rise under the new
matching formula. Your initial decision does make Federal
matching rates for medical and social services consistent.
REWALD
1976 Budget
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
($ in millions)
1976
1975
Initial
1974 Presidential Presidential HEW
OMB
Program
Actual
Decision
Decision
Appeal
Recom.
"Health Services
BA 2,049
1,847
1,681
1,952
1,681
for the Poor and
O 1,539
1,960
1,839
1,969
1,839
Disadvantaged" and
"Improving the Health
Care System" (HSA and
ADAMHA)
Initial Presidential Decision:
Your initial decision provided for:
- a mandatory 20% cost sharing on the part of grant recipients
for alcoholism, maternal and child health, family planning,
migrant health, and drug abuse service projects;
- new starts in alcohol, drug abuse, and mental thealth research
at $12 million within the $122 million total;
- a "no-new-starts-policy" beyond 8 year continuation support
for the 600 existing community mental health centers; and
- maintaining the National Health Service Corps and Health
Maintenance Organization demonstration programs at the 1975
levels.
These initial determinations reflected financing through Medicare
and Medicaid as the appropriate Federal role and would encourage
greater cost sharing on the part of grant recipients. In addi-
tion, the decisions reflected a policy of limiting direct Federal
financing programs. This is particularly appropriate because,
unlike Medicaid, these programs are not limited to the poor
through income tests.
HEW Appeal:
"Health Services for the Poor and Disadvantaged". The allow-
ance assumes that we will seek legislation to increase State
and local matching for the Department's special health service
programs, including Neighborhood Health Centers, Maternal
and Child Health, Migrant Health, Family Planning, Alcoholism
and Drug Abuse. In my view, this is not a feasible proposal
and would result in an arbitrary reduction of services to
2
people not now properly served by the Nation's health service
delivery system. I believe that these programs should be held
in place until Comprehensive Health Insurance is enacted and
implemented. We have consistently maintained that insurance
was a necessary and effective substitute for these programs,
not that they were ineffective or unnecessary in themselves.
"Improving the Health Care System" The allowance would cut
back the Department's efforts to change the health delivery
system to make it more responsive to National needs. I am
particularly concerned that the National Health Service Corps
be permitted to attract more health workers to rural areas,
that a reasonable base be established for health services
research, that the initial effort to encourage the development
of HMO's not be stopped before it really gets started, and
that efforts to improve health statistics move forward. Better
data will assist our development of a comprehensive health in-
surance program and the improvement of existing health delivery
systems.
OMB Recommendation:
HEW proposes, in effect, to expand the Federal role in direct
delivery of health services.
We recommend affirming the initial Presidential decision on a
grantee cost sharing of narrow categorical health service
delivery programs in light of the Federal Government's $22
billion in financing programs -- Medicare and Medicaid. Such
a strategy stressed a Federal role limited -- in the area of
health services -- to financing through national programs
rather than a series of project grants to a few favored grantees
who fortuitously receive grants while citizens of other com-
munities are limited to the more uniform financial assistance
available under Medicare and Medicaid.
FORD
LIBRARY
1976 Budget
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
($ in millions)
1976
1975
Initial
1974 Presidential Presidential
HEW
OMB
Program
Actual
Decision
Decision
Appeal
Recom.
Preventive
Health
(FDA and
BA
307
333
324
341
324
CDC)
O
296
325
339
350
339
Initial Presidential Decision
Your initial decision held food and drug inspections at the
1975 funding levels. It would, however, require a cost sharing
of 20% in venereal disease and immunization projects by grant
recipients.
HEW Appeal
"The allowance would halt the expansion of the Food and Drug
Administration's consumer protection programs and reduce the
Department's efforts to control venereal and other communicable
diseases by 20 percent below current levels. We have made
significant progress in these areas in recent years and we
do not believe that this progress should be halted or reversed
in 1976."
OMB Recommendation
We recommend affirming the original allowance, on the grounds
that decisions on program levels in FDA cannot be definitively
related to degrees of consumer health and safety. There is,
for example, no objectively "right" inspection rate or level.
Moreover, necessary program initiatives or expansions can
probably be provided through reallocations from lower priority
program areas. Finally, as compared to other areas (e.g.,
occupational cancer research), FDA is relatively well-funded
at the allowance level.
FORD
LIBRARY
We also recommend reaffirming your initial decision to reduce
venereal disease and immunization project grant funding by 20%
and require a 20% grantee match on the grounds that (a) it
encourages tighter management on the part of grantees and more
vigorous evaluation of program worth; (b) the Federal Government
supports venereal disease and immunization activities primarily
and in substantially greater amounts than with project grants
through Medicaid; and (c) direct Federal project grant funding
represents only a tiny portion of total State and local resources
devoted to venereal disease and immunization activities.
FORD
1976 Budget
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
($ in millions)
1976
1975
Initial
1974 Presidential Presidential HEW/NCI OMB
Actual
Decision
Decision
Appeal
Recom.
"Health Research"
NIH
BA 1,258
1,159
1,159
1,171
1,171
O
1,180
1,299
1,162
1,171
1,171
NCI Appeal
BA
527
566
590
899
590
O
423
553
580
746
580
Initial Presidential Decision:
Your initial decision held NIH at the 1975 overall funding level
in 1976, but increased the National Cancer Institute by $24 mil-
lion over the 1975 level. Within the total allowance, research
training funds were limited to support for 1,000 new postdoctoral
fellowships.
HEW Appeal:
"The allowance for health research would hold all efforts outside
the Cancer Institute to the exact dollar level of the 1975 revised
estimate. This is an implicit 10 to 15 percent reduction in pro-
gram output. Because we believe that other health programs have
a higher priority than research this year, we do not appeal this
general result. However, we would like an additional $12 million
to carry out the new research mandated by legislation in areas
such as aging, diabetes, and sudden infant dealth."
NCI Appeal: (from Dr. Rauscher, NCI Director)
"I feel compelled to appeal again the enormous discrepancy between
our request and what is currently to be included in the President's
1976 Budget Request. The justification for this appeal is con-
tained in the material submitted to OMB on November 29, 1974,
and Mr. Benno Schmidt's November 22, 1974, letter to the President.
I will simply summarize the main points:
1. The original request of $898.5 million and 2,366 posi-
tions is the amount necessary to make maximum progress in our
fight against cancer. A minimum of $786 million and 2,225 posi-
tions is needed to allow the program to progress in an orderly
way.
2. The original request included $68.5 million for the new
Cancer Control Program. This amount is required to apply now
the latest research findings to persons with cancer. This amount
is included in the $898.5 million noted above. The Cancer
Control share at the $786 million level is $57 million.
3. We respectfully disagree with the policies limiting
our use of funds for construction, training and cancer centers.
The NCI and its advisors are in the best position to decide on
the optimal use of these funds for the cancer program within
the total finally appropriated.
This appeal is fully supported by the President's Cancer Panel
and National Cancer Advisory Board. We appreciate the oppor-
tunity to call these matters to your attention and stand ready
to discuss them with you at any time."
OMB Recommendation:
We recommend that you grant the HEW appeal to provide a $12
million increase in NIH research other than Cancer for legis-
latively "mandated" studies. HEW accepts your initial deci-
sions on training policy.
With regard to the Cancer Institute, we recommend that you
reaffirm your decision to provide a $24 million increase
over the 1975 level and that you reaffirm the policies within
the original decision.
The Science Advisor has recommended a $30 million increase for
all health research without specifying particular areas.
FORD
1976 Budget
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
($ in millions)
1975
Initial
1974
Presidential
Presidential
HEW
OMB
Program
Actual
Decision
Decision
Appeal
Recom.
"Education
Grants to
BA
339
291
283
392
283
States"
O
280
295
329
342
329
Initial Presidential Decisions
Your initial decision would:
-- Carry out the 1975 decision to terminate Federal funding
(-$39 million) for general operating support to State
Departments of Education.
-- Require in education for the handicapped that State
and local education agencies provide 50% of the grants
for operational support programs and shift the $25
million saved from that action to innovative capacity
building projects (-$25 million).
-- Eliminate provision of Federal matching funds ($44
million requested in FY 1976) for State Student Aid
grants which treat students in different States
unevenly and often do not allow the student to apply
the grant to the school of his choice. This approach
should be considered as part of an overall Federal
policy on higher education now under review and, if
proposed, should be designed equitably.
HEW Appeal
"I'm asking you to restore proposed budget reductions in the
education support services grant consolidation (+$40 million),
formula grants for the education of the handicapped (+$25 mil-
lion), and State student incentive grants (+$44 million) .
The present allowance for grants consolidation is below the
amount needed to trigger consolidation and would require a
legislative amendment to HR-69, which stands no chance of
being accepted.
The allowance for the handicapped would reduce current formula
funding by 50 percent. The allowance for State student incentive
grants would terminate a program which provides incentives to
States to supplement Federal funds for student aid, the very
direction which I believe we need to go in order to improve our
student aid strategy. While I am not appealing the $530 million
allowance for vocational education, I am afraid that we have
little chance to achieve consolidation within that budget level,
because we would need new legislation."
OMB Recommendation
Reaffirm your original decision to eliminate Federal funding
for routine State administrative functions; require State and
local education agencies to share in the funding of operational
services; and, suspend funding of a poorly designed, inequitable
and marginal student grant program in favor of the Basic
Opportunity Grant (BOGs) program and a possible new initiative
in higher education.
BERALD FORD
1976 Budget
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
($ in millions)
1976
1975
Initial
1974
Presidential
Presidential
HEW
OMB
Program
Actual
Decision
Decision
Appeal
Recom.
Vocational
Rehabilitation
Grants
BA 734
725
736
776
736
O 727
762
751
785
751
Initial Presidential Decisions
Your initial decision holds the program at roughly the current
level. This reflects serious concerns about adequacy of program
management by the States, and a proposal to return control of
funding levels to the Appropriations Committees.
HEW Appeal
"The allowance holds grants to States for vocational rehabili-
tation services to the 1975 level of $680 million. We believe
that the full authorization of $720 million should be funded
in 1976 because of the requirements of the 1973 act to increase
services to the more severely disabled. Even at $720 million,
the total number served in this program will decline due to
this new requirement and inflation."
OMB Recommendation
We recommend you reaffirm your initial determination to hold
funding at the 1975 level and seek appropriation language that
would overcome the mandatory spending requirement of the
authorizing legislation.
FORD
FORD
1976 Budget
GERALD
LIBRARY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
($ in millions)
1976
1975
Initial
Presidential Presidential
HEW
OMB
Program
Decision
Decision
Appeal
Recom.
Vocational Education
Legislative
Structure
Formula Grants
BA
495
373*
495*
373*
Project Grants
BA
35
160
38
160
Total
530
533
533
533
*
Includes permanent appropriation.
Initial Presidential Decisions
Your initial decision provided $530 million for Vocational
Education programs. HEW is not appealing this level. However,
your decision did not address the proposed structure for Voca-
tional Education programs.
The original OMB allowance provided operational support for
Vocational Education programs at a lower level than in 1975
and allowed HEW to increase its capacity building efforts in
the innovative projects area. The Federal role would be moved
to one of limited grants (3 years) for research, innovation
and dissemination and away from financing a portion of service
delivery. The allowance for the operational support Basic
Grant program provided a 60/40 State Federal matching require-
ment and decreased the Federal share to zero by 1980. A 50/50
match would be required for innovative grants -- down from 80
to 90%.
HEW Appeal
-- "This issue concerns the distribution of funds for
vocational education in the context of proposed
legislation.
CERRLE FORD LIBRARY
2
-- Administration policy has been to seek consolidation
of vocational education programs. To that end, the
Department has developed a bill that has considerable
support from the vocational education lobby and
interested Congressional staff. To drastically shift
funding away from the consolidation approach is in
direct contrast to our previous position.
-- The OMB distribution would shift the primary emphasis
in vocational education away from formula grants
administered by the States to project grants.
-- One effect of the OMB allowance is to move more
control of vocational education funds to the Federal
Government and away from the States, changing the
historic Federal-State relationship in this area.
-- For this reason, the OMB proposal can be expected to
create resistance on the part of the States, the
vocational education lobby, and supporters in the
Congress.
-- This change in the Federal role is an obvious move
away from the New Federalism in which States have
been given greater authority over the use of Federal
funds.
-- Bills have already been introduced on the Hill similar
to HEW's draft legislation which have widespread
support among the vocational education community.
These bills incorporate HEW's proposed structure and
distribution of funds for vocational education programs.
-- HEW's bill was developed in a lengthy process involving
discussion with the interest groups and appropriate
Hill staff. To change suddenly the structure, content,
and concept of the bill when it is submitted to the
Hill in January will severely damage our credibility
and capacity to accomplish any negotiations with the
Hill and outside groups. It will be difficult enough
to persuade the Congress to accept consolidation with-
out the funding increase originally requested."
3
OMB Recommendation
We recommend no change from the structure provided for in the
allowance. It recognizes that the primary responsibility for
vocational education rests with the States, not the Federal
government. Further, we do not understand HEW's contention
that an Administration approach has been set and that the
allowance would shift from that position. There has been
no review or clearance by the White House or Executive Office
staff of the HEW proposed new legislation.
While the allowance would increase funds in the innovative
area by fourfold the greatest change is in emphasis. Programs
proposed for inclusion under the innovation category would
require innovative or capacity building approaches, problems
would be identified, solutions proposed and a limited (3 year)
life for the project would be planned at the outset as opposed
to continuing general support for State agency operations.
The attached narrative description details the difference
in approach between the HEW and OMB recommendation. The
OMB approach would provide a greater opportunity to focus
the Federal contribution on formative and innovative program
areas in vocational education.
FORD LIBRIET
Vocational Education Program
HEW Proposal
OMB Recommendation
Consolidate 13 existing cate-
Revise proposal to provide for
gorical programs or earmarking
the Basic Grants program with
provisions into four areas of
a State/Federal match of 60/40
support: (1) program planning,
in FY 1976. The set-asides and
(2) vocational education programs
earmarks would be eliminated.
and services, (3) programs for
individuals with special needs,
and (4) special projects for
innovation in vocational educa-
tion.
Give the States broad discretion
Consolidate the handicapped
in determining priorities for
set-aside ($42 million in FY
program funding.
1975), grants for special needs
($79 million in FY 1975), and
Apply uniform 50/50 matching
research ($38 million in FY 1975)
rate for all programs except
into an Innovative Projects
innovation, which are 100%
activity to increase the
Federal.
capacity-building role. Insti-
tute a 50/50 State/Federal match.
Hold harmless at current levels
Grants for Innovative Projects
the set-asides for the dis-
would be limited to 3 years.
advantaged and handicapped.
Authorize $603 million each year
Authorizations to be consistent
for 1976-1980 and $160 million
with FY 1976 budget decisions.
for the 1976-77 transition
period.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
HEW Personnel
*
Actual
1974
1975
1976
Initial Presidential Decision
--
46,690
46,815
HEW Appeal (increase)
--
+558
+1,518
OMB Recommendation
46,658
47,000
47,500
(+310)
(+685)
Although Secretary Weinberger's appeal memorandum does not
address personnel, we are informally advised that he proposes
the increases shown, excluding Social Security, which is
covered in a separate decision memorandum. We recommend
the compromise position indicated above.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
1975
1976
* Excludes:
St. Elizabeths Hospital
3,911
3,911
Office of the Secretary
5,366
5,890
Social Security Administration
70,871
70,871
80,148
80,672
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE.
WASHINGTON, D. c. 20201
DEC 11 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 1976 Budget Allowance
I have received from OMB staff the 1976 budget allowance for the
Department. This allowance would provide the Department with
1976 outlays of $120.1 billion. I am asking you to restore
$824 million in outlays and $1.1 billion in budget authority.
&
FORD
This would be almost completely offset by $700 million in savings
if you agree to propose an 8 percent limit on the cost-of-living
BERALD
LIBRARY
increase for Social Security and SSI program benefits, as I
mentioned to you at our meeting today on Social Security. If you
were to propose a limit of 7.5 percent, the $1 billion saving
would more than offset these requested restorations.
I strongly support your effort to maintain fiscal constraint in
the Government's budget. When we submitted our budget on
September 30, it was below the OMB outlay planning ceiling.
Even with the restorations we are seeking (and even without the
offset mentioned above), the Department's 1976 request has about
the same impact on the 1976 budget deficit as contemplated in
the OMB ceiling because inflation will bring us an extra $2.5
billion in revenues for the Social Security trust funds. In any
event, we believe that the additional $824 million in outlays
we are requesting will not significantly compromise your fiscal
policy objectives if our proposed offset is adopted.
The President
2
There are certain themes in the allowance which I believe move the
Department's programs in the wrong direction and would convey a
damaging message to Congress and the public.
- Several- proposed budget cuts, principally in health
and social services programs, will hit the poor
and disadvantaged disproportionately. You and I
have stated publicly that the poor should not
be required to do more than their fair share in
the fight against inflation. This commitment
should not be abandoned.
- Several of the reductions appear to be based on
the assumption that States and localities can
pay a larger share of program costs. Our
latest forecast of State and local fiscal
capacity indicates that the recent surpluses
have been rapidly eroded by economic conditions.
Decisions already made in the 1976 budget
revision shift substantial costs to State and
local governments. Therefore, proposals to
increase cost sharing are more than likely -
to result in Congressional inaction at best.
FORD & LIBRAG
-- The allowance for the Department's education
programs suggests that the move toward the new
Federalism has been reversed. Program consoli-
dation can only be started under HR-69, if we
meet a defined level of funding which the
proposed budget would not reach. Also, funds
would be shifted from broad formula grants to
States and localities to project grants
managed by Washington.
- Two decisions-the proposal to ask for less than
minimum funding to trigger one part of education
consolidation and a decrease in Federal
matching for social services--would destroy
painstakingly developed compromises with Congress.
These actions would be interpreted as bad faith,
and Administration abandonment of prior
commitments, and would make effective negotiation
with the Congress less possible in the future.
The President
3
-- The proposed budget would hold the Department's
controllable health programs to the 1975 reduced
level which is well below the 1975 appropriation
bill signed this week. It is not only the
markedly reduced program level that concerns us,
but the many specific line item reductions that
are proposed--more than 30 out of some 60 that
make up our detailed estimates. This approach
can be perceived by key members of our health
agencies as a diminution of their judgement and
responsibilities in professional areas. For
that reason, we strongly urge that we have much
greater flexibility in using the funds allocated
to us.
When we meet to discuss the 1976 allowance for HEW, I would like to
discuss restorations in the following areas:
Social Services (+$621 million in budget authority and outlays)
The allowance assumes that we will seek legislation to reduce Federal
matching for social services under Public Assistance from 75 percent
to 65 percent in 1976 and to 50 percent in 1977. Moreover, the dollar
allowance is based on the assumption that States will spend no more than
they now do on social services programs. This would result in a 25
percent reduction in combined Federal and State spending on social services
in 1976. While it can be agreed that the current program is not as
effective as it should be, a reduction of this magnitude is bound to have
a severe impact on the poor.
We have fought hard for legislation reforming the social services program,
and such a bill recently passed the House with Administration backing.
If this bill is not passed at this session of Congress, all of our prior
negotiations will be down the drain if we attempt to cut Federal matching
next year. If it does pass, and an amendment is submitted next year,
we will be accused of acting in bad faith and the proposal will very likely
be ignored. Thus, I strongly recommend that you reconsider the decision
to submit legislation reducing Federal matching for social services.
Furthermore, as you know, there is a $2.5 billion ceiling on social services
which simply means that if the States offer qualified services programs,
they can draw the full amount. Therefore, all of our social services figures
are estimates at best, and the full $2.5 billion may be required in any
event. By the same token, we could arbitrarily lower our estimates
FORD
GERALD
The President
4
of the total program level, as OMB has done and thus we would not need
to add the full $621 million in outlays.
Health Services for the Poor and Disadvantaged (+$189 million in BA,
$83 million outlays)
The allowance assumes that we will seek legislation to increase State and
local matching for the Department's special health service programs,
including Neighborhood Health Centers, Maternal and Child Health, Migrant
Health, Family Planning, Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. In my view, this is
not a feasible proposal and would result in an arbitrary reduction of ser-
vices to people not now properly served by the Nation's health service
delivery system. I believe that these programs should be held in place
until Comprehensive Health Insurance is enacted and implemented. We have
consistently maintained that insurance was a necessary and effective sub-
stitute for these programs, not that they were ineffective or unnecessary
in themselves.
Improving the Health Care System (+82 million BA, $47 million outlays)
The allowance would cut back the Department's efforts to change the health
delivery system to make it more responsive to National needs. I am
particularly concerned that the National Health Service Corps be permitted
to attract more health workers to rural areas, that a reasonable base be
established for health services research, that the initial effort to encourage
the development of HMO's not be stopped before it really gets started, and
that efforts to improve health statistics move forward. Better data will
assist our development of a comprehensive health insurance program and the
improvement of existing health delivery systems.
Preventive Health (+$17 million BA, $11 million outlays)
The allowance would halt the expansion of the Food and Drug Administration's
consumer protection programs and reduce the Department's efforts to control
venereal and other communicable diseases by 20 percent below current levels.
We have made significant progress in these areas in recent years and we do
not believe that this progress should be halted or reversed in 1976.
Health Research (+$12 million BA, $9 million outlays)
The allowance for health research would hold all efforts outside the Cancer
Institute to the exact dollar level of the 1975 revised estimate. This
is an implicit 10 to 15 percent reduction in program output. Because we
believe that other health programs have a higher priority than research
this year, we do not appeal this general result. However, we would like an
additional $12 million to carry out the new research mandated by legislation
in areas such as aging, diabetes, and sudden infant death.
GERALD FORD LICKERY
The President
5
Education Grants to States (+$109 million budget authority,
$13 million in outlays)
I'm asking you to restore proposed budget reductions in the education
support services grant consolidation (+$40 million), formula grants
for the education of the handicapped (+$25 million), and State student
incentive grants (+$44 million). The present allowance for grants
consolidation is below the amount needed to trigger consolidation and
would require a legislative amendment to HR-69, which stands no chance
of being accepted.
The allowance for the handicapped would reduce current formula funding
by 50 percent. The allowance for State student incentive grants
would terminate a program which provides incentives to States to
supplement Federal funds for student aid, the very direction which
I believe we need to go in order to improve our student aid strategy.
While I am not appealing the $530 million allowance for vocational
education, I am afraid that we have little chance to achieve consoli-
dation within that budget level, because we would need new legislation.
Vocational Rehabilitation Grants (+$40 million budget authority,
$32 million outlays)
The allowance holds grants to States for vocational rehabilitation
services to the 1975 level of $680 million. We believe that the full
authorization of $720 million should be funded in 1976 because of
the requirements of the 1973 act to increase services to the more
severely disabled. Even at $720 million, the total number served in
this program will decline due to this new requirement and inflation.
Sup Secretary Minbaga
GOOLD & FORD
1976 Budget
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
and
Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention
($ in millions)
1975
Initial
Presi-
Presi-
1974
dential
dential
HEW
SAO
OMB
Actual
Level
Decision
Appeal
Recom.
Recom.
National Institute
BA
243
211**
211
222
306
213
on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
0
156
226
226
229
260
227
Special Action Office
for Drug Abuse
BA
51*
13
--
:
10
--
Prevention
0
21
45
9
9
14
9
Total BA
294
224
211
222
316
213
0
177
271
235
238
274
236
* $24 million lapsed
** $17 million of 1974 funds used in 1975
This paper addresses two issues: (1) the 1976 funding level
for NIDA in HEW and (2) an extension of the Special Action
Office for Drug Abuse Prevention beyond its statutory, June 30,
1975, termination date. Attachment A identifies the budget
details of the issues.
Initial Presidential Decisions
1976 NIDA Funding. Your initial decision on a 1976 funding
level for NIDA was to hold it to the 1975 level. This decision
reflected a policy of:
-- Federal funding of 95,000 treatment slots
at an average Federal share of 70% compared
to an average of 80% in 1974;
FORD
is
-- continuing the slot funding priority --
adopted in 1971 -- heroin addicts;
CERALD
-- limiting demonstration and prevention to
current projects and terminating non-
reimbursable, short-term contract training
of counselors and other paraprofessionals;
and
2
-- allowing $3 million (which represents
roughly 10% of the annual NIDA research
budget) for new research.
These policies reflect as an appropriate Federal role the
supplementing of State, local, and private funding for treat-
ment, but require State, local and private sources to pick up
a greater share of the federally-assisted treatment capacity
costs.
Currently, the Federal Government finances about half of the
national treatment capacity. Your initial decision also
recognizes that only 2/3 of the federally-funded slots are
filled by the primary target group -- heroin addicts.
Special Action Office Extension. We have not previously
raised with you the issue of extending the Special Action
Office because we understood there was agreement on terminating
it in June as originally mandated by Congress. Dr. DuPont,
Director of the Special Action Office, who, in October, proposed
its termination on schedule, submitted a new budget request on
December 11, 1974, proposing a four-year extension of the Office.
Special Action Office Appeal
NIDA Funding. Dr. DuPont -- who is also the Director of NIDA --
appeals both your initial decision and Secretary Weinberger's
appeal level. He believes that your initial decision "seriously
impairs drug abuse prevention functions" in HEW, particularly
in light of recent evidence which he believes indicates that
the heroin problem is again worsening. He believes that the
Administration should seek an additional $50 million to support
21,000 additional slots, for a total of 116,000 slots and that
$ 9 million more should be available for new drug abuse research.
Dr. DuPont also believes that the Federal Government should
take on a greater responsibility in the areas of treatment for
marihuana, stimulants and depressants (polydrugs) and should
mount larger training, public education, prevention, rehabil-
itation activities and grants to States.
HEW Appeal
Secretary Weinberger has reviewed Dr. DuPont's request for an
additional $95 million for NIDA above your initial determination
of $211 million. The Secretary appeals for an add-back of only
$11 million.
Special Action Office Extension. Dr. DuPont believes that the
Office has made a considerable contribution to the government's
drug abuse prevention effort since its creation in 1972, and that
3
its legislatively scheduled termination on June 30, 1975,
would severely damage the Administration's capability to
effectively coordinate the Federal drug abuse prevention
effort. Further, he is concerned that termination would
signal a lowering of national priority at a time when the
drug abuse problem appears to be increasing again. He
proposes a four-year extension of the Special Action Office
within the Executive Office of the President.
OMB Recommendation
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
NIDA Funding. We recommend that you reaffirm your initial
decision on the NIDA funding level, with the exception of a
$2 million increase to allow for follow-on costs in NIDA for
transferred Special Action Office programs.
Our recommendation reflects the fact that only 2/3 of all
patients in HEW-supported treatment programs are heroin
abusers. Moreover, NIDA treatment slot demand projections
(see the graph at Attachment B) supplied by the Special Action
Office indicate that of the 116,000 slots it requests, only
80,000 would be filled with heroin abusers; slots for this
primary target group could be financed within the 95,000 level.
Further, in addition to the HEW funded slots, there are approxi-
mately 125,000 State and local slots of which only 75% were
filled at the end of 1974. Thus, overall capacity appears
adequate. The higher level of funding for non-heroin abusers
and non-treatment activities proposed by Dr. DuPont would be
a departure from previous priorities and the concept of a
limited, targeted Federal role. Expansion of lower priority
drug abuse activities duplicates ongoing programs elsewhere
in HEW and in other agencies, e.g., research, education, and
training.
Special Action Office Extension. We recommend against extension
of the Special Action Office.
The Office was created to oversee and coordinate the rapid
increase in the Federal support for drug treatment capacity;
it did that job reasonably well. Treatment capacity is, how-
ever, stabilizing. Moreover, virtually all civilian drug abuse
programs are located in HEW and the major substantive policy
decisions concerning drug abuse treatment have already been made.
We recognize the possible need -- for political reasons, as well
as to handle whatever coordination functions remain -- to con-
tinue visible White House leadership of the drug abuse preven-
tion program. There are three ways to meet this political need,
in descending order of visibility: (1) a Special Assistant
(or Advisor) to the President for Drug Abuse Prevention; (2) an
Executive Director of a Domestic Council Committee on Drug
Abuse; or (3) a Special Assistant for Drug Abuse Prevention to
the Secretary of HEW.
4
Decision:
NIDA Funding
Approve Dr. DuPont's Appeal
($306 million)
Approve HEW Appeal
($222 million)
Approve OMB Recommendation
($213 million)
Special Action Office Extension
Approve Dr. DuPont's Recommendation
(extending the separate Office for
4 years, requiring $10 million
annually)
Approve Alternative Options:
(a) Special Assistant to the
President
(b) Executive Director of
Domestic Council Committee
(c) Special Assistant to the
Secretary of HEW
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
1976 - .get
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
and
Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention
($ in millions)
1976
1975
Initial
1974
Presidential
Presidential
HEW
SAO
OMB
Actual
Level
Decision
Appeal
Recom.
Recom.
National Institute on Drug Abuse
Research
37
32
32
32
41
32
Training
15
10
3
3
7
3
Community Projects:
(152)
(115) **
(124)
(135)
(194)
(126)
Treatment
133
99 **
114
115
165
114
Demonstration
16
13
8
16
20
9
Education and Prevention
4
3
2
4
10
3
Grants to States
15
35
35
35
45
35
Management and Information
25
19
17
17
19
17
Subtotal, NIDA
243
211
211
222
306
213
Special Action Office for
Drug Abuse Prevention
GERALD LIBRAST R.FORD ? FORD
Salaries and Expenses
5
3
:
:
3
:
Projects
46*
10
--
:
7
:
Subtotal, SAO
51*
13
--
i
10
:
Total
294
224
211
222
316
213
*$24 million lapsed
**S17 million of 1974 funds -- 9095
SAO ESTIMATED DEMAND FOR NIDA/SAO DRUG ABUSE TREATMENT SLOTS
Clients in Treatment
140,000
120,000
116,000
100,000
95,000
Demand for Polydrug Treatment
80,000
60,000
40,000
Demand for Heroin Treatment
GERALD R.FORD R. FORD VIBRARY
20,000
0
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
1974
1975
1976
Fiscal Years
, 2 t
1976 Budget
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
($ in millions)
1975
1976
1974
Presidential
CPSC
OMB
Actual
Decision
Allowance
Appeal
Recom.
BA/Obl.
28.8
35.0
35.6
49.2
35.6
0
18.7
29.7
35.1
41.4
36.1
Employment
Ceiling
780
890
863
1,119
863
Allowance
The allowance maintains CPSC at its 1975 Presidential request
level of $35 million plus an additional $600,000 for mandatory
cost increases. The allowance reflects CPSC's inability to:
- specify how its past or future activities will reduce
consumer product injuries, or
- utilize fully and effectively its past funding. CPSC
has spent excessively on office furnishings and com-
puter services, for example, and let lapse 18% of its
1974 budget authority.
CPSC Appeal
Chairman Simpson's attached appeal--which has also been sent
to eighteen Senators and Congressmen--protests that the
allowance would "deal a devastating blow to CPSC and the
cause of consumer health and safety." The same level in
1976 as in 1975 would "indicate to this Commission, to the
Congress, and ultimately to the American people, at best, a
crippling and, at worst, a virtual abandonment of this urgent
and critical task. "
Chairman Simpson maintains that "public criticism could be
leveled not only at the Commission for its lack of regulatory
performance but also at the Administration for apparent with-
drawal of budget support needed to reduce public suffering and
economic loss from unsafe products.' Chairman Simpson closes
his appeal:
FORD LIBRERY
"In light of the apparent continuation of what I perceive
to be an unexplainable discrimination against the Consumer
Product Safety Commission--and more importantly, against
consumers who are the ultimate victims of unsafe products--
I respectfully request that you reject OMB's budget
recommendations and I request a personal meeting with you
to discuss the future of this Commission."
OMB Recommendation
We recommend reaffirming the allowance of $35.6 million for
1976. The 1976 and 1975 levels represent a 24% increase over
CPSC's actual 1974 program level. In 1976, all mandatory cost
increases would be allowed in order to maintain the 1975 pro-
gram level. None of the "program reductions" referred to in
Chairman Simpson's letter would, in fact, be required.
Chairman Simpson's appeal letter--much like the initial 1976
request and the CPSC staff justification for that request--does
not specify what ways CPSC's requested funding level would
impact on consumer safety or what deleterious effects would
result from continuing the 1975 program and funding levels in
1976.
GEBALD FORD LIBRARY
PRODUCT
U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207
December 11, 1974
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am both stunned and dismayed at the 1976 budget allowance
conveyed to me by your Office of Management and Budget. I was
informed yesterday that OMB will recommend to you a budget
level of $35.6 million and 862 positions. That level will
deal a devastating blow to the Consumer Product Safety Com-
mission and the cause of consumer health and safety.
As Chairman of the sole Governmental agency responsible
for protecting the American consumer from the unreasonable
risk of injury associated with over 10,000 consumer products,
I must inform you that a budget of $35.6 million would indicate
to this Commission, to the Congress, and ultimately to the
FORD
American people, at best, a crippling and, at worst, a virtual
abandonment of this urgent and critical task.
My 1976 budget request of $49.8 million and 1,104 positions
represents a fiscally responsible, independent judgment based
upon an exhaustive and thorough analysis of the total resource
requirements necessary to carry out the Congressionally mandated
mission of this Commission. The action of the OMB in proposing
an approximate one-third overall reduction in product safety
programs, ignores that judgment and the mission which we are
tasked to perform.
It seems inconsistent to me that President Nixon and the
Office of Management and Budget concurred in the 1975 appropri-
ation request of $42.8 million for this Commission, and that now
we are faced with the recommended level of $35.6 million for
1976 from the same staff at OMB which approved the higher 1975
level.
-2-
This reduction has come even in the face of dramatic infla-
tionary forces, pay increases and annualization costs associated
with the establishment of a new regulatory Commission.
Upon the founding of this Commission, OMB, not the Commission,
both formulated and approved a 1974 budget level of $30.9 million.
This amount was supplemented by an additional $3.8 million trans-
ferred by OMB from impounded Food and Drug Administration funds.
Thus the proposed 1976 budget authority of $35.6 million--in terms
of constant dollars=-represents a significant absolute program
and budget reduction from even that first year appropriation.
This Commission has made significant progress in establish-
ing a balanced and integrated organization to protect the American
consumer. I must point out, however, that each year there are
still over 20,000,000 American men, women and, most tragically,
children who are suddenly and without warning injured, disabled
and killed by consumer products. The annual cost of such accidents
was estimated at $5.5 billion in medical care, disability payments
and lost productivity. A budget reduction of the magnitude
proposed would not only substantially diminish any effort to
address this national tragedy but would force the Commission to
consider abandoning needed development of new mandatory product
safety regulations in favor of a program restricted to the en-
forcement of existing standards and reaction to emergencies that
arise in the form of imminently hazardous products that have al-
ready found their way into consumers' hands.
FORD
I clearly recognize your determination to control Federal
expenditures as a means of combatting inflation, and I assure
you that I wholeheartedly support that effort. Fiscal restraint
always has been, and always will be, a prominent concern in all
of my actions. However, it would be imprudent to reduce this
program to save meager dollars which could accomplish considerably
leveraged reductions in the costs associated with injuries to
consumers.
I am sure you recognize that every dollar cut from this
agency's responsible estimate of the funds required to achieve
a level of organizational integrity only delays the attack on
a consumer safety problem that is not only real but sizeable.
Further, a failure to appropriate the resources necessary
to provide needed injury information, needed technical skills
for understanding of the safety problems, and economic analyses
capability to determine the most appropriate regulatory action
-3-
in response to a product hazard could predictably result in
"regulatory over-kill." A regulatory Commission charged with
enormous responsibilities and mandated authority, but not afforded
the resources to properly carry out those tasks has two choices:
(a) abandon a major portion of its mandated mission;
(b) attempt to meet the problems with the concomitant
possibility of imposing regulatory solutions based on
incomplete data.
In principle, I would renounce both of those alternatives.
However, in all practicality, I could foresee the Commission
forced into a pattern of regulatory operations incorporating
both.
I feel compelled to point out that public criticism could
be leveled not only at the Commission for its lack of regulatory
performance but also at the Administration for apparent withdrawal
of budget support needed to reduce public suffering and economic
loss from unsafe products.
In the 1975 budget message to the Congress, President Nixon
said, "To enable the Federal Government to meet emerging challenges
more effectively, several new organizations have been created during
my Administration One of the organizations identified by
the President was the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
SEALS FORD
In view of this, I view the reduction imposed by OMB to be
arbitrary and illogical, having been determined without cognizance
of mission and programs and without regard to meeting the "emerging
challenges" referred to by the President.
I subscribe to the words of Theodore Roosevelt: "The object
of government is the welfare of the people." In this particular
instance I believe the welfare of the American people is best
served by providing the minimal resources requested by the Con-
sumer Product Safety Commission to fulfill its mission.
In light of the apparent continuation of what I perceive
to be an unexplainable discrimination against the Consumer Product
Safety Commission-and more importantly, against consumers who are
-4-
the ultimate victims of unsafe products--I respectfully request
that you reject OMB's budget recommendations and I request a
personal meeting with you to discuss the future of this Com-
mission.
Respectfully,
Richard O. Simpson
Richard O. Simpson
Chairman
CC:
Honorable James O. Eastland
Honorable James L. McClellan
Honorable Milton R. Young
Honorable Gale W. McGee
Honorable Hiram L. Fong
Honorable Warren G. Magnuson
Honorable Norris Cotton
Honorable Frank E. Moss
Honorable Marlow W. Cook
Honorable Carl Albert
Honorable George H. Mahon
Honorable Elford A. Cederberg
Honorable Jamie L. Whitten
Honorable Mark Andrews
Honorable Harley O. Staggers
Honorable Samuel L. Devine
Honorable John E. Moss
Honorable James T. Broyhill
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE (FMCS)
New authority requires the Service to mediate disputes in the private health
care industry and to convene fact-finding boards of inquiry. OMB recommended
against a FY 1975 Supplemental and FY 76 increases for mediation on the
grounds that present resources could be reprogrammed to meet the new mandatory
requirements. The OMB allowance provided for additional funds to be
appropriated in FY 1976 as a contingency solely for the boards of inquiry.
FMCS believes that the proposed program level will result in the agency handling
the health care cases at the expense of other crucial mediation cases, and that
curtailment of such services would further aggravate the economic stability
of the Nation.
OMB recommends handling the mandatory health care cases by curtailing
discretionary work in the area of intrastate cases, disputes involving small
numbers of workers, and technical assistance in labor-management relations.
Much of this work could be handled by State mediation agencies and the
Department of Labor (technical services).
Budget
Full-time
authority
Outlays
permanent
(in thousands of dollars)
employment
1974 actual
11,895
11,783
444
1975 agency request
18,500
17,794
622
1975 OMB recommendation
15,945
15,737
499
575
1976 agency request
23,340
22,540
675
1976 OMB recommendation
16,950
16,356
499
Effect of OMB recommendation on
agency request
-6,390
-6,184
Transition period
4,377
3,630
499
1977 estimate
16,950
16,950
499
GEBALO FORD
FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION SERVICE
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20427
December 13, 1974
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Mr. Paul H. O'Neill
Associate Director for Human
GERALD FORD
and Community Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Room 260, Executive Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20503
Dear Mr. O'Neill:
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service was
advised verbally on December 11 that the fiscal year 1975
Supplemental Budget request, in support of the health care
legislation authorized by the Congress under Public Law 93-360,
effective August 25, 1974, has been disallowed by OMB and that
any additional positions and funds required to carry out the
mandatory mediation efforts under this law should be repro-
grammed within the existing appropriation available for fiscal
year 1975.
Of equal significance is the constraint imposed by
OMB on the fiscal year 1976 Budget request. The allowance
proposed would provide funding of Health Care Boards of In-
quiry only, and restrict our mediation program to the current
fiscal year level. This action will force our agency to fur-
ther reduce essential mediation assistance to other private
and public segments of the labor-management community in
order to provide such service to the health care industry.
For us to provide service to one segment of the economy at
the expense of others would have an extremely deleterious
effect on our ability to further labor-management relations
in the interest of industrial peace.
It is therefore critical that the decision of the
OMB to disallow the fiscal year 1975 Supplemental request
and to severely reduce the fiscal year 1976 estimate be re-
considered.
The elimination of the fiscal year 1975 Supple-
mental Budget request will curtail vital mediation services
to all parts of the private and public sectors of the econ-
omy in every state. Furthermore, the fiscal year 1975 Budget,
- 2 -
as presented to the Congress, did not contemplate use of
personnel and funds for the new health care legislation.
However, with the passage of this legislation it became
mandatory for the Service to provide mediation to each
health care case. This is draining our manpower resources
considerably beyond our capability and is forcing us into
deficiency spending during the current year.
The private health care industry embraces more
than 4,000 hospitals, some 18,000 nursing homes, and 2,000
other health care institutions. Combined, they employ some
2.3 million workers. Union activity among these workers is
accelerating at a truly hectic pace. Public Law 93-360,
for the first time since passage of the Railway Labor Act
in 1926, makes mediation mandatory in this major segment of
the Nation's private economy.
The size and diversity of the health care indus-
try, combined with the fact that FMCS mediators must respond
to all contract negotiation impasses, give the Service no
alternative but to seek substantial assistance to meet its
new statutory obligation.
The Service conservatively estimated that at
least 750 mandatory health care mediation cases would be
GERALD FORD VIBRARY
handled in the 10 months of fiscal year 1975. That this
projection was low is borne out by the fact that our health
care caseload for the first three-month period stood at 417.
These cases, of course, are in addition to the regular dis-
pute mediation caseload of 8,809 cases closed in the past
five months--an 18.7 percent increase over the same period
of fiscal year 1974. Because of the action deadlines spec-
ified in Public Law 93-360 the mediator, once involved in
a health care case, is obligated to devote full time, and
considerably more travel, to that case. This factor, cou-
pled with the geographic dispersion of health care insti-
tutions, caused the Service to request additional resources
to provide the minimum essential mediation and technical
assistance to labor and management.
If the Service must absorb the workload for the
health care industry within its present resources in fiscal
year 1975, we will be forced to begin curtailing essential
mediation services to labor and management in other sectors
of the economy. It is estimated that the Service would not
be able to adequately handle some 3,000 labor-management
disputes during the balance of fiscal year 1975 within the
present manpower resources. It is my firm belief that cur-
tailment of such services would further aggravate the econ-
omic stability of the Nation.
- 3 -
Of equal significance are the contraints imposed
by OMB on our fiscal year 1976 Budget request. The allow-
ance proposed will restrict our agency to the current fiscal
year budget level, and provides no accommodation for the in-
creased activity in the health care industry, where we expect
to be involved in at least 1,000 active cases in fiscal year
1976. Since no funds have been appropriated for fiscal year
1975 to service health care cases under the new legislation,
this action will place us in an impossible situation. As a
result, we see no way in which this agency can handle health
care cases except at the expense of other crucial mediation
cases.
For the reasons stated above and the multitude of
reasons previously provided to your staff, it is imperative
that reconsideration be given to a supplemental appropriation
for fiscal year 1975 for the additional 123 positions and
$2,550,000, and that the fiscal year 1976 budget level in-
clude a total of 675 positions and funds in the amount of
$23,340,000. Because of the emergency nature of this re-
quest, it is critical that favorable action be taken to re-
store these estimates to the levels requested.
Sincerely,
National Director
GERALO RALO LYVUSIT FORD
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Comments
OMB recommendation would hold
program to FY '75 level.
:
Agency will not appeal.
Budget
Full-time
authority
Outlays
permanent
(in thousands of dollars)
employment
1974 actual
1,559
1,486
64
1975 current estimate
1,777
1,842
64
1976 agency request
2,145
2,145
64
1976 OMB recommendation.
1,895
1,895
64
Effect of OMB recom-
mendation on agency
request
-250
-250
Transition period
424
424
64
1977 estimate
1,895
1,895
64
LISRART & BERALD
National Foundation on the
Arts and the Humanities
($ in thousands)
190
1975
1976
1974
Budg.
Approp.
Pres.
Agc.
OMB
Agency
OMB
Actual
Req.
Level
Decision
Req.
Allow.
Appeal
Recom.
BA
131
195
173
173
297
185
200
185
BO
96
164
164
156
239
175
196
175
Background
The Foundation, in its FY 1976 submission, requested $296.8
million, an increase of $123.8 million above the FY 1975 appro-
priation amount of $173 million. This represents an increase
in FY 1976 funding of more than 70% above that of FY 1975.
The FY 1976 request also represents full funding of the
Foundation's authorized level. The Foundation was notified
last February that its planning level for 1976 was $185 million.
Since FY 1970, the Foundation's request levels have increased
by a factor of nearly 10, from $20 million in FY 1970 to $195
million requested in FY 1975.
The nearly 50% increase requested in the 1975 Budget was based,
in large part, on the desire to allow the Foundation to provide
major support for the Bicentennial celebration.
The Foundation sees past growth as a logical premise upon which
to build to an even greater Federal role in these areas. The
Foundation's long range projections bear this out:
Foundation's Long Range Projections
($ in millions)
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 TR QTR 1977 1978 1979 1980
BA
20
37
69
89
131
173
297
106
399
470
563
678
BO
15
29
44
67
96
156
239
56
369
439
513
618
GERALD FORD
2
Issues
There are only two basic issues to be resolved in your decisions
on this agency's budget.
The agency position and the OMB recommendation on each issue
are set out below together with the strongest arguments for
each. We have attached a more exhaustive OMB analysis at Tab
A and the Foundation's appeal letter at Tab B.
Issue No. 1: Should we continue, in the FY 1976 Budget, the
very large growth rates in Federal support of recent years?
Agency Appeal: In response to the OMB allowance, the agency
has reduced their initial 1976 Budget request of $297 million
by $97 million to a level of $200 million in their appeal.
This figure is still $27 million above the FY 1975 amount and
$15 million above the OMB allowance. They maintain:
"OMB is recommending $185 million. This amount is almost
exactly equal to the Foundation's current operating level.
Since in fact we are in a growth industry, so to speak, this
would mean a distinctly backward programmatic step.
At the very minimum we urge you to consider recommending
$200 million for the 200th anniversary year of the Nation.
This would give people a figure that not only sounds good, it
is good, it is a Bicentennial goal in which you could take
pride and make an impact. The figure happens to be about the
amount ($195 million) the agencies requested from Congress in
Fiscal 1975. It represents only a 15.6% increase over the
current year Budget Authority; and $15 million would be in
private money. It is $100 million below the authorized ceil-
ing for 1976; indeed, $27 million below the 1975 authorized
ceiling."
OMB Recommendation: Approve an FY 1976 budget request of $185
million in Budget Authority because:
FORD
3
-- This level provides a 7% increase (+$12 million) above
the 1975 appropriation in a year when many social and
economic assistance programs are being held constant
or reduced.
-- This substantial increase indicates continued emphasis
on the Foundation's unique role in the Bicentennial
and continued Administration support for the arts and
humanities.
-- Continuing to increase Federal support at the rapid
rate of the past few years would threaten to make the
Federal government the funding source of first resort --
especially in a time when foundations and State and
local governments are inclined to reduce their support.
The Federal government has become the largest single
source of support for the arts and humanities.
-- This is a good time to "take a breather" and to focus
and delimit the Federal role. This needed reexamina-
tion of the Federal role cannot be done well during
a period of very rapid expansion. There is currently
no limit to what the Endowments see as the principle
Federal role either in terms of: (a) program areas;
(b) functions (i.e. production of art and knowledge
vs. its widest dissemination or operational and insti-
tutional support vs. innovation and stimulation) ; or,
(c) share of total support.
Decision:
FORD
Approve agency appeal
($200 million)
Approve OMB recommendation
($185 million)
Issue No. 2: Should the 1976 Budget project a reduction in
program/budget levels for fiscal years 1977 through 1980 to
recognize completion of the Bicentennial support mission in
1976?
4
Agency Appeal:
"OMB recommends an out-year budget authority of $145
million for all four years, or a $40 million cut below its
recommendation for 1976. It is particularly crucial that
you focus on this figure at the present time because you
will be required to transmit re-authorization legislation to
the Hill in April. Whatever figure is in the budget, will be
in your re-authorization request. The OMB figure means that
you would be asking Congress for authorization funding levels
at HALF the current authorization level to which you gave
your full support and to which your leadership so contributed
in the Congress. ($300 million - OMB insert)
OMB's rationale is that since many of the agency's activ-
ities are contributing to the Bicentennial, we should drop
them forthwith -- i.e. programs like folk arts, crafts,
preserving our cultural heritage in our nation's museums,
improving federal design, major film series on America's
history, etcetera. These agencies view these activities as
ongoing, so does the Congress, and until OMB's action, we
had thought the Administration did, too! It has been
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
repeatedly emphasized to us by the Congress -- and our
advisory councils, that we should in no way alter our poli-
cies to accommodate Bicentennial programs having one-time
or temporary impact on the Nation. It was made clear to us
that we should consider the Bicentennial not as a peak from
which Federal support to the arts and humanities would descend,
but a step from which it would continue forward to the perma-
nent betterment of our Nation.
At the very minimum, we recommend an out-year figure of
$300 million. This is the PRESENT AUTHORIZED CEILING for
1976! This means you would be requesting Congress simply to
extend the presently authorized level for four years. Within
that ceiling, you could then later determine the appropriation
level you wished to request. (If you wish to scale the out-
year projection to $300 million by 1980, the four-year figures
would be 225, 250, 275, 300.)
5
While the $300 million is substantially below what is
needed, or what in normal times we would urge you to consider,
it is at least not a REDUCTION, which would bring criticism
from all sides. We cannot think of many who would applaud."
OMB Recommendation: We recommend an FYs 1977-80 Budget
Authority estimate of $145 million because:
--
Bicentennially related activities amount to at least
$40 million of the 1976 Budget Authority at the $185
million level. There is no Administration commitment
to continue to fund these activities at the expanded
level after the Bicentennial celebration and their
cessation should result in a reduction in the budget
estimates.
-- The growth of the Foundation in FY 1974 and FY 1975
was based, in large part, on allowing the Foundation
to perform a significant Bicentennial role. While
the Foundation maintains that these activities would
have been funded regardless as part of their regular
program of grants, that is not the OMB understanding
of the thinking that resulted in the large growth in
budget requests.
-- The issue is more substantial than whether the Bicen-
tennial role was the determining factor in the present
high levels. The central issue is the future direction
and scope of this agency. The Foundation believes that
its mandate is "open-ended." It believes that as its
constituency increases that its funding must increase
proportionately. If this rationale were to prevail,
it would result in funding (by the Foundation's own
projection) of nearly $700 million by FY 1980. This
would be more than half of the current estimate of
all private donations in support of the arts alone.
The OMB recommendation would indicate a decision to
delimit the Federal role and to control the Foundation's
growth and permit stable funding patterns, while con-
tinuing to be the largest single source of support for
cultural activities in the nation.
FORD
à
BALD
6
Decision:
Approve agency recommendation
(Project $300 million for each of the years 1977 through
1980 and seek authorizing legislation at this level.)
Approve OMB recommendation
(Project $145 million a year and seek authorizing legisla-
tion at this level.)
L
&
FORD
GERALD
T A B A
OCT 11 1974
Discussion of Recommendations
The National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
(NFAH) was established by the Congress in 1965. It is
an independent agency that contains two separate Endow-
ments, one for the Arts and another for the Humanities.
Each of these Endowments is headed by a Chairman appointed
by the President and each is advised by a National Council,
also appointed by the President. Administrative support
is provided to each Endowment by a shared staff. The
principal effort of the Endowments is to provide Federal
support for the creation and dissemination of art and
humanistic knowledge and activities through grants to
practitioners and various institutions.
FORD
Foundation Growth
GERALD
The President's FY 1975 Budget requested $195 million for
the Foundation. This represented an increase of some $63
million, an increase of nearly 50% above the FY 1974 level
of $132 million. The Congress, in its action on the
President's request of $195 million, provided $173 million
which represents an increase of more than $40 million above
the FY 1974 level, an increase of some 30%.
The Foundation, in its FY 1976 submission, is requesting
$296.8 million, an increase of $123.8 million above the
FY 1975 appropriation amount of $173 million. This repre-
sents an increase in FY 1976 funding of more than 70% above
that of FY 1975. The FY 1976 request also represents full
funding of the Foundation's authorized level.
Since FY 1970, the Foundation's request levels have increased
by a factor of more than 10, from $19 million in FY 1970 to
$195 million requested in FY 1975.
2
Private Support
The Foundation estimates donations of private funds and
support through non-Federal sources as follows:
Arts: They conservatively estimate that $1.2 billion was
provided in 1973 in private contributions to the Arts. In
addition, they estimate $150 million in' State and local
support.
Humanities: They estimate that a total of $3.4 billion will
be provided in private support for humanistic activity. In
addition, $1.8 billion will be provided by State and local
authorities. (This estimate includes the support of such
activities as: universities, libraries, etc.) The Endowment
believes this is a comparable figure with their own funding
level, since the broad range of activities supported is
similar to their own.
The Endowments believe that much of their support evokes
matching support by private, State and local agencies.
However, they have no definite estimates of the leverage
effect.
The Arts Endowment does cite examples such as the increase
in State arts agencies' size and numbers as being Federally
related. Moreover, they cite new qualitative support for
the arts from the U. S. Conference of Mayors. They further
cite the overwhelming number of individual contributions
that are given to the Endowment. (Some 19,165 out of
19,590 are individual donations totaling $1.9 million).
The Humanities Endowment, while not citing any major specif-
ics, does indicate that they believe non-Federal support is
tied to quantum increases in Federal support.
However, in the case of both Endowments there is no evidence
which demonstrates a causal relationship between increases
in Federal funding and increases in private, State and local
FORD
&
3
support. There is only an assertion of causality based
upon the personal experience and judgments of the Chair-
men.
Appropriate Federal Role
and Level of Support
The Division believes that it is time to re-examine: (a)
the appropriate Federal role; and (b) what is a reasonable
level for Federal financing in these fields.
The Foundation, in its initial authorizing legislation
(P. L. 89-209), received the following mandate, to
develop and promote a broadly conceived national policy
of support for the humanities and the arts in the United
States
" This directive has resulted in programs which
are very diverse in content and in a dual role of the pro-
duction and dissemination of knowledge and art by both
endowments.
Moreover, this mandate has resulted in a sense of "mission"
on the part of the Foundation that sees past growth as a
logical premise upon which to build to an even greater
Federal role in these areas. The Foundation's long range
projections bear this out:
Foundation's Long Range Projections
($ in millions)
1975
1976
TR QTR
1977
1978
1979
1980
Budget Authority
173
297
106
399
470
563
678
Outlays
164
239
56
369
439
513
618
Both Endowments deny that there is a danger that the Federal
government will become the dominant patron of the Arts and
Humanities since the Federal share is far less than the
FORD
&
GERALD
4
total support from private agencies and State and local
governments. They state that Foundation money is highly
catalytic and results in increased non-Federal support.
However, they agree that the Federal share is now the
largest single source of support for these areas.
In requesting a statement of the mission and objectives of
each Endowment, including the limits or bounds of the
Federal role in terms of the relationship of these objec-
tives to State, local and private institutions, the
responses of both Endowments brought forward the following
themes:
-- Continued growth is a "given" in the minds of both
Endowments. The justification for this continued
expansion is tied to a general concept of "need."
However, in the materials submitted and in con-
versations with Foundation staff, a definition
of "need" has not been developed. In fact there
is no limit to what the Chairmen of the Endowments
see as the Federal role except the operational
capacity limits of the grantees and contractors.
-- The Arts Endowment continues to view itself, even
within its expanded role, as a catalyst evoking
great amounts of non-Federal funds and remaining
a "junior partner" in funding. (However, as
noted, the Endowment is the largest, single source
of funding in the U. S.).
The Humanities Endowment's response is colored
with the tone of its being a principal source of
support for the Humanities and not placing much
emphasis on non-Federal increases. In so doing,
the Endowment cites as a possible objective
the almost $700* million funding level of the
National Science Foundation.
GERALD R. FORD
5
-- Finally, neither Endowment foresees a narrowing
of program horizons. Thus, support for such
diverse activities as dance touring, tapestry
exhibitions, folk art, archeology, chamber music,
television dramas, short films, research grants
and curriculum development are envisioned and
at expanded levels. There is no suggestion
towards a selective funding process to eliminate
support of certain programs or areas of activity.
The Division believes that this ill-defined "need"
concept is not useful for a well-reasoned determina-
tion of the need and the appropriate Federal role.
The need for and role of the Endowments can be
usefully analyzed by considering issues such as:
production vs dissemination; Bicentennial support;
financial management expertise of artistic and
cúltural institutions; salary structures, etc.
Production VS. Dissemination
In FY 1975 and FY 1976, the Arts Endowment estimates that
22% of its funds will be going to foster the arts and 78%
to the dissemination thereof.
This means that in FY 1975, $64.2 million will fund dissem-
ination activities and $18.1 million will be used for
production. In FY 1976, the figures are $30.5 million
for production and $108.0 million for dissemination.
The Endowment for the Humanities estimates that approxi-
mately 82% of their FY 1975 funds will be devoted to
dissemination of humanistic knowledge or projects. This
amounts to $65.8 million. The remainder, $14.4 million,
or 18% of the total, will be devoted to the production of
this knowledge or these projects. In their FY 1976 re-
quest, approximately 79% will be used for dissemination
($109.4 million) and 21% for production ($29.1 million).
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
6
We believe this ratio of approximately 4 to 1 for both
Endowments is desirable and reflects adherence to OMB
direction. However, we must also point out that the
definitions of production and dissemination are imprecise
and the "gray area" is a large one.
Bicentennial Program Support
Based on FY 1974 Budget decisions and White House direction,
the Foundation has mounted a substantial Bicentennially
related program. Here are estimated total funding levels
for each Endowment and that portion proposed specifically
for Bicentennially-related activities:
($ in millions)
FY 1974
FY 1975
FY 1976
Total
Bicen.
Total
1
Bicen.
Total
Bicen.
Arts
64.5
13.1
82.3
19.8
138.5
36.0
2
Humanities
62.5
11.0
80.3
23.0
138.5
32.0
Discussions with the Foundation relating to both the FY 1974
and FY 1975 budget levels indicated the position of the
Foundation that "start-up costs" for Bicentennially related
activities, of necessity, required funding beginning as
early as FY 1974 for the Bicentennial celebration in 1976.
With the "lead time" requirement in mind, funding was
provided for the FYs 1974 and 1975. It was envisioned
that funding levels would begin to decline thereafter.
However, the Foundation now maintains that short-term
funding for the Bicentennial is also required due to the
lateness in starting the Bicentennial effort.
Includes private donations.
Includes the Endowment's entire State-based program at
$13.2 million which they maintain will be entirely
Bicentennial.
FORD LIBRARY is CERALD
7
Budget Perspectives
Each Endowment was requested by OMB staff to indicate those
activities which "could not be either undertaken or continued"
under the OMB FY 1976 planning amount of $185 million for
the entire Foundation. (This figure is in comparison with
an FY 1975 request level of $195 million and a Congressional
appropriation level of $173 million). It should be noted
that the reduction of $10 million in the FY 1976 planning
target below the FY 1975 request amount of $195 million
was based on the White House/OMB decision in the 1975 Budget
process that FY 1975 was to be the peak year for Bicentennial
activities and that funding would be reduced thereafter.
The response of both Endowments listed the following programs
that would be either discontinued or not undertaken under
the revised amount (not in priority order).
Arts:
1. Increased monies in all three categories to account
for inflationary factors or necessary growth to bring a
program up to an effective level.
2. Substantial strengthening of the basic cultural
resources of the country.
3. Increased monies to bring the arts to more people
through the State arts agencies via the basic State agency
grants, artists-in-schools, dance and theatre touring,
residency and sponsor development, special State grants,
strengthening community services, professional program
development for States and regional organizations, theatre
and expansion arts in State agencies.
4. Increased or new funding for creative development
and preservation of our heritage, including: enhancement of
FORD LIGRARY is
8
America's indigenous arts, museum renovation, architecture
preservation, special programming for music, public media
and dance for bicentennial purposes and for "City Futures,"
which is part of the architecture bicentennial program in
1976.
5. Added monies for bicentennial related programs in
Expansion Arts, programming in the arts on television, "City
Spirit," special music programs, wider availability of muse-
ums, cultural facilities design assistance, Special Projects,
works of art in public places, arts centers and festivals --
almost all of these programs are bicentennially oriented
either directly or because of the time frame in which they
occur.
6. Incentive support for professional cultural insti-
tutions directly related to increased or totally new sources
of support and programmatically directed to broader public
participation.
Humanities:
1. Reduce the proposed amount available for the public
programs that go to support the State based activities, media
programs and museum/historical society grants.
2. Reduce the proposed amount available to fund activ-
ities in the area of curriculum reform for higher, elementary
and secondary education.
3. Continue the bulk of the fellowship program at the
FY 1975 level. There would be a reduction in the area of
professional teaching/study fellowships.
4. Provide for no expansion in the research area.
5. Reduce the level provided for other minor programs.
FOR
9
There is no identification in priority ranking of what would
be eliminated from their program proposal, if it is held
essentially to the currently planned level of support.
Rather, they have identified across-the-board decreases.
Both Endowments refused to identify a firm list in priority
order.
Administrative Support
As noted previously, the Foundation has grown by a factor
of more than 10 in its request levels to the Congress. In
terms of staffing and support, the increases :have been
proportionate to the growth. The increase in workload is
attributable, in part, to the following causes:
-- Applications: As the Foundation grew, the number
of individuals and institutions seeking assistance
has grown concommitantly. The following indicates
the FY 1974 actual and anticipated FY 1975 and
FY 1976 application levels:
1974 Actual
1975 Est.
1976 Est.
Applications
Awards
Applications
Applications
Humanities
6,165
1,184
7,500
9,000
Arts
14,167
2,957
19,500
22,000
Each of these applications, regardless of amount or scope,
requires review by a panel of experts and staff attention.
Naturally the amount and detail of this review will vary
according to type of grant. However, each application
requires attention.
This volume could only be controlled if the Endowments
began to focus their lines of activity and requests to
proposals on priority fields.
FORD
SERALOR
10
-- Technical Assistance and Travel: The Endowments, at
the direction of their respective Councils, are
involved in the concept of technical assistance and
directed activities. This necessitates increased
amount of administrative support.
-- Moving and Space: At present the Foundation is in
three separate buildings. This has necessitated
moves that have resulted in renovation costs, moving
costs, rent fluctuations, etc.
These, and other factors, have resulted in a Foundation
request of some 320 additional full-time permanent positions.
(A comparable 320 would also be added to the total amount).
This represents an increase of 82% above the FY 1975 full-
time permanent ceiling of 387 positions. These increases
in personnel are coupled with a $9 million or 86% increase
in administrative funding.
Issues
1. Level of funding for the Foundation in FY 1976.
2. Amount of funding, within the budget totals, that will
be provided for Bicentennial activities.
3. The nature and type of administrative support.
Issue #1: Level of funding for the Foundation in FY 1976.
Option #1: Provide funding at the FY 1976 planning figure
of $185 million. This will provide an increase of $5 million
in gifts and matching for the Arts Endowment and $7 million
in gifts and matching for the Humanities Endowment and bring
them on an equal FY 1976 request level of $87.25 million
each, thereby equalizing unequal FY 1975 levels for each
Endowment.
FORD
GERALD
RALD
11
Discussion: This amount, which is $10 million below the
FY 1975 request of $195 million, is $12 million above the
FY 1975 appropriation level of $173 million.
Pro:
-- Provides funding at a level that is currently
contained in the FY 1976 budget totals.
-- Provides maximum opportunity for strengthening
managerial and administrative functions by pre-
cluding large funding growth.
-- Keeps the President's FY 1976 request within a
desirable total, while also providing a continua-
tion of a very sizeable level of support.
Con:
-- Raises a question, based on past growth pattern,
of a continued Presidential commitment to expansion,
given Congressional reductions in FY 1975.
-- Provides an FY 1976 funding request level below
that of the original FY 1975 request.
Option #2: Provide funding at the FY 1975 original request
level of $195 million.
Pro:
-- Restates a continued Presidential commitment to
expansion in this area.
-- Increases funding levels at a time of increases in
costs to cultural institutions.
-- Provides a moderate increase for administration
that would aid in the administrative consolidation
that is necessary.
FORU
GERALD
12
Con:
--- Brings funding level above that contained in the
FY 1976 planning amounts.
-- Provides continued Bicentennial support beyond the
"peak" funding year.
Option #3: Allow for a continuation of past growth pattern
by providing the requested amount of $296.8 million or the
agency "fall-back" amount of $274.1 million.
Pro:
-- Continues present trend of strong support and a
steep rate of growth in Administration requests.
-- Provides even more support for Bicentennially
related activities.
Con:
-- Indicates no limit to the Federal role in direct
support of these fields.
-- Directly contradicts Congressional conservatism on
this program.
-- May lead to a Federal role which pre-empts or
dominates support of these areas.
-- Certainly increases the possibility of Federal
support simply "buying up" what would have
received State/local funds, especially in the
current retrençhment psychology now prevalent
among foundations.
-- Continues a growth rate which threatens the
capability to maintain sound administrative and
management control.
FORD
GENALD
13
Division recommendation: Option #1.
Issue #2: Amount of funding, within the budget totals, that
will be provided for Bicentennial activities.
Option #1: Limit any increases, above the FY 1975 appro-
priation amount of $173 million up to the FY 1976 planning
amount of $185 million, to Bicentennial, activities only.
Pro:
-- Limits the non-Bicentennial program to present
levels of support but maintains the Administration's
commitment to strong support for the Bicentennial,
even through FY 1976 and into FY 1977.
-- Under the severe constraints of the FY 1976 budget,
increases for the Bicentennial should take priority
in this fiscal year with some portion of the slack
available for non-Bicentennial growth as the
Bicentennial program phases out.
Con:
-- This would effectively be a policy of no growth
for the non-Bicentennial activities of the
Foundation for FY 1976 and could be interpreted
as a reduction in the Administration's commitment
to the field, based on past growth patterns.
Option #2: Provide program and funding increases for both
Bicentennial and non-Bicentennial activities in accordance
with the present mix.
Pro:
--- Avoids criticism of abandoning the commitment to
the basic program and restates a commitment to
the Bicentennial.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
14
--
Maintains the Administration's commitment to the
Bicentennial but as a share of the Foundation's
budget.
Con:
-- Constrains Bicentennial support to only part of
the Foundation's increase.
Option #3: Provide funding at the FY 1976 planning figure
of $185 million, but the increase of $12 million above the
FY 1975 appropriation will be for non-Bicentennial activities
only.
Pro:
-- Makes "peak" funding year for the Bicentennial
during FY 1975.
Restates commitment to growth of the basic program.
Con:
-- Reduces support for the Bicentennial during FY 1976.
Division recommendation: Option #3.
Issue #3: The nature and level of administrative support.
Option #1: Provide no increase in either personnel ceilings
or in administrative funds in accord with the planning budget.
Pro:
-- In accord with a moderate budget, personnel and
administrative costs should be constrained.
-- Requires the Foundation to focus on its current
administrative activities and reduce where necessary.
FORD
is
GERALD
LIBRAR
15
Con:
--- Does not provide for additional staff for anticipated
increase in workload.
Option #2: Provide an increase in full-time permanent and
total positions of 320 (above a base of 387 and 557,
respectively) bringing these ceilings tó 707 FTP and 877
total. This is in accord with the Foundation's requested
level of $296.8 million.
Pro:
-- Will provide adequate staff to program and manage-
ment increases the proposed funding level entails.
Con:
-- Will provide precipitous growth in staff which
would strain the Foundation's absorption powers
greatly.
Division recommendation: We recommend no increase in
administrative support for the Foundation. We believe that
there is existing latitude with personnel ceilings and
administrative support funds to allow the Foundation to
accomplish its mission. Moreover, the President's desire
to curb Federal personnel ceilings further mandates this
position.
Finally, we recommend that the following directions be given
to the Foundation:
-- As soon as possible, the Foundation should locate
within one building in order to consolidate opera-
tions and cut operating costs.
FORD LIBRARY
16
--- Travel policies should be reexamined in the light of
the President's recent initiatives to cut Federal
spending and suitable reductions taken.
Approved Prepared by by (Examiner) (Program Division : John Lively Chief) :
C. William Fischer
FORM & LIDRAR,
T
A
B
B
NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
NATIONAL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
ON THE ARTS AND THE
December 13, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM: Namy Hann Ramed Bean
Nancy Hanks, Chairman,
Ronald Berman, Chairman,
National Endowment
National Endowment
for the Arts
for the Humanities
SUBJECT: OMB Recommendations on the Arts and Humanities
Summary
1. In the out-years, we believe the OMB recommendations
are going in the opposite direction from your own policy (OMB
recommends a reduction of $40 million from its 1976 level!).
2. In Fiscal 1976, the OMB recommendations are going in
a backward direction (OMB recommends some $10 million below
the Administration's request for funds last year! !).
None of the recommendations would maintain your leadership
position in this field; to the contrary, particularly the
proposal on the out-years, would simply and honestly be in-
terpreted as a reversal of your own policy and a radical
change in federal policy toward the Arts and Humanities.
is
2
Out-Years 1977-80
OMB recommends an out-year budget authority of $145
million for all four years, or a $40 million cut below its
recommendation for 1976. It is particularly crucial that
you focus on this figure at the present time because you
will be required to transmit re-authorization legislation
to the Hill in April. Whatever figure is in the budget,
will be in your re-authorization request. The OMB figure
means that you would be asking Congress for authorization
funding levels at HALF the current authorization level to
which you gave your full support and to which your leader-
ship so contributed in the Congress.
OMB's rationale is that since many of the agency's
activities are contributing to the Bicentennial, we should
drop them forthwith -- i.e. programs like folk arts, crafts,
preserving our cultural heritage in our nation's museums,
improving federal design, major film series on America's
history, etcetera. These agencies view these activities as
ongoing, so does the Congress, * and until OMB's action, we
had thought the Administration did, too! It has been re-
peatedly emphasized to us by the Congress -- and our advisory
Councils, that we should in no way alter our policies to
accommodate Bicentennial programs having one-time or temporary
impact on the Nation. It was made clear to us that we should
consider the Bicentennial not as a peak from which Federal
support to the arts and humanities would descend, but a step
from which it would continue forward to the permanent better-
ment of our Nation.
At the very minimum, we recommend an out-year figure of
$300 million. This is the PRESENT AUTHORIZED CEILING for
1976! This means you would be requesting Congress simply to
extend the presently authorized level for four years. Within
that ceiling, you could then later determine the appropria-
tion level you wished to request. (If you wish to scale the
out-year projection to $300 million by 1980, the four-year
figures would be 225, 250, 275, 300.)
While the $300 million is substantially below what is
needed, or what in normal times we would urge you to consider,
it is at least not a REDUCTION, which would bring criticism
from all sides. We cannot think of many who would applaud.
* See attached statement.
FORD
GERALD
-- 3
1976 - Budget Authority
OMB is recommending $185 million. This amount is almost
exactly equal to the Foundation's current operating level.
Since in fact we are in a growth industry, so to speak, this
would mean a distinctly backward programmatic step.
At the very minimum we urge you to consider recommending
$200 million for the 200th anniversary year of the Nation.
This would give people a figure that not only sounds good, it
is good, it is a Bicentennial goal in which you could take
pride and make an impact. The figure happens to be about the
amount ($195 million) the agencies requested from Congress in
Fiscal 1975. It represents only a 15.6% increase over the
current year budget authority; and $15 million would be in
private money. It is $100 million below the authorized ceil-
ing for 1976; indeed, $27 million below the 1975 authorized
ceiling.
1976 - Outlays
The OMB has recommended an FY 1976 outlay figure of
$175 million. Given a $185 million budget authority, our
calculations indicate that the outlay figure is in error.
Our experience has proven that we would require a figure of
$180.8 million. We recommend that OMB take into account the
agencies' past experience and judgment on the outlay ceiling
needed.
Please note: if your problem is still with federal
cash outlays, we have determined a way to maintain the
"Treasury Matching Fund" concept while insuring that the
private monies involved are not counted as federal cash
outlay. This would also have the advantage of curing many
administrative headaches as well as reducing administrative
costs. Basically, it could be accomplished by asking for
all or almost all federal monies in "definite" appropriations.
However, a certain amount of those funds would be used like
"Treasury Fund" grants, with donors in the private sector
simply notifying us of the gifts they make directly to our
grantees. We have reason to believe Congress would be willing
to consider such an arrangement.
FORD
GENALD
LIBRARY
4
1976 - Transition
The OMB recommendation is to provide exactly one-fourth
the recommended 1976 budget authority, for the 3-month
transition period. Because we serve constituencies such as
state arts agencies, or tie obligations to academic years
and performing/exhibition seasons that begin late summer/
early fall, we request that the transition period funding
level take this into account.
1976 - Administrative Funds, Personnel, and Management
The OMB recommendation is that the 1975 administrative
figures be held in 1976.
At a minimum, we urge $13 million in administrative
funds. We are not going to be able to keep the agencies
going without some form of automatic data processing. We
must have a minimum of $540,000 to continue the implementa-
tion of ADP support capability. Further, no matter what the
level of appropriations, by law we have to review each
application through an advisory process, and the applications
in the Arts Endowment, for example, increased more than three-
fold (from 6,000 to 19,500) in two years. We simply must have
more administrative funds and personnel to handle the appli-
cations fairly.
OMB reportedly has included suggestions that we consider
moving into one building (that is impossible); review our
expenses on travel (we will, of course, but keeping in mind
that we simply must have funds to evaluate before making
grants via staff, panel and Council travel); and questions
providing technical assistance (the National Councils view
this as one of THE most important functions of the agency).
Attachment
THE BICENTENNIAL
As an example of Congressional intent, specifically
directed to this most important subject, we quote from
the April 3, 1973 Senate Report on our reauthorization
legislation.
"The Committee calls attention to a major purpose
of the Act which is to encourage the development
of a climate in which the arts and humanities may
flourish. In this regard, long range goals are
essential, rather than goals which relate to a
specific period of time, no matter how important
that given limited time period may be. With
respect to the Endowments' work, the Committee
believes that the Bicentennial should be considered
in terms of lasting and abiding values, rather than
in terms which have only temporary or limited mean-
ing to future cultural growth.
"It should also be emphasized that the funding
levels recommended are in accord with the rate
of growth to date, with the needs expressed by
both Endowments reflecting the numbers of appli-
cations of high quality which they are presently
unable to support, and with the basic principles
that federal funds provide a most important in-
centive toward engendering greater private support."
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION (OSHRC)
OMB's recommendation would deny increase in Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
and support personnel because productivity increased 100% between 1972 and
1974, in terms of cases decided per ALJ. The productivity increase pro-
jected by the Commission in its budget submission indicated current staff
could absorb a 37.5% caseload increase between 1974 and 1976. The OMB
recommendation would reduce the three separate legal review staffs of the
Commissioners by nine positions stnce a new joint staff serves all three
Commissioners. It would eliminate $250 thousand in costs of printing
bound volumes of ALJ decisions because of small demand, the availability
of trade press digests, and the existence of less costly means to provide
copies on request.
The Commission appeals generally for its original full request. Specifically,
it now says it does not anticipate further productivity increases and asks for
7 more ALJ's (and 3 clerks) to avoid increases in backlog or elapsed time
between a notice of contest and an ALJ decision. It also asks for the
$250 thousand for printing ALJ decisions, as District Court decisions are
printed, to help employers decide within the 15 days allowed them whether
to contest citations and to meet Information Act requirements to publish or
make decisions readily available.
OMB still believes productivy increases will permit the current number of
ALJ's to handle 1976 workload. The most productive ALJ's already decide
44% more cases than the average. (However, if DOL is given 180 more compliance
officers as it requests, an additional 8 ALJ's would be required. We will
increase the Commission's budget if the final decision gives DOL more com-
pliance officers.) Less expensive duplicating processes can meet the small
demand for copies of ALJ decisions. A long time is required to issue bound
volumes; the public therefore relies on the trade press, not the Commission,
for current information.
Budget
Full-time
authority
Outlays
permanent
(in thousands of dollars)
employment
1974 actual
4,687
4,595
156
1975 agency request
5,843
5,780
183
1975 OMB recommendation
5,512
5,512
172
1976 agency request
5,880
5,880
175
1976 OMB recommendation
5,300
5,300
165
Effect of OMB recommendation
on agency request
-580
-580
-10
Transition period
1,798
1,325
165
1977 estimate
5,300
5,300
165
FORD
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Comments
No change from agency request.
An additional memorandum concerning
future cost overruns in being pre-
pared for the President's consid-
eration.
:
Full-time
Budget
permanent
authority
Outlays
employment
(in thousands of dollars)
1974 actual
164,894
170,410
1975 current estimate
126,889
184,900
Not
applicable
1976 agency request
99,724
181,600
to
1976 OMB recommendation
99,724
181,600
this
Effect of OMB recom-
agency
mendation on agency
request
--
--
Transition period
26,700
39,600
1977 estimate
120,609
182,300
FORD
07W831