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
24200852
label
Office of Management and Budget - General (4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24200852
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Office of Management and Budget - General (4)
citationUrl
collections
Philip W. Buchen Files
Philip Buchen's General Subject Files
subjects
Office of Management and Budget. (07/01/1970 - )
Federal budget
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24200852
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-01
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-12-01
month
12
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
b5da9920c4393061
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 36, folder "Office of Management and Budget -
General (4)" of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
Time:
April 6, 1976
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information):
Phil Buchen
Brent Scowcroft
Jim Cannon
Bill Seidman
Max Friedersdorf
Dr. Lukash
Jack Marsh
Tim Austin (Morton)
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Thursday, April 8
Time:
10 A. M.
SUBJECT:
James T. Lynn memo 4/5/76 re Variable
Incentive Pay for Physicans
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Support Option 1.
Ken Lazarus 4/7/76
Da/8
ORD
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
James E. Connor
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
Digitized from Box 36 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
April 7, 1976
Time:
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information):
Phil Buchen
Doug Bennett
Jerry Jones
Jim Cannon
Jack Marsh
Bob Hartmann
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Monday, April 12
Time: 10 A. M.
SUBJECT:
Lynn memo re 1975 Presidential Management
Improvement Awards
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Agree with recommendation of Jim Lynn.
Also note that participation in such a ceremony would have some
political utility balancing those Presidential statements which have
been seen as indicating some dissatisfaction with the Washington
"bureaucracy".
Ed Schmults SD
4/9/76
GERALD FORD
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Jim Connor
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
4/12/76
TO:
Phil Buchen
FROM:
Don Ogilvie
Jim Lynn asked me to clear this
proposed response to Proxmire
with
todd
copy to: Jack Marsh
meassary
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
D
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
Honorable William Proxmire
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Proxmire:
In response to your letter of March 10, the memorandum to
which you refer was an internal paper prepared by OMB
staff to respond to questions raised by the Director of
OMB during the consideration of the 1977 Defense Depart-
ment budget request.
As you undoubtedly know, OMB staff annually prepare ex-
tensive papers and analyses for consideration by the
Director and the President in reaching budgetary de-
cisions. Such materials contain the opinions, advice,
and recommendations of the OMB staff. Staff papers such
as the one you referred to, together with all associated
backup materials are not distributed outside the Executive
Office of the President. To do otherwise would, over time,
restrict the open and free exchange of information pro-
vided to the OMB Director in the budget review process.
Congress itself recognized the need to protect the decision-
making processes of Government agencies in the context of
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). That Act
exempts from mandatory disclosure documents containing
intra-agency advice and recommendations. In construing
that exemption earlier this year, the Supreme Court re-
iterated its view that "human experience teaches that
those who expect public dissemination of their remarks
may well temper candor with a concern for public appear-
ances
to the detriment of the decision making
"
process
(NLRB V. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 421 U.S. 132)
For these reasons, I do not believe it is appropriate
to provide any internal OMB budget review documents.
GE34L3 & FORD
2
With respect to your second question, there is no so-called
Rumsfeld add-on as such in the President's budget. The
President reviewed all of the OMB recommendations as well
as the Defense Department appeals. His decisions were made
on an item-by-item examination of what was needed to secure
the defense of our country. The cumulative amount which
resulted from the review became the President's future budget.
As with the OMB staff papers, I believe it is inappropriate
to provide the confidential recommendation of the Secretary
of Defense to the President.
Sincerely yours,
James T. Lynn
Director
JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, ARK., CHAIRMAN
WARREN G., MAGNUSON, WASH.
MILTON R. YOUNG, N. DAK.
JOHN c. STENNIS, MISS.
ROMAN L. HRUSKA, NEAR.
JOHN o, PASTORE, R.I.
CLIFFORD P. CARE, N.J.
ROBERT c. BYRD, W. VA.
HIRAM L. FONG, HAWAII
GALE W. MC are, WYO.
FOWARD W. ппоокг, MASS.
MIKE MANSFIELD, MONT.
MARK 0. HATFIELD, once.
WILLIAM PROXMIRE, WIS.
TED STEVENS, ALASKA
United Stales Senate
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, N. MEX.
CHARLES MC c. MATHIAS, JR., MD.
DANIEL K. INOUYE, HAWAII
RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, PA.
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C.
HENRY BELLMON, OKLA.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BIRCH BAYH, IND.
THOMAS F. EAGLETON, MO.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
LAWTON CHILES, FLA.
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, LA.
WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, KY.
March 10, 19TOP PRIORITY
JAMES R. CALLOWAY
MANAGERER
SUBGET
CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
CONGRESSIONAL MAIL
TO:
Mr. James T. Lynn
Mr. OGilvie
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Prepare reply for:
Executive Office Building
Mr. LYNN
Washington, D.C. 20503
Log No:
Due Date:
0921
2 2 MAR 1976
Copies to:
Dear Mr. Lynn:
Congressional Relations
In response to a question regarding the OMB memorandum
referring to a $3 billion "cushion" in the Defense budget
request, the Secretary of Defense informed me that he
had heard of this memorandum and additional backup
material as attached to a preliminary FY 1977 Budget
briefing package last summer.
Would you be good enough to forward that particular
memorandum plus all back up materials to me?
In addition I have heard that the so-called Rumsfeld
$2.7 billion "add-on" was in effect the selection of a
higher option contained in OMB recommendations outlining
several alternatives. Would you please clarify the dif-
ference between the "add-on" and the "cushion" and
determine whether or not they are mutually exclusive.
Furthermore, I would appreciate receiving the breakout
of the programs involved in each of the above mentioned
items so that it will be possible to see program alignments
under each proposal or option.
If you have any questions, please have your staff
contact Dr. Ronald Tammen in my office. I would appreciate
receiving these materials as soon as possible since the
Defense budget target ceilings are now being considered.
Sincere ly,
&
FORD
William/Proxmire, U.S.S.
WP:rtj
No objection. Would suggest, however, that
all of the references to "we" be changed to
"I" in first
and second
Ken Lazarus 4/22/76
paragraphs
and fourth paragraphs.
Ogree of 1 Schmults
2 Buchen FORD
LISAN GERALD
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
April 21, 1976
Time:
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information): Jim Cannon
Phil Buchen
Bob Hartmann
Bill Seidman
Jack Marsh
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date:
Soon As Possible
Time:
SUBJECT:
Reply to James H. Rademacher
President of the National Association of
Letter Carriers
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Because of your earlier remarks the attached letter
has been revised. Would appreciate your quick
approval of the revised version attached.
No objection. Would suggest, however, that all of the references
to "we" be changed to "I" in the first and second paragraphs and
in the fourth paragraph.
P.W.B.
Philip W. Buchen
Counsel to the President
FORD
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
Jim Connor
delay in submitting the required material, please
For the President
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
APR 19 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CONNOR
FROM:
Paul H. O'Neill
Ohion
SUBJECT:
Reply to James H. Rademacher
President of National Association of
Letter Carriers
As you requested, we have redrafted the reply to
Mr. Rademacher. We have substantially shortened the
reply, and avoided any discussion of Rademacher's
arguments, as suggested by Jack Marsh.
Attachment
GEORLD SEAL
Dear Mr. Rademacher:
Thank you for your letter of March 12 regarding appropria-
I
tions for the Postal Service. We appreciate receiving your
comments and suggestions.
We certainly recognize the problems facing the Postal
Service and are aware that the current trends in costs and
revenues indicate that there will have to be some significant
changes. The changes might include cost reductions, increases
in rates, increased subsidies, or some combination of these
actions. The proposals in Congress have focused primarily on
increasing subsidies as the solution to the problems.
We
I
believe that it is premature to conclude that an increased
taxpayer subsidy is the only answer.
The Postal Service problems need to be studied more
carefully, and we need to consider a wide range of possible
solutions. We are now pursuing such a study and will be
considering several alternatives for action during the next
few months. Based on Postal Service projections of costs and
revenues, it will be able to continue effective operations
for at least another year, without another rate increase,
without major service reductions and without an increase in
appropriations if the Postal Service borrows the amount
authorized by statute for operating purposes. This provides
time for a reasoned consideration of the issues.
2
I Am
We are not convinced at this time that the independent
I
Postal Service is an unworkable concept, and we believe that
it should not be changed in haste. This issue deserves more
thorough consideration, and I can assure you that it is being
carefully considered.
Sincerely,
GERALD B. FORD
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS
LETTER CARRIERS BUILDING
100 INDIANA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001
JAMES H. RADEMACHER
AREA CODE 202
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE 3-4695
March 12, 1976
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
With all respect, and with a genuine concern for the future
of our country and its postal system, I ask you to reconsider
your announced position against an increased postal appropriation.
I make my request with the deepest seriousness.
I am a postal career professional of many years' standing.
My father retired from the letter carrier ranks; my brother has
long years of service as a letter carrier. For almost 35 years,
I have been an officer in my Union from the local level to the
presidency. By background, training and experience, I submit that
I have acquired a relatively thorough knowledge of postal affairs.
I sincerely hope all those who are advising you in the area of
postal appropriations are similarly equipped.
It is my considered judgment that unless a substantial postal
subsidy, such as that proposed in the beleaguered legislation
(H.R. 8603, S. 2844), sponsored by Chairman James M. Hanley of the
House Postal Service Subcommittee and Chairman Gale W. McGee of
the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee, respectively,
is soon approved, the postal establishment is going down the drain.
And should that come to pass, the resulting misery will be total,
both for the American people and the members of our organization.
It seems to be a modern fallacy that says the Post Office
should pay its own way. Respectfully, I ask, Why? Does the De-
partment of Health, Education and Welfare have to pay its own way?
Or the Department of Commerce? The price support program of. the
Commodity Credit Corporation? Does the Federal Aviation have to
pay its own way? Why only the Post Office?
BER
-2-
Those opposed to realistic postal appropriations will say that
the Service imposes specified charges on identifiable patrons, and
that makes it a business -- and businesses must pay their own way.
May I submit that the Department of the Interior imposes specified
charges on those who use our National Parks. Does anyone suggest
those charges should be sufficiently high to pay for the entire
cost of maintaining those facilities at a break-even basis? If such
a policy were placed in effect, the usage fee would have to be about
$1,000 a person, with few applicants for admission.
The Postal Service is the greatest system of communications in
our society. I am sure you are of the same opinion. I am certain,
too, that you share with me the conviction that everything possible
should be done to preserve and strengthen the present system. In
my opinion, it is as illogical to demand that the Postal Service
exist entirely on its revenue as it is to ask the University of
Michigan to exist solely on its tuition fees.
No postal service in the free world comes anywhere near break-
ing even. Great Britain loses about 14 million pounds a year; and
its supposed to be a postal administrator's dream with short dis-
tances, low wages, small volume, and a tightly impacted population.
West Germany, France and Switzerland -- that model of neatness,
efficiency, and financial wizardy -- have the same kind of deficit
record. How can the United States expect to break even with our
huge distances, our comparatively scattered population, and our
enormous volumes of mail -- we handle more than half of the total
world volume?
And, then, there are those who advocate turning over the
postal operation to private enterprise. These are particularly
misled, because they simply do not understand the mission of our
postal service, or postal economics. What private industry would
undertake the task, unless it were permitted to concentrate its
collection, transportation, and delivery services on the densely
populated urban areas and ignore entirely the remote areas where
mail service is ruinously expensive? One of the most cherished
blessings of our democracy has been the right of every citizen to
FORD
easy access to the mails at a cost the average person can afford.
That is what a free society is all about.
-3-
Mr. President, may I ask why a subsidy to the United States
Postal Service is repellent, while a subsidy to the railroads,
the airline industry and to such other Federal agencies as the
Commodity Credit Corporation's Price Support program, the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Urban renewal and a host of other subsidies are not
only not repellent but are part of our national policy? There was
no suggestion that the railroads or airlines reduce weekend service
rather than increase those subsidies.
Finally, Mr. President, permit me to address myself to those
who say the cost of operating the mails should be borne solely by
those who use the mails. I think they are wrong. The recipient
of a letter, who pays nothing for that privilege, benefits just as
much as the sender, who pays for the stamp. One might ask, should
the cost of operating our lighthouses be borne only by the maritime
traffic which directly profits by them? Or should the cost be borne
through general taxation? Should the cost of the Federal Aviation
Administration be borne only by those who use planes? I think not.
In checking recent annual reports of the Postmaster General,
we find that postal worker productivity is on the upgrade. Last
year, 39,000 less employees sorted and delivered 4.5 billion more
pieces than were handled five years ago at the time of postal
reorganization. We are proud of our performance. We are proud
of the services we render. However, we cannot be proud of service
reductions which cause additional burdens upon our shoulders in the
form of complaints from an angry public.
We are also a responsible lot, having foregone lucrative wage
and fringe benefit increases in our most recent negotiations be-
cause we recognized the financial plight of our Employer. That
plight was created by unanticipated, uncontrolled inflation which,
it appears, your Administration has been successful recently in
abating.
LIBRARY
-4-
Mr. President, the National Association of Letter Carriers
(AFL-CIO) sincerely hope and pray that you will re-think this
problem and give thought to the arguments I have placed before
you. There has been too much fuzzy rhetoric, petty partisan and
aimless finger-pointing at the Postal Service and its employees.
The Service does have problems, but they are not insoluable.
Direction and compassionate understanding of our problems by your
high office will go a long way toward solving our temporary prob-
lems.
Very truly yours,
President
JHR/kh
opeiu #2
BERNED
#ddd
-
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 26, 1976
MEMO FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
KEN LAZARUS
SUBJECT:
Lynn Memo re US Postal
Service Financial Problem
Suggested Response:
I believe that both the merits and the politics
of this issue favor Option 1. Additionally,
I would suggest that the President acknowledge
that some portion of the debt may have to be
canceled only if pressed on the question --
there would appear to be no immediacy to this
aspect of the problem. Finally, although the
President would not veto legislation to create
a postal study commission, I would hesitate to
make this representation publicly -- such an
approach appears indecisive and supportive
of a system which appears, from the public's
perspective, to be totally inept.
Approve
Disapprove
T.W.B.
VOND LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
Date:
April 24, 1976
Time:
FOR ACTION:
CC (for information):
Phil Buchen
Alan Greenspan
Jim Cannon
Jack Marsh
Max Friedersdorf
Bill Seidman
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
2 p.m.
DUE: Date:
Monday, April 26
Time:
1P.M
SUBJECT:
James T. Lynn memo (undated) re U.S. Postal
Service Financial Problem
ACTION REQUESTED:
X
For Necessary Action
For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X
For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Jim Lynn will be meeting with the President early on
Tuesday morning on this subject -- for that reason
we must have your comments at the time requested.
Thank you.
GERALD it. FORD
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate
delay in submitting the required material, pleas
Jim Connor
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
James T. Lynn
SUBJECT:
U.S. Postal Service Financial
Problem
BACKGROUND
Since the U.S. Postal Service commenced operations on
July 1, 1971, it has failed to achieve one of the basic
goals of postal reform, a balancing of costs with revenues.
Through fiscal year 1975 the Postal Service has accumulated
a deficit totaling over $1.6 billion and it is now expected
to sustain an additional $1.4 billion loss this fiscal year.
There are numerous factors which have contributed to the
continuing yearly deficits in postal operations.
On the cost side, postal management's efforts to maintain
high levels of service, coupled with a period of double
digit inflation, lagging productivity and liberal wage
settlements have driven up the costs of operating the
Postal Service by nearly 50 per cent since reorganization.
Labor costs, which account for 86 per cent of all postal
costs, have gone up 42 per cent, representing the largest
single item impacting postal expenses. The average postal
employee is now making $13,574 a year compared to the
comparable GS-5, step 5, civil service salary of $10,117.
On the revenue side, there has been a leveling off in mail
volume, due in part to the recession, higher rates, and
new forms of electronic communication. This has blunted
the traditionally expected 6 per cent annual growth in
postal income. The rate setting process has also proven
to be slow and generally unresponsive to these problems.
As a result, postal revenues have continued to lag about
10 per cent behind expenses.
GERMAS FORD LIBRARY
2
The mounting deficit in postal operations has produced a
complete erosion of the Service's initial equity position.
As a result of this decline, postal management has begun
to consider steps to control costs. For the most part,
however, management has relied on its borrowing authority
to maintain operations. Under the Reorganization Act
the Postal Service can borrow up to $1.5 billion annually
for capital purposes and up to $500 million to defray
operating expenses. There is a $10 billion statutory
ceiling on the total amount of debt which the Postal
Service can have outstanding. By the end of this fiscal
year the Service will have accumulated $3.0 billion in
outstanding debt, one half of which will have gone to
finance general postal operations. The other half has
gone into capital expenditures, including a heavy invest-
ment of over $1 billion in bulk mail facilities in an
unsuccessful attempt to compete with United Parcel Service.
While the overall financial condition of the Postal Service
has seriously weakened, there is no immediate danger that
it will be unable to meet its current obligations. The
Postal Service's own financial analysis confirms that there
is no short term crisis. While the deficit is increasing,
the projected quarterly balances of the Service show a
positive cash position through the third quarter of fiscal
year 1979. This projection assumes:
Stable revenues (no increase in rates) ;
No increase in the current level of Federal subsidies;
No appreciable change in mail volume;
Maximum utilization of the Service's borrowing
authority; and
No change in the Service's planned capital
investment program.
Implementation of cost reductions and a stretch out of the
Postal Service's planned capital investment program would
improve this projection. Without further rate increases
or higher subsidies, however, the Postal Service's
outstanding debt would increase to $8.9 billion by the
end of 1979.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
3
The Postal Service's financial condition has raised Con-
gressional concerns. Complaints of poor service, increasing
rates, and the threat of major service reductions have
further intensified those concerns and increased pressures
on the Congress. The House passage of legislation last
session, which would return control of all postal monies
to Congress, evidenced the growing dissatisfaction with the
current situation in general and postal management in parti-
cular. Thus far the Senate has taken no action, but Senator
McGee has introduced legislation and held hearings on his
bill which would increase Federal subsidies to the Postal
Service by $1.5 billion a year over the next three years,
while a "study commission" explores the role of public
service appropriations in supporting postal operations.
There is underlying sentiment of support in the House and
Senate Post Office Committees for additional Federal sub-
sidies for the Postal Service. The announcement of a
series of "possible" cost saving measures which postal
management is exploring has further strengthened that
sentiment. Possible savings mentioned include the closing
of some small rural post offices, reductions in residential
and city deliveries, ending Saturday delivery and trans-
ferring excess employees to other offices. While these
are legitimate areas for seeking savings, the proposed
actions under consideration will contribute little to
resolving the overall financial problems facing the
Service. The announcements have, however, generated
considerable pressure by the mailers and postal unions on
Congress to appropriate additional funds. Thus far the
House budget committee has not included any additional
funds in its fiscal year 1977 planning figures, but the
Senate budget committee has allowed about $1 billion for
additional direct appropriations to the Postal Service.
There is some indication from congressional committees
that they may be willing to compromise at about half
that amount.
In addition to the immediate financial problems of the
Service, it almost certainly will be facing serious
long-term problems due to fundamental changes in forms
of communications, such as increased use of telecommuni-
cations. The prospects are that written communications
will likely decline or remain stable, while the costs to
the Postal Service of maintaining a national service will
continue to increase along with the population. OMB is
currently studying the postal situation in an attempt to
more specifically define the financial problems of the
FORD
4
Postal Service. This study will provide an identification
of the key problem elements and possible short and long
range solutions to these problems. It is expected that
the study will identify some possible solutions for
further analysis.
OPTIONS
At this time we see the following options for dealing with
the Congress on the current postal financial problem:
#1. Continue our current position, providing
assurances of continued borrowing rights for
Postal Service and acknowledgement that some
portion of the accumulated debt may have to
be canceled.
#2. Same as option #1 above, but support legis-
lation to create a postal study commission
to look into the postal situation. As a
part of its charter, the commission would
deal with the question of the disposition
of the accumulated postal debt.
#3. Same as options #1 and #2 above, but also
indicate that you would not veto a provision
adding up to $500 million in additional
Federal operating subsidies for fiscal 1976,
1977, and 1978.
DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Option #1 - Under this option we would continue our current
position that postal users, not the taxpayers, should bear
the costs of providing postal services. We would continue
to press for cooperation on the part of the Congress and
the Postal Service to think through the current postal
problems and look at the alternative solutions for
achieving self-sufficiency. At least until such a review
is made, the Federal government would not support
additional subsidies or other stop-gap legislative
approaches. The Postal Service is in no danger of running
out of funds over a reasonable period of time, during
which a study and legislative action based on the study
could be undertaken.
In order to satisfy Congressional and postal management
concerns during the period of a study it would be envisioned
5
under this option that the Service and the Congress would
be provided with written assurances from the Administration
of continued Federal borrowing rights, so that the Postal
Service can continue to meet its obligations. It may also
be necessary to acknowledge that ultimately any accumu-
lated debt that cannot be reasonably recouped by the
Service will have to be canceled by the taxpayers, one
way or another.
PRO
This option would maintain our present posture
of support for the underlying principle that
postal costs should be borne by the mail users.
It would indicate to the Congress our willing-
ness to deal realistically with the current
postal financial situation, by assuring
continued borrowing rights and an open mind
on possible forgiveness of some of the
accumulated postal debt.
It would keep the pressure on postal management
to explore possible cost savings measures.
If successful, it would forestall an increase
in the public service subsidy, thereby avoiding
a higher floor for future subsidies and a
premature change in the current public service
concept.
CON
This option would leave the Congress without
any action on its part. In our meetings with
Congressman Derwinski and Senator McGee they
advised us that members of Congress are looking
for some form of a crutch, that is, a specific
piece of legislation which takes some positive
step and can be pointed to as dealing with the
current postal problems. Assurance of continued
borrowing rights would very likely not satisfy
the Congress.
The availability of borrowing rights is not a
real concern for the Postal Service. Postal
Service believes that as long as it is within
6
its statutory borrowing limit it will be able
to continue to get financing. The Postmaster
General is more interested in obtaining
operating funds to give postal management
a cushion.
Even with the assurances of borrowing rights
and possible cancellation of a portion of its
accumulated debt, the Postal Service may
respond with the announcement of major
service reductions and/or another increase
in postage rates within the next few months.
Major service reductions or another announced
rate increase would place heavy pressure on
both Congress and the Administration to
prevent such actions by providing additional
subsidies.
It would indicate some commitment on our part
to cover a portion of the Service's accumulated
debt, which could cost $2 billion.
Option #2 - Under this option we would continue to oppose
the need for stop-gap subsidies, as in option #1, but
would either propose or support legislation to establish
a public postal study commission to review the financial
problems of the Service over the next nine months to one
year. The commission would be instructed to include in
its report a recommendation for handling that portion of
the Service's debt which cannot reasonably be expected
to be recouped through postage revenues. This may, for
example, result in a recommendation that any increase in
operating debt accumulated during the period of the study
would be written off (this would probably be $500 million
to $1 billion), or that the entire accumulated operating
debt (expected to be about $2 billion) would be written
off. It might be possible to write off the debt as an
"off-budget" transaction, in order to avoid the impact
on the budget deficit, although this would be inconsistent
with current budget practices. This is discussed further
in the attachment to this memorandum. A sub-option would
be to agree now to legislation to cancel a portion of the
operating debt, if this would be helpful in obtaining
Congressional agreement.
We would continue under this option to provide the same
Administration assurances, as in option #1, of continued
Federally-supported borrowing rights to take the Service
through the study period.
7
The principal purpose of this approach would be to try to
obtain Congressional agreement to delay subsidy increases
or other major changes during the next several months,
while the study is underway.
PRO
This option would help to satisfy Congressional
desires expressed by Senator McGee for some
form of action on their part to deal with the
postal problem.
If agreement is reached, it would avoid in-
creased operating subsidies, at least until
the Commission has completed its study.
It would add Congressional pressure on postal
management to control costs.
It would provide time for. a reasoned study of
both the short and long term problems facing
the Service before making any major changes.
Cancellation of a portion of the debt would
be preferable to increasing operating
subsidies. It would be helping the Service
to recover from past problems, rather than
providing a subsidy for future mailers.
It would avoid any specific commitment at this
time to cancel any portion of the postal debt.
CON
Establishing a public study commission with a
charter to deal with the postal financial
problem in general and postal debt in parti-
cular, could result in unacceptable recom-
mendations by the Commission for increased
taxpayer support of postal operations.
Congress may not be willing to settle for just
a study commission without some additional
direct funds for the Postal Service. Without
strong assurances from the Hill, we could end
up. with a study commission as well as additional
subsidies. Congressman Derwinski has indicated
8
his desire to work out some arrangement to
delay or prevent a confrontation on this issue,
and Senator McGee expressed an interest but was
basically noncommittal. It is not clear that
the Senator would accept this approach.
It is anticipated that most members of Congress
would expect the Postal Service to not take any
actions until the commission made its report,
but there is no assurance that this approach
would forestall major service reductions or a
rate increase by the Postal Service while the
commission was carrying out its study.
Option #3 - This option is essentially the same as option #2,
but would also include a tacit indication to the Congress
that you would not veto a provision in the legislation
establishing the public study commission that would provide
the Postal Service with an additional interim operating
subsidy of up to $500 million a year over the next three
years.
PRO
This approach would improve chances of getting
Congressional agreement. It would provide the
Congress a more clearly delineated action
dealing with the postal problem, thus satisfying
Congressional concerns and avoiding the major
increases in public service subsidies now being
proposed.
It would contribute significantly to reducing
the Postal Service's estimated operating
deficit. It would improve Congressional
chances of extracting from the Postal Service
a delay in the need for major service re-
ductions or another increase in rates.
CON
Such action would run contrary to our
established position. It. would provide tax-
payer assistance to the Postal Service to
subsidize service costs which should ulti-
mately be borne by the mail users.
:
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
9
It would establish a higher level of subsidy,
which after three years, would make it
virtually impossible to return to existing
subsidy levels; that would require either a
sudden large increase in rates or major cost
reductions. It would be appropriate to
assume, therefore, that the higher level of
subsidy would become the base.
It would establish a precedent for future
requests from postal management for further
increases in subsidies to bail it out of
financial problems.
It would reduce pressures on the Postal Service
to control or reduce costs, at least for the
next three years. It would establish the
practice of covering Postal Service deficits
with appropriations, which could reduce or
remove any incentives on postal management to
develop a more efficient operation.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that we pursue option #2, but I would like to
discuss this issue with you before you make a decision.
DECISION
Option #1. Continue our current position,
providing assurances of continued borrowing
rights for Postal Service and acknowledge-
ment that some portion of the accumulated
debt may have to be canceled.
Option #2. Same as option #1 above, but
support legislation to create a postal
study commission to look into the postal
situation. As a part of its charter, the
commission would deal with the question
of the disposition of the accumulated
postal debt.
Option #3. Same as options #1 and #2 above,
but also indicate you would not veto a pro-
vision adding about $500 million in additional
Federal operating subsidies for fiscal 1976,
1977, and 1978.
FORD
Attachment
Options for Dealing with Postal Service Debt
There are basically two approaches to dealing with the Postal
Service's accumulated debt. The first would involve a regular
appropriation "on-budget" to the Postal Service for purposes
of retiring the debt now held by the Federal Financing Bank
(FFB). The full appropriation would count as a budget outlay.
The second approach would involve an appropriation to the
Postal Service or the Federal Financing Bank "off-budget"
accounts which would not be counted as a budget outlay.
The "on-budget" approach would be the normal way to account
for such a Federal transaction under the unified budget
concepts. As a general rule the Federal budget is expected
to be a comprehensive document encompassing the complete
range of Federal activities for full public and Congressional
scrutiny. The major problem that would accompany any full
counting of the debt write off "on-budget" is the impact
it would have on the budget totals, adding up to $2 billion
in Federal outlays. This could make a significant increase
in the budget deficit in any one year.
Currently the general operations of the Postal Service and
the credit operation of the Federal Financing Bank are not
counted as part of the Federal budget totals, but are carried
as annexed or "off-budget" operations. The governmental
activities which are shown "off-budget" are limited and for
the most part have been removed from the Federal budget totals
by statute. The Postal Service was placed "off-budget" to
reflect its conversion to independent status consistent with
the 1970 Reorganization Act and its self-financing nature.
It is therefore technically possible to make a case for
appropriating funds to the Service or the FFB to deal with
an "off-budget" problem. The off-budget approach has the
advantage of avoiding any sizable increase in Federal budget
deficit. This is however, the only advantage. Despite the
"off-budget" treatment of the Postal Service's general
operations, the Federal payments and subsidies provided to
the Service since reorganization have always been counted
in the budget totals. To write off the debt through an "off-
budget" transaction would be inconsistent with our treatment
to date. It would violate the concepts of the unified
budget, and would also set a "government-wide" precedent for
similar financing of other governmental activities. It would
therefore make it difficult for the Administration to resist
Congressional efforts to pursue similar type off budget
financing arrangements in other areas. Lastly, there are no
persuasive arguments that could be made publically for
supporting this type of a budget approach.
: Ba FORD LIB
0 N B
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 24, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN P.
SUBJECT:
Budget Request for
Camp David FY 1977
Attached is a memo from Bill Nichols of OMB
to me. I would appreciate your obtaining
such clearances for Nichols' proposed reply
as you may think are appropriate. I believe
we should be forthright in replying.
Attachment
$ i. FORD
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
FROM:
WILLIAM Michale
SUBJECT:
Budget Request for
Camp David FY 1977
In response to a request from Senator Stevenson, the
Library of Congress has asked the amount of the budget
estimate for Camp David for fiscal year 1977. Senator
Stevenson forwarded a constituent's letter to us re-
cently requesting the same information. We replied
that the amount was contained in the budget for the
Department of the Navy.
Mr. Cronin, of the Library of Congress, was not inter-
ested in our suggestion that he obtain the information
from the Senate Appropriations Committee. I believe
that any attempt to withhold this data could be skewed
to reflect adversely upon the President.
Since, to our knowledge, this budget figure has not been
made public in the past, I would appreciate your coordi-
nating the response to Mr. Cronin in the White House,
as you think necessary.
I will be out of the office next week. In my absence,
Mrs. Jane Finn (ext. 5600) will be handling this matter.
Attachment
FOND
DRAFT:DO:GC:Nichols:sc - 5/21/76
Mr. Richard P. Cronin
Foreign Affairs and National
Defense Division
Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20540
Dear Mr. Cronin:
This is in response to your request for the budget
estimate for Camp David for fiscal year 1977.
As you know, this funding is contained in the budget
for the Department of the Navy, which maintains this
facility for the use of the President and as a conference
and meeting place for various governmental departments
and agencies. The request for the operation of Camp
David in the coming fiscal year is $638,000.
Sincerely,
William M. Nichols
General Counsel
FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
OMB
WASHINGTON
May 31, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BILL NICHOLS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
SUBJECT:
Budget Request for
Camp David FY 1977
In response to your memorandum of May 24, I have
cleared your suggested reply on this subject to
Mr. Cronin of the Library of Congress. Therefore,
I presume you will promptly send the letter.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 26, 1976
TO:
Bill Gulley
FROM:
Eleanor Connors
Bill, Jim has no objection to
this
What
encl. going do cely you out think? from OMB. Father that
no they had BS.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 26, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHIL BUCHEN
FROM:
JIM IMPORTO ONNOR
SUBJECT:
Budget Request for Camp David FY 1977
I have checked with the appropriate offices, and there is no
objection to Bill Nichols' proposed reply concerning the
budget for Camp David.
encl.
E FOND
HOLD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 24, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CONNOR
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN P.
SUBJECT:
Budget Request for
Camp David FY 1977
Attached is a memo from Bill Nichols of OMB
to me. I would appreciate your obtaining
such clearances for Nichols' proposed reply
as you may think are appropriate. I believe
we should be forthright in replying.
Attachment
FORD
sario
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PHILIP W. BUCHEN
FROM:
WILLIAM Michale
SUBJECT:
Budget Request for
Camp David FY 1977
In response to a request from Senator Stevenson, the
Library of Congress has asked the amount of the budget
estimate for Camp David for fiscal year 1977. Senator
Stevenson forwarded a constituent's letter to us re-
cently requesting the same information. We replied
that the amount was contained in the budget for the
Department of the Navy.
Mr. Cronin, of the Library of Congress, was not inter-
ested in our suggestion that he obtain the information
from the Senate Appropriations Committee. I believe
that any attempt to withhold this data could be skewed
to reflect adversely upon the President.
Since, to our knowledge, this budget figure has not been
made public in the past, I would appreciate your coordi-
nating the response to Mr. Cronin in the White House,
as you think necessary.
I will be out of the office next week. In my absence,
Mrs. Jane Finn (ext. 5600) will be handling this matter.
Attachment
DRAFT:DO:GC:Nichols:sc - 5/21/76
Mr. Richard P. Cronin
Foreign Affairs and National
Defense Division
Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20540
Dear Mr. Cronin:
This is in response to your request for the budget
estimate for Camp David for fiscal year 1977.
As you know, this funding is contained in the budget
for the Department of the Navy, which maintains this
facility for the use of the President and as a conference
and meeting place for various governmental departments
and agencies. The request for the operation of Camp
David in the coming fiscal year is $638,000.
Sincerely,
William M. Nichols
General Counsel
on
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 11, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR: JIM CANNON
PAUL O'NEILL
KEN LAZARUS
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
Attached is material which came
from the Department of Interior
relative to the basis for the
appropriation of funds to pay
claims arising out of the failure
of the Teton River Dam.
1080
January 26, 1915
March 3, 1915
PARK
205
disposition under laws relat.
onal parks and are not COV-
eclamation fund, as provided
f July 19, 1919. C.L. 866,
SUNDRY CIVIL EXPENSES APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR 1916
20.
[Extracts from] An act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Govern-
ment for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and sixteen, and for
ed shall affect any valid
other purposes. (Act of March 3, 1915, ch. 75, 38 Stat. 822)
.VS of the United States,
other purpose whatsoever,
i, or entryman to the full
RECLAMATION SERVICE
.ith the primary purposes
idred and one, applicable
The following sums are appropriated out of the special fund in the Treasury
KS and the national forests
of the United States created by the Act of June seventeenth, nineteen hundred
n applicable to the lands
and two (Thirty-second Statutes, page three hundred and eighty-eight), and
ebruary 26, 1931, 46 Stat.
therein designated "the reclamation fund":
[Damage
payments.]-Fo
*** payment of claims for damage to or loss
of property, personal injury, or death arising out of activities of the Bureau of
Reclamation; *** (38 Stat. 859)
in the Text. The Act of
enth, nineteen hundred and
EXPLANATORY NOTES
e to the location of rights-
tain national parks and the
Provision Repeated; Evolution of Word-
arising out of the survey, construction, op-
its for irrigation and other
ing. A provision for the payment of dam-
eration or maintenance of works by the
ned to in the text, appears
are claims has appeared in each annual
Bureau of Reclamation". The Act of Sep-
onological order.
appropriation act for the Bureau of Recla-
tember 6, 1950, substituted "activities of"
mation beginning with the Act of March 3,
for the phrase "the survey, construction,
1915. The shortened form shown above
operation or maintenance of works by".
first used in the Act of September 6,
Comparable Provision, Indian Irrigation
1950, 64 Stat. 687. It has been carried in
Projects. The Act of February 20, 1929,
each subsequent annual Interior Depart-
42 Stat. 1252, 25 U.S.C. § 388, provides for
ment Appropriation Act through fiscal year
similar payment in connection with Bureau
3d Congress. H.R. Rept. No.
1955, and thereafter in each annual Public
of Indian Affairs irrigation works.
Works Appropriation Act through the most
Remedy Solely Discretionary. The rem-
recent one, the Act of October 15, 1966,
edies provided by the appropriation acts
Stat. 100&
and the Act of February 20, 1929, have been
As first enacted in 1915, the provision
construed to be matters entirely within the
--ad: "payment of damages caused to the
discretion of the Secretary of the Interior,
of lands or private property of any
rather than statutory rights to compensa-
kind by reason of the operations of the
tion. Solicitor White Opinion, 60 I.D. 451,
United States, its officers or employees, in
454 (1950) Bill Powers, TA-271 (Ir.),
survey, construction, operation, or main-
71 I.D. 237 (1964).
nance of irrigation works, and which may
Procedures for Administrative Deter-
:- compromised by agreement between the
minations. Each Regional Solicitor is au-
amant and the Secretary of the Interior."
thorized to determine, under the annual
The appropriation act for fiscal year 1927
Public Works Appropriation Act, claims not
subsequent acts inserted the word
exceeding $15,000 for damage to or loss of
her" before "private property" and
property, personal injury, or death arising
"or such officers as he may desig-
from activities of the Bureau of Reclam-
at the end. The appropriation act
ation. The Regional Solicitor is likewise au-
fiscal year 1939 and subsequent acts
thorized to make determinations for claims
pped the last clause "and which may be
under $15,000 arising from the survey, con-
premised by agreement between the
struction, operation or maintenance of irri-
and the Secretary of the Interior
gation works on Indian irrigation projects.
officers as he may designate." The
Appeal lies to the Solicitor, upon written
priation act for fiscal year 1948 and
notice of appeal filed with the Regional
acts revised the provision to
Solicitor within 30 days of receipt of the
payment of claims for damage to or
determination. Solicitor's Regulation No. 5,
property, personal injury, or death,
amended October 5, 1965.
LIDERA
March 3, 1915
March 3,
206
SUNDRY CIVIL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1916
Relation to Tort Claims. The annual ap-
in "damages to" property (admittediv
2
propriation acts, and the Act of February 20,
difficult distinction to draw), the landown
from the Go
1929, 45 Stat. 1252, 25 U.S.C. § 388, re-
is entitled to just compensation under the
S. L. Taske
lating to claims for damages caused by In-
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution
1942).
dian irrigation projects, provide only for
such property is not acquired by the Buress
No recov
the administrative determination of claims
of Reclamation by purchase or condening-
United State
which do not sound in tort, as the Federal
tion, the property owner may bring
operation of
Tort Claims Act is considered to provide
under the Tucker Act in the Court of Claim,
irrivat
the exclusive remedy for all tort claims. As
or the United States District Court.
of (
a matter of procedure, when a claim is sub-
lected cases are noted herein under
numberm bu
mitted for administrative determination it
Fifth Amendment to the Constitution,
and
is considered under both the annual Public
extracts from the Tucker Act appear
above
Works Appropriation Act and the Federal
in the Appendix.
of wat
Tort Claims Act, to determine if a remedy
Editor's Note, Annotations of Admin.
is available under either Act. For cases and
istrative Determinations. The annotat
e:f
determinations involving tort claims, see the
of administrative determinations whic
th
Act of June 25, 1948, herein and notes
low should not be considered an exhause
fullest
&
thereunder.
treatment, as the proceedings in this
Relation to Claims for Taking of Prop-
are voluminous. However, an attempt
the rese.
erty. Where the reclamation activities
been made to select illustrative decision
and t!
result in a "taking of" property, rather than
spanning the range of fact situations.
have
Lease Sing
NOTES OF OPINIONS
19101
Canal breaks 3
tion act provision available therefor. C. F
Canal seepage 4
Burbridge, M-32045 (January 30, 19:3
Name
Rive
Direct causation 1
Recovery for alleged damages was
Fire 14
when the claimant failed to show by
on
A
Floods 2
preponderance of the evidence that
their
Indian irrigation projects 7
contamination of his spring was caused
the
Land purchase contract release clauses 8
an increase in the alkaline or salt content
that
Livestock losses 6
irrigation waters pumped, "damages
of
the
Property, what constitutes 12
sulting from remote or consequent
which
Reservoir water releases and escapes 5
being held not to come within the pur
of the
Roads and bridges 15
of the statute. Columbia Basin Orders
United State
Silting 10
Co., M-31669 (November 19, 1942).
pro
Subirrigated lands 11
2. Floods
River
Transfer of facilities 13
in
dam
Wells 9
The Government is not liable, under
the
Federal Tort Claims Act, for damage
1. Direct causation
to crops by a flood diverted to claimant
of
The Government is not liable under the
land by the existence of a Bureau of 5
Federal Tort Claims Act for property dam-
lamation canal because the original
age resulting from water escaping through
to build the laterals without placing
a sudden break in an irrigation canal which
verts under them was within the
Febru
was constructed according to plans pre-
tionary function exception of the Act
Flood Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 702c.
Canal
pared by engineers based upon the best
by
engineering practices available, and in-
immunity statute, applicable only
spected regularly with reasonable diligence
liability would exist without it, and
and skill after being placed in operation.
was no liability, the Flood Control
However, the Government at its discretion
not bar the payment of claims
may compensate injured parties in these
Public Works Appropriation Act. I:
circumstances under the Interior Depart-
instance the flood waters would not
ment Appropriation Act where the cause
been diverted onto claimant's land
M
of the damage is shown to be the direct
the lateral, thus the damage done
C
result of activities of the Bureau of Reclama-
direct result of non-tortious activities
tion. Northern Pacific Railway Co., et al.,
Bureau of Reclamation. Claim allow
T-560 (Ir.) (May 10, 1954).
Powers, TA-271 (Ir.) 71 I.D. 237
Where action of claimant in removing
Where flooding of land was the
dirt from banks of irrigation ditch was
a rainstorm of unprecedented or clo
shown to have been a proximate cause of a
like proportions, and not the result
break in the ditch resulting in the flooding
direct act or omission, or negligence
of his land, no damages may be recovered
construction, operation or maintenance
against the United States under appropria-
a drainage ditch, claimants cannot
FORD
LIDRANA
March 3, 1915
March 3, 1915
S ACT, 1916
SUNDRY CIVIL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1916
207
to" property (admittedly a
from the Government for property damaged.
embankments is compensable under the
ction to draw), the landowner
S. L. Tooke, et al., M-31871 (August 22,
annual appropriation act as the direct result
just compensation under the
1942).
of activities of the Bureau of Reclamation.
ment to the Constitution. If
No recovery may be had against the
Northern Pacific Railway Co., et al., T-560
is not acquired by the Bureau
United States where it was shown that the
(Ir.) (May 10, 1954).
on by purchase or condemna-
operation of certain reservoirs of a Govern-
Flooding caused by tumbleweeds, which
perty owner may bring suit
ment irrigation project did not cause the
sank and rolled along the bottom of a
cker Act in the Court of Claims
flooding of claimants' lands during a severe
cuivert of an irrigation lateral, clogging a
ed States District Court. Sc-
rainstorm but that in fact they reduced, im-
drain and causing claimant's land to be
are noted herein under the
peded and retarded the flood waters of a
overflowed, was held to have resulted from
ment to the Constitution, and
creek above the reservoirs; that large quan-
the manner in which the canal was main-
the Tucker Act appear herein
tities of water were not suddenly released
tained by the Government, to be "damage
dix.
from the reservoirs; that the reservoirs were
due to unavoidable causes in which the ele-
lote, Annotations of Admin.
operated efficiently and in such manner as
ment of negligence does not appear," and
erminations. The annotations
to utilize the available storage capacity to
claimant accordingly was permitted to re-
itive determinations which fol-
the fullest possible extent for the regulation
cover for damage resulting therefrom.
ot be considered an exhaustive
and control of the flood waters; and that but
George H. Munro, M-31573 (January 24,
5 the proceedings in this field
for the reservoirs, the flood waters in the
1942).
ous. However, an attempt has
creck, and the damage resulting therefrom,
to select illustrative decisions
would have been appreciably greater.
4. Canal seepage
: range of fact situations.
Lenora Simpson, et al., M-30564 (February
When an award for damage to property
16, 1940).
is rendered as a result of seepage from an
Claims filed against the United States by
irrigation canal, and that award is based
landowners on the west side of the Rio
on the permanent depreciation in value of
vision available therefor. C. F.
Grande River who alleged that the Alamo
the property due to the seepage, no addi-
M-32045 (January 30, 1945
for alleged damages was denied
levee, constructed by the United States in
tional award may be rendered unless the
aimant failed to show by a fair
1933 on the east side of the River, had
extent or intensity of the seepage has in-
caused their lands to be flooded, were dis-
creased since the first award to a degree
ace of the evidence that alleged
on of his spring was caused by
allowed, the Under Secretary of the Interior
which has caused further permanent
in the alkaline or salt content of
holding that the alleged damaged lands were
depreciation in the value of the property.
waters pumped, "damages re-
a part of the flood plain of the Rio Grande
Norma Streit, et al., T-1100 (Ir.) (Febru-
River which would be flooded independ-
ary 4, 1964). For the earlier award, see
n remote or consequent causes"
not to come within the purview
ently of the Alamo levee, and that the
Arnold Streit, T-476 (Ir.) (Supp.), 62
tute. Columbia Basin Orchard
United States had a right to construct the
I.D. 12 (1955).
169 (November 19, 1942).
lovee to protect its property against floods
Claimant contended that scepage water
in the River even if such construction should
from Bureau of Reclamation ditches and
result in damage to the lands on the opposite
canals had rendered grazing land useless
ernment is not liable, under the
side of the river. Norberto Butler, et al.,
and caused damage to cattle from falls
It Claims Act, for damage caused
August 29, 1935.
suffered by ice formation. The record
y a flood diverted to claimant's
Floods of unprecedented occurrence and
showed several other sources for the seep-
e existence of a Bureau of Rec-
volume are acts of God over which the Gov-
age, however, namely heavy irrigation and
anal because the original decision
emment has no control and for which it
rainfall on adjacent upland farms and two
he laterals without placing cul-
cannot be held liable. Palmyra Longuemare,
springs in the area; therefore the claim was
If them was within the discre-
rt al., February 21, 1930.
denied. The damages must be the dircct
nction exception of the Act. The
3. Canal breaks
result of activities of the Bureau of Reclama-
trol Act, 33 U.S.C. § 702c, is an
statute, applicable only where
Damage caused by flooding when a canal
tion, which required in this context that
buld exist without it, and as there
break occurred due to gopher burrowing
seepage water from project facilities alone,
could not be compensated under the Public
without contribution from other sources, be
bility, the Flood Control Act does
10 payment of claims under the
Works Appropriation Act since the break
sufficient to cause the damage. Howard D.
Mas not directly caused by the activities of
Galletine, T-980 (Ir.), 67 I.D. 191 (1960).
rks Appropriation Act. In this
he flood waters would not Lave
the Bureau of Reclamation. Wilbur B. Cas-
Claimant had conveyed the right of way
sted onto claimant's land but
sidy and Mary A. Cassady, and Farmers
for a canal to the United States, which
1. thus the damage done was the
urance Group, TA-235 (Ir.), 69 I.D.
subsequently caused damage to the base-
ilt of non-tortious activities by the
193 (1962).
ment of his home and his crops by seepage.
Reclamation. Claim allowed. B..:
When a canal dike breaks because of the
Upon a showing of damage directly caused
A-271 (Ir.) 71 I.D. 237 (1964
activities of ground squirrels, the direct
by activities of the Bureau of Reclamation,
fooding of land was the result
cause of the break is the presence of ferae
measured by the difference in appraisal
E of unprecedented or cloudbur
estarce, over which the United States has
value of the property with and without the
ortions, and not the result of ,
= control, thus no liability can attach.
seepage condition, compensation was made
or omission, or negligence in the
Anna Barnes, 57 I.D. 584 (1942).
to claimant, past rulings to the contrary
lon. operation or maintenance of
Damages caused by water escaping from
being reversed. Arnold Streit, T-476 (Ir.)
ditch, claimants cannot recover
a Government canal to railroad trestles and
(Supp.), 62 I.D. 12 (1955).
is
GERALD
FORD
LIBRARY
March 3, 1915
208
SUNDRY CIVIL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1916
5. Reservoir water releases and escapes
which determined the result for a neglizence
The claimant contended the formation
theory of liability under the Federal Tor:
of accumulated ice jams, caused by the
Claims Act, did not require a landowner
fluctuation of river flow in the winter result-
to fence his land or be liable to the owner
ing from irregular power releases made
of livestock injured while upon that land,
through the powerplant, damaged his ir-
therefore the claim was denied under the
rigation diversion dam. However, previous
Federal Tont Claims Act. A long-established
ice jams had developed on the river during
policy of the Department did not consider
periods of continuous water release from
livestock drowning in irrigation facilities
the powerplant, ice jams had occurred dur-
to be the direct results of Government
ing the same winter on nearby rivers with
employees' activity, thus the claim
no apparent relationship to continuous or
denied under the statute relating to chim,
fluctuating flows, and reservoir intake
for damage caused by Indian irrigation
records showed the natural flow of the
works. John C. Brock, TA-249 (Ir.).
river would have varied over 550 per cent
I.D. 397 (1963). For other determinations
during the period the damage occurred.
under the appropriation acts denving
Therefore, it could not be established that
awards in cattle drowning cases, see Date
damage to claimant's dam was the direct
Jones, TA-185 (Ir.) (April 23, 1959
result of non-tortious activities of employees
Ray Strouf. TA-180 (Ir.) (February 5.
of the Bureau of Reclamation. Hanover
1959); Alfred Koeltzow, TA-18 (Ir.)
Irrigation District, TA-256 (Ir.) (Febru-
(July 25, 1949).
ary 20, 1964).
7. Indian irrigation projects
Spillway gates at a Bureau of Reclamation
The criteria for an award under the 37.-
dam gave way, permitting a large volume
of water to escape from the dam. Failure of
nual Public Works Appropriation Acts and
the gates was traced to a defective anchor
those for awards under the Indian project
act are the same, thus determinations
bolt common to two of the gates, but even a
close inspection would not have revealed
under the one may be used as precedent
the other. Therefore, a claim for losses of
the defect, therefore there was no negligence
on the part of the Government. An award
livestock by drowning in an Indian intice-
for damage claims for flooded lands could
tion project canal must be denied. John
be made from the current Interior Depart-
Brock, TA-249 (Ir.), 70 I.D. 397 (196)
ment Appropriation Act (1951), however,
Realignment of telephone poles brought
even though the damage occurred in 1942,
about through wind action after the foother
as Congress has provided no statute of
of the poles had been softened by submer-
limitations for this discretionary power.
sion in water, and through the action of
Solicitor White Opinion, 60 I.D. 451
formed during the winter in lifting the poir
(1950).
from their settings, in an area inundate
The Government was held not liable for
by the construction of the Wild Horse Dus
damage caused by flooding when an uñ-
on the Duck Valley irrigation project
Nevada, held due to direct acts of But
precedented accumulation and flow of heavy
ice loosened the structure and caused a dam
of Indian Affairs employees in the survey
to break where it was shown that the dam
construction, operation or maintenance
irrigation projects for which damages
was properly designed and constructed to
recoverable under the 1929 act. E.V.
withstand such pressure as it would be likely
County Telephone and Telegraph Co., V-
to meet based on past experience. Nashua
Booster Club, et al., M-30446 (September
31026 (January 17, 1941).
13, 1940).
8. Land purchase contract release clause
Where a large volume of water from a
Where there was no indication that
reservoir was discharged in order to clean
original appraisals of a canal right
and repair it, causing a greatly increased
purchased by the Government were
flow of water in the river below the dam and
creased because of inclusion in the
reservoir which overflowed the banks of the
of a clause requiring claimant to acce:
river and resulted in damage to owners of
purchase price as full payment for
adjoining lands, it was held that the one
ages, and no evidence that future
was a direct consequence of the other and
was within the contemplation of
that claimants could therefore recover. Dec.
party when the purchase price was
Comp. Treasury, June 15, 1915.
then upon proof of damage by cana.
6. Livestock losses
age, compensation will be allowed.
Streit, T-476 (Ir.) (Supp.), 62 I.D
Claimant's damages were caused by loss
(1955).
of livestock through drowning in an un-
Notwithstanding an agreement
fenced irrigation canal. Applicable state law,
land-purchase contract to accept the
FORD
LIBA
March 3, 1915
March 3, 1915
SUNDRY CIVIL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1916
209
CT, 1916
chase price as full payment for all damages
12. Property, what constitutes
he result for a negligence
for entry upon the property and the con-
under the Federal Tort
Claimants sought damages because the
struction, operation and maintenance of
ot require a landowner
construction and operation of a reclamation
reclamation works thereon, a vendor may
I be liable to the owner
project had increased the volume of water
be awarded damages under the provisions
1 while upon that land,
in a lake, thereby diluting its dissolved min-
of the annual Interior Department appro-
1 was denied under the
eral content and making claimant's business
priation act when the contract gives the
$ Act. A long-established
of extracting salts from the water more ex-
vendor the right of possession until a cer-
rtment did not consider
pensive. The claim was denied on the
tain date, and before that date the Bureau
in irrigation facilities
grounds no valid property right was dam-
of Reclamation overflows the land and
results of Government
aged, since claimant had never appropriated
destroys the crops growing upon it. Ruth O.
the dissolved minerals in the lake or obtained
thus the claim was
Wiles, T-462 (Ir.). 61 I.D. 109 (1953).
tatute relating to claims
a license or permit from the city or state for
} by Indian irrigation
9. Wells
that purpose. Roxie Thorson and Marie
ock, TA-249 (Ir.), 70
Claimants alleged their water wells
Downs, T-710 (Ir.), 63 I.D. 12 (1956).
or other determinations
went dry as a result of the construction of
13. Transfer of facilities
priation acts denying
a drainage ditch by the Bureau of Recla-
A damage claim submitted for seepage
owning cases, see Dale
mation. The record showed the wells went
from a canal which resulted in waterlogging
Γ.) (April 23, 1959);
dry within a short time after the drainage
land belonging to claimants was undisputed
80 (Ir.) (February 6,
ditch was constructed, the wells had sup-
insofar as the damage or its cause was con-
beltzow, TA-18 (Ir.)
plied water for several years before the ditch
cerned. However, responsibility for the oper-
was constructed, substantial water was
ation and maintenance of the structures was
1 projects
encountered during construction of the
transferred to the Department of Agricul-
in award under the an-
ditch past claimant's properties, and the
ture by agreements made under the Water
water table had been lowered noticeably
Conservation and Utilization Act, as soon
Appropriation Acts and
since construction. This was enough to con-
as the Bureau of Reclamation had finished
ider the Indian project
us determinations made
stitute a prima facie case in favor of the
constructing the main and branch canals
causal relationship between the ditch con-
and the laterals. The Bureau of Reclama-
se used as precedent for
struction and the drying up of the wells;
tion's original plans called for construction
e, a claim for losses of
and in the absence of rebuttal evidence,
of drainage systems also, anticipating the
as in an Indian irriga-
lust be denied. John C.
and particularly because of the difficulty in
seepage problem, but its responsibilities for
drawing conclusions with mathematical
construction were terminated before these
), 70 I.D. 397 (1963).
certainty regarding subterranean water,
structures were built. Therefore, the funds
elephone poies brought
this showing entitled claimants to recovery
appropriated for the Bureau of Reclamation
action after the footings
under the current Public Works Appro-
should not be charged with damages result-
en softened by submer-
priation Act. Ed Brewer, et al., TA-253
ing from a failure by other entities to fully
rough the action of ice
(Ir.), 71 I.D. 84 (1964).
execute a plan of construction the Bureau
inter in lifting the poles
in an area inundated
10. Silting
was not allowed to complete. Marilynn Trus-
cott and Solveig C. Evans, T-453 (Ir.),
of the Wild Horse Dam
Where silt, exposed by the lowering of
61 I.D. 88 (1953).
ey irrigation project,
the water surface of a Bureau Reservoir,
direct acts of Bureau
was blown over adjacent lands by the pre-
14. Fire
ployees in the survey.
vailing winds, no claim for damage result-
Claimant may recover damages from the
on or maintenance of
ing therefrom could be allowed because the
United States for property damage resulting
r which damages were
damage was not the direct result of the
from a forest fire which occurred during the
the 1929 act. Elko
operation of Government employees. W. E.
construction of a reservoir where the forest
nd Telegraph Co., M-
Bartlett, et al., 57 I.D. 415 (1941).
fire resulted from a shift of the wind during
941).
11. Subirrigated lands
land-clearing operations by burning and was
ontract release clauses
not due to negligence on the part of Gov-
Diversion by the Government of waters
ernment employees. The Sheulin-Hixon Co.,
no indication that the
of a lake. thereby depriving meadowland
58 I.D. 189 (1942).
a canal right of was
of its moisture derived from subirrigation,
Claimant may recover damages from the
Government were in-
even though the land was not contiguous
United States for property damage where
clusion in the contract
to the meander line of the lake, constitutes
during the burning of dry willows necessary
claimant to accept the
a valid claim for damages within the con-
to the maintenance of an irrigation ditch a
payment for all dam-
templation of the appropriation act pro-
e that future damage
vision. However, where the meadowland is
sudden wind came up and carried the fire
itemplation of either
damaged by the diversion of waters of a
into adjacent cut-over meadow lands. Race
chase price was fixed,
lake, the landowner is not entitled to general
Harney, M-31661 (February 4, 1942).
lamage by canal seep-
damages to his remaining lands, as incidental
15. Roads and bridges
ill be allowed. Arnoit
to the damage to the former, if the latter
Damages for the extraordinary use of a
(Supp.), 62 I.D. 12
were not directly benefited by those waters
public highway bridge by Government per-
prior to their diversion. George W. Myers
sonnel in the course of constructing the
in agreement in 3
and Lillie A. Myers, 49 LD. 106 (1922).
various units of the Kendrick project,
ct to accept the pur-
a
OTHER
March 3, 1915
210
SUNDRY CIVIL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1916
Wyoming, are compensable from funds
ever, where the bridge is out of date and
made available in the Interior Department
has become a safety hazard because of the
Appropriation Act, 1954, for the payment
extraordinary use which causes the damas
of claims for damage to property arising
the estimated cost of repairs may be 3:-
out of activities of the Bureau of Reclama-
plied against the cost of a new bride-
tion. The measure of damages for injury to
designed to meet present day traffic
a public highway bridge ordinarily is the
quirements. Claim of Natrona County,
cost of repairing the injured bridge. How-
Wyoming, T-512 (Ir.), 61 I.D. 264 (1953
[Jackson Lake enlargement.]-Jackson Lake enlargement work, Idaho-
Wyoming: For maintenance, operation, continuation of construction, and in-
cidental operations, conditioned upon the deposit of this amount by the Kuhn
Irrigation and Canal Company and the Twin Falls Canal Company to the
credit of the reclamation fund, $476,000; (38 Stat. 860).
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Provision Repeated. A similar provision
Appropriation Act for 1917, approved
is contained in the Sundry Civil Expenses
July 1, 1916, 39 Stat. 304.
[Expenditures and obligations not to exceed appropriations or amount in
reclamation fund.]-Under the provisions of this Act no greater sum shall to
expended, nor shall the United States be obligated to expend, during the
fiscal year nineteen hundred and sixteen, on any reclamation project appro-
priated for herein an amount in excess of the sum herein appropriated therefor.
nor shall the whole expenditures or obligations incurred for all of such projects
for the fiscal year nineteen hundred and sixteen exceed the whole amount in
the "reclamation fund" for that fiscal year. (38 Stat. 860)
EXPLANATORY NOTES
Provision Repeated. A similar provision
Cross Reference. Section 16 of the
is contained in each subsequent annual
Reclamation Extension Act of August
Sundry Civil Expenses Appropriation Act
1914, 38 Stat. 690, provides that after
through fiscal year 1922. and each annual
July 1, 1915, no expenditures shall be mas
Interior Department Appropriation Act
out of the reclamation fund except out
thereafter through the Act of October 12,
appropriations made by Congress. The Ant
1949, 63 Stat. 781.
appears herein in chronological order.
*
[Interchange of appropriations.]-Ten per centum of the foregoing amount
shall be available interchangeably for expenditure on the reclamation pro:
named; but not more than ten per centum shall be added to the amount appre-
priated for any one of said projects. (38 Stat. 861)
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Provision Repeated. This provision is
The Act of May 24, 1922, 42 Stat
repeated in each subsequent annual Sundry
and subsequent acts include additional
Civil Expenses Appropriation Act through
thority for emergency repairs; and the
fiscal year 1922 and each annual Interior
of July 1, 1946, 60 Stat. 367, and
Department Appropriation Act thereafter
sequent acts insert the words "for
through the Act of October 12, 1949, 63
tion and maintenance projects" after
Stat. 781, with the following modifications:
going amounts."
SALU
FORD
OMB
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
6/15/76
Mr. Seidman has signed off on
this & Jim Jura has asked also
for Mr. Buchen's.
When that is done, would you
return directly to Jim Jura in
OMB.
per Roger Porter
OK.
P.W.B.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
RECEIVE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
JUN 10 1976
Honorable Dewey F. Bartlett
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Dewey:
Following up on my conversation with you and Warren King
regarding the possible use of the private sector management
task force approach to Federal management improvements, let
me say initially that I fully concur with the idea that we
should aggressively seek ways to reduce the administrative
costs of government. Moreover, I wholeheartedly agree that
we should consider any promising new techniques in our search
for greater efficiency and lower costs.
In this light we have reviewed the private sector task force
technique as it has been applied to State governments and,
prospectively, how it might be adapted at the Federal level.
We have concluded that, subject to some limitations and
cautions, the technique has potential for Federal agencies
and we feel it should be tested on a trial basis by several
selected agencies.
The principal limitation of the technique, as we see it, is
that its potential is primarily with respect to the economy
and efficiency of good management. The technique is actually
a form of management audit which can identify causes for
excessive costs. On the other hand, the brief presence of
loaned business executives in an agency is probably not well
suited to the deeper analysis needed to assess the overall
impact a program is having toward meeting the goals it was
intended to make progress toward. As to this kind of evalua-
tion, we must continue to put primary reliance on other
methods of management improvement.
The principal caution in utilizing a private sector task
force is to avoid scrupulously any possible conflict of
interest or possible compromise of confidential information.
Even the appearance of these problems would be troublesome
and would negate any possible value to be gained. It seems
2
that the way to avoid this kind of problem is to assure that
any uses of the private sector teams, including the trial
efforts, are not aimed at substantive as opposed to manage-
ment efficiency issues and, in particular, do not involve
access to confidential information.
For trial run purposes, we plan to select two or three small
agencies or components of larger agencies which do not have
the conflict problem, and which are operationally analogous
to business or commercial firms. Over the next few weeks,
we will approach candidate agencies to make some arrangements.
Possibilities which we will explore include:
- components of U.S. Department of Agriculture
- components of the Interior Department
- military inventory management programs
- State Department overseas management offices and
staff housing
- Passport Office
- Export-Import Bank
- Agency for International Development business
operations
- Amtrak
- Conrail
- GSA components
- Small Business Administration
- Bureau of the Mint - Treasury Department
At least our preliminary look at the legal aspects indicates
that the executive branch has adequate authority to undertake
this type of review, using borrowed business executives,
3
without legislation. I am pleased that this is the case
because we want to get started now and also because I think
some experiments will tell us what we need to know about the
utility of the approach, and about the need for or desirability
of legislation.
Thank you for your continued interest. We shall keep you
informed of our progress.
With kind regards.
yours,
June
June 15, 1976
11:50
Jim Jura - Mr. Lynn's Office- called. He said that
Mr. Lynn was sending a letter to Senator Bartlett
on Volunteer Efforts from the Private Sector to
Federal Agencies. He has asked Seidman to review
the letter before it is sent out and he also wants
Mr. B. to review the letter as soon as he receives
it. Roger Porter will be probably be bringing the
letter over here. If Mr. B. wants to ask any
questions about the letter, the number is X3160
attached
nie
ToRin
STATE OFFICE the PRESIDENT UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
6/22
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
JUN 23 1976
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
James T. Lynn 1s/ 1sth
SUBJECT:
Capitol Columns for the
National Arboretum
We have investigated the possibility of transferring the
old East Front Capitol Columns to the National Arboretum.
The columns are currently the property of the Architect
of the Capitol. The transfer and erection of an appro-
priate monument to honor Benjamin Latrobe would cost
approximately $500,000.
Neither the Department of Agriculture nor the Architect
of the Capitol is interested in this plan. The monument
does not fit into plans for the development of the Arboretum.
In light of these facts, and because of our recent supple-
mental appropriation request for $6 million to purchase
additional land at the Arboretum, I cannot recommend any
positive action at this time.
CC:
Mr. Buchen
LIBRABA GERALD ? FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
I
WASHINGTON
June 7, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM LYNN
FROM:
PHIL BUCHEN
P.
Attached is a copy of a letter from Mrs. Ethel Garrett
to the President with enclosures which she sent. Among
the enclosures is a letter I had sent to her on
January 21, 1975, in which I gently persuaded her from
pursuing her request further. However, the indication
from her present letter to the President is that he
personally has renewed his interest in her project.
This must have occurred at the reception which followed
the dinner of King Carlos at the Spanish Embassy on
June 3 because I saw Mrs. Garrett going through the
receiving line where she would have had an opportunity
to talk briefly with the President. Inasmuch as
this project would involve expenditure of federal
funds, I seek your guidance. Probably it deserves
a memorandum from you to the President SO that an
appropriate reply can go out over the President's
signature.
Attachments
2030 TWENTY-FOURTH STREET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20008
June 4th
THE WASHINGTON WHITE HOUSE
RECEP. AND SECURITY UNIT
1976 JUN PM 5 19
My dear Mr. President:
It was indeed a very pleasant surprise
last night to learn from you that you are still
interested in securing the columns designed by
Benjamin Latrobe for the Arboretum.
I am enclosing for your quick survey the
history of my efforts to secure these columns
for the Arboretum. Whether they be placed
there as a memorial to him given by The President
of the United States, or by whatever means would
be deemed advisable, it would be a suitable
tribute to the country's most distinguished
architect.
I know this seems infinitesimal compared to
your world-wide problems, which in my opinion
you are handling with extreme patience and wisdom,
but if I did not feel it were really worth while,
I would not continue to pursue this matter as I
have done for the past eighteen years.
Sincerely,
2thel J. farrett
RESUME OF MRS. GEORGE A. GARRETT'S EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF CAPITOL COLUMNS:
1958-1962 - East Front of the Capitol was renovated and 24 large
sandstone columns designed by Benjamin Latrobe were removed and placed
in the Capitol Power Plant.
1958 - The late distinguished architect, Mr. Horace Peaslee, heard of
the plan to remove the columns from the east front of the Capitol and
knowing of Mrs. Garrett's interest, discussed with her the possibility of
placing these columns in the National Arboretum. Mr. Peaslee drew up
a tentative plan for their use at the Arboretum. He had set up a
meeting for ten o'clock one morning to present his plan to a committee
of the Congress. At eight o'clock that morning Mrs. Garrett received
a telephone call saying Mr. Peaslee was dead.
Mrs. Garrett tried to interest various people in obtaining these
columns for the Arboretum, but with very little success until she
enlisted the aid of Senator Humphrey in 1962.
May, 1959 - Re Condition - Mrs. Garrett wrote to the three Capitol
architects, John Harbeson, Gilmore D. Clarke, and Henry R. Shepley, who
were advisors to Mr. Stewart, Architect of the Capitol, asking their
opinion as to the condition of the columns and if they were available.
A meeting was arranged by Congressman Fulton of Pennsylvania for
Mrs. Garrett to talk to Mr. Stewart. His feeling was that the pillars
would not last if placed outside.
However, Mr. Carl Romberg of MacLeod and Romberg, and Mr. R. B. Phelps
of the R. B. Phelps Stone Company (two of the foremost stone contractors
in the United States) gave the opinion that if the pillars were placed
in concrete and their tops covered, they would last indefinitely.
This opinion agrees with the following statement from Dr. Skinner's
February 1, 1963, letter to Mr. Edward Durell Stone: "Mr. Harbeson
of
Philadelphia who was consultant on the Capitol Extension, has
provided us with capping and surface treatment details which he feels
would adequately prevent further deterioration for an indefinite
period under outdoor conditions
Mr. Stewart received copies
"
August 24, 1962 - Senator Humphrey wrote a letter to Mr. Stewart,
Architect of the Capitol, regarding the possibility of transferring
the 24 columns to the Arboretum.
August 29, 1962 - Mr. Stewart replied to Senator Humphrey: "If the
officials of the National Arboretum are interested in using these
columns in one of their structures and would develop plans showing that
the columns would be protected and used in a dignified setting, I would
be glad to present the plans to the Commission (Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol) for final determination."
Capitol Columns - Page 2
September 10, 1962 - Senator Humphrey wrote to Dr. Skinner:
TT
I would suggest you now develop plans
showing
that
the
columns
would be protected and used in a dignified setting. You should then
forward these plans to the Architect along with a specific request
that the columns be removed to the National Arboretum. At the time
you do this, send me a copy of the plans and a copy of your letter to
Mr. Stewart and I will at that time personally contact the members
of the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol and ask
that your request receive a favorable consideration
February-July, 1963 - Edward Durell Stone and his son drew up detailed
plans (gratis) for the use of the columns at the Arboretum and colored
sketches of these plans were given to Senator Humphrey.
July 9, 1963 - Dr. Skinner sent to Senator Humphrey a letter to which
was attached a "Preliminary Budget Estimate" which gave "Architectural
and engineering fees, including mechanical, electrical and structural
landscape architecture: $880,000 " Since that date the plans have
been modified and the amount needed was stated to be $400,000.
December 4, 1963 - Senator Humphrey introduced Bill S-2361:
"A Bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to
utilize the columns removed from the east central
portico of the Capitol in an architecturally appro-
priate manner in the National Arboretum."
This bill asked for an appropriation of $880,000 to cover the cost
of the project. On that same day, Senator Humphrey had inserted
into the Congressional Record (Vol. 109, No. 197 - Page 22081) an
eloquent plea for the use of these columns at the Arboretum. Congress-
man Fulton of Pennsylvania introduced a like bill in the House.
March 18, 1965 - Congressman Fulton reintroduced the Bill (HR-6513) in
the 89th Congress.
March 17, 1966 - Senator Pell introduced S.3099 in the Senate. This
was essentially the same bill introduced by Senator Humphrey, but
instead of asking for a specific amount of money, simply stated:
"There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act."
Senator Pell inherited the bill from the then Vice President Humphrey,
but frankly told Mrs. Garrett he would no nothing to press it. Hence,
both bills (HR.6513 and S.3099), after having been referred to the
Committees on Public Works of their respective Houses, died in
committee.
August 4, 1967 - Senator Sparkman (for himself and Senator Dirksen)
introduced Bill S.2230 in the 90th Congress. This bill was identical
to the bill introduced by Senator Pell in the 89th Congress. The bill
was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. Committee
requested the views of the Department of Agriculture, but did not receive
a reply until June 10, 1968.
Capitol Columns - Page 3
June 10, 1968 - After waiting a year, the Secretary of Agriculture
submitted a written report on S.2230. This report indicated that
action on the bill should be deferred until detailed plans had
been developed and also that funds required to utilize the columns
should be considered in relation to higher priority fund needs.
Additionally, the Secretary of Agriculture stated that in his belief
the Committee should first obtain the views of the Commission of
Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission.
June 13, 1968 - The Senate Rules Committee requested the views of
the Commission of Fine Arts and of the National Capital Planning
Commission. We do not have record of the outcome.
June 18, 1968 - Mrs. Garrett wrote to Senator Jordan and submitted
two sketches indicating alternate proposals for the use of the
Benjamin Latrobe columns at the National Arboretum.
June 21, 1968 - Senator Jordan acknowledged Mrs. Garrett's letter
and also forwarded the sketches she provided to the Architect to
show to the members of the Commission on the Extension of the Capitol.
We do not know whether they were ever shown to the Commission.
June 26, 1968 - The Senate Rules Committee exerted every effort to
expedite consideration of S.2230, but reported it could not make
intelligent determination of it without additional information -
required plans, cost estimates, and recommendations from the Secretary
of Agriculture which were requested but never received. Therefore,
again the bill died in committee.
January-March, 1969 - Letters to Mr. Ford were written by Mrs. Garrett
appealing to him for some action to be considered regarding these
columns. These letters have not been answered.
April 21-25, 1969 - Correspondence between Mrs. Garrett and Congress-
man Wilson. Mrs. Garrett is reassured by Mr. Wilson's letter of
April 25th in which he assures that these columns will be made a real
cause.
August 12, 1969 - Mr. Ford introduced HR. 13480 which was referred to
the House Committee on Public Works.
In August Mrs. Garrett also received a letter from Vice President
Agnew asking her to renew her subscription for $3,000 to the Boosters
fund. She wrote him a letter explaining her disappointment as both
Bob Wilson and Gerald Ford had promised to get the columns for the
Arboretum. He wrote Mrs. Garrett a letter saying he understood
perfectly and intimated that something would be done.
October 1969 - Upon reading in the newspaper that Representative
Broyhill wished to have a memorial to Benjamin Latrobe, Mrs. Garrett
called on him in his office. He promised to pursue the matter, and
in Mrs. Garrett's presence telephoned Congressman William Cramer from
Florida who also said that he would look into the matter immediately.
To date, she has heard nothing from either of them. (1-2-70)
Capitol Columns - Page 4
1970 - At the April, 1970, meeting of the National Advisory Council
of the Arboretum, Mrs. Garrett learned astonishing news from the
gentlemen who represented the Department of Agriculture. These
gentlemen had been meeting with Mrs. Garrett for years, and knew of
her efforts to secure funds to place the columns in the Arboretum,
but it was not until that day that she learned that two years previously
a policy had been adopted at the Department of Agriculture that funds
could not be earmarked for a certain project, which meant that even if
$400, 000 were secured from the Appropriations Committee there was no
guarantee that it would be used for the columns. Mrs. Garrett considered
this very deceitful, and feeling she could no longer work with the
Department of Agriculture, resigned as a member of the National Advisory
Council, June 1, 1970.
1973 - Congressman Broyhill (for himself, Mr. Bob Wilson, and Mr. Gerald
R. Ford) introduced HR. 5486 - A Bill to provide for the establishment
of a memorial at the National Arboretum to Benjamin Henry Boneval Latrobe.
The bill has been referred to the Committee on Public Works.
May 7, 1974 - Mrs. Garrett called on Congressman Wilson in his office
to discuss what real effort might now be put forth to assure a successful
conclusion. This renewed effort was prompted by an article in The
Washington Star of March 13, and of Mrs. Garrett's being approached by
a Star reporter in April, and also a conversation with Congressman Wilson
at a dinner in honor of Mrs. Ogden Phipps in Mrs. Garrett's house.
June 1974 - Although Congressman Wilson had assured Mrs. Garrett he
would pursue the matter, he has not replied to her letters nor returned
her telephone inquiries.
January, 1975 - Letter and information sent to The White House, as
Mr. Philip Buchen had promised to bring it to the-attention-of The Presi-
dent; however Mr. Buchen's reply was not encouraging.
My dear Mr. Buchen,
I did not answer your January 21st letter
while I was in Palm Beach, for there seemed
to be nothing to say. I do appreciate your
effort to bring the subject of the columns
to the proper authority, for I know such
requests are numerous. I have, however,
received so many similar replies to my request
that I have put your letter into the "buried
file" on the columns.
I did not pursue the subject of the John F.
Kennedy Center, for I learned by chance that
my appointment ended in 1974. My close
association over a period of twenty years with
first the National Cultural Centre and then
the J.F.K. has made the Centre a paramount
part of my life. It is seldom one sees one's
dream come true, and I rejoice in its success.
Do tell Mrs. Buchen I will miss her at my
Garden Club of America dinner, but quite
understand command invitations.
Again, many thanks.
April 21, 1975
2030 TWENTY-FOURTH STREET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20008
January 20th
My dear Mr. Buchen,
You were kind enough to say that I might
send this information about the Benjamin
Latrobe columns to you so that The President
would see it. I am most appreciative of
your interest.
Mrs. Carusi told me that you asked about
the Trustees of the Kennedy Center as printed
in the program. The trustees are appointed
by The President. I do not know who handles
the actual mechanics. I tried to reach
Roger Stevens, but he is out of town until
Wednesday. As I am starting my 19th year
working for, first the National Cultural
Centre and then the John F. Kennedy Center
for the Performing Arts, you can easily
realize I am deeply involved in every way.
I should love to talk to you about it, but
of course defer to Roger's contacts.
Many thanks,
Sincerely yours,
Ethel J. Gameel
2030 TWENTY-FOURTH STREET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20008
January 20th
My dear Mr. President:
Although I promised myself after eleven
years of futile endeavor that I would never
again mention the columns removed from the
east front of the Capitol, my patriotic
nature has come to the fore.
I am on the Bicentennial Committee of
St. John's Church, a historic monument
designed by Benjamin Latrobe. At the last
meeting of the Bicentennial Committee I
decided I should put aside all of my frustra-
tion and disappointment and try once more
to have the Latrobe columns placed in the
National Arboretum. It would be of great
significance if Latrobe could be given the
recognition which he has been denied in his
own country by placing the columns he designed
on Government grounds in the Nation's Capital
at the time of the Bicentennial.
I attach a summary of my efforts from
1958 through 1974 and other correspondence
pertinent to the subject. Won't you help now?
Sincerely,
Ethel S. Garret
five
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 30, 1976
Shirley --
mr. B.
I have sent the attached letter to David Lissy.
It seems he is working with the Civil Service
Commission on a proposed Executive Order in
relation to the Supreme Court decision of
Hampton V. Mow Sun Wong. There is nothing
for us to do at this point. David will keep me
posted.
Bobbie
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 24, 1976
Bobbie,
Mr. Buchen wonders whether
there is anything we should
be doing on the attached
which went out over Nichols'
signature.
I do not have a copy of this
material SO please return.
Thanks.
shirley
TURO is GERALO LIBRARY
1mB
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
GENERAL COUNSEL
June 16, 1976
(Identical letter sent to each of the 28 addressees
on the attached list.)
This is in further response to your June 2, 1976, letter
to the President in which you joined with a number of
your colleagues to urge the President to issue an Exec-
utive order excluding resident aliens from Federal Civil
Service employment.
The decision of the Supreme Court in Hampton V. Mow Sun
Wong, No. 73-1596, June 1, 1976, is being reviewed.
The Civil Service Commission is also reviewing this
question and we anticipate that the Commission will
submit its recommendations in the near future.
While the review of this issue proceeds, it is important
to note that the Supreme Court did not strike down Sec. 502
of the Public Works Appropriation Act of 1970. Instead,
the Supreme Court, in holding unconstitutional the Com-
mission regulations, noted that the limitations on the
expenditure of appropriated funds authorized payment
to a broader class of potential employees than did the
Commission regulations. We, therefore, assume that the
existing limitation imposed by the Congress on the
employment of aliens is still the law (Sec. 602 of the
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appro-
priations Act, 1976, Public Law 94-91).
I wish to assure you that this matter is receiving full
consideration.
Sincerely,
William m. nichols
William M. Nichols
General Counsel
COPY FOR MR. PHILIP BUCHEN - THE WHITE HOUSE
DISTRIBUTION
Honorable Bill Archer
Honorable James G. Martin
Honorable Burt L. Talcott
Honorable Jack F. Kemp
Honorable Elwood H. Hillis
Honorable Robert W. Daniel, Jr.
Honorable Marjorie S. Holt
Honorable Trent Lott
Honorable Philip M. Crane
Honorable Robert E. Bauman
Honorable Carlos J. Moorhead
Honorable Ron Paul
Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino
Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Honorable John Jarman
Honorable William L. Dickinson
Honorable William M. Ketchum
Honorable Samuel L. Devine
Honorable Donald D. Clancy
Honorable Bud Shuster
Honorable Delbert L. Latta
Honorable Herman T. Schneebeli
Honorable Joel Pritchard
CSA
Honorable J. Kenneth Robinson
Honorable W. Henson Moore
Honorable Barber B. Conable, Jr.
Honorable John Y. McCollister
Honorable Thad Cochran