Public Affairs; National Governor's Conference

As Chairman. As chairman of the nation's governors association. I formally call this 70th annual meeting to order Michigan Governor William Milliken gabbling the National Governors Conference to order as it meets for three days in Boston. I'm Greg Fitzgerald and this is National Public Radio's summary of the 978 National Governors Conference the National Governors Association meets once a year to debate national policy priorities on the theory that a group of governors lobbying for federal policy in unity is more productive than individual state pressure. The governors during the week meet in committees which eventually report out policy resolutions that all 55 State and Commonwealth governors vote on policy areas can range from health care and the environment to federal fiscal policy. Two or three years ago the latter topic would probably be considered a secondary conference issue which would have drawn a few governors to committee positions and little media attention. But this year in light of the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 13 in California state and

federal fiscal policy tied in with other economic considerations such as inflation and deregulation were the theme of the conference while the Governors Association is often considered a lobbying organization to the White House and Congress. The association is also the target of White House and congressional lobbyists itself. This year was no different in that respect as a parade of administration and congressional figures pushed for support of pending strategies in legislation after Governor Millikan opened the session on Sunday. Jack Watson assistant to the president on Intergovernmental Affairs asked governors to be patient in the area of federal bureaucracy. Many governors have complained to the White House and Congress at the multitude of forms and the time lag and delivery of federal aid to the states cost too much confusion and costs too many tax dollars. Watson agreed with the governors but assured the governors that the president has initiated new procedures that will begin to cut federal red tape.

We began under the joint direction of my office at the White House and OMB and with considerable cooperation of all of the agencies and departments in the federal government last year. A federal aid reform initiative directed by the president. We were trying in a sensible way to begin unraveling some of the things that needed to be unraveled to simplify to eliminate forms and reports and audit that weren't necessary. To make regulations get written in clearer plainer English that people could understand. There have been presidential directives in the form of executive orders in the form of memoranda to agency and department heads. We are changing the way regulations get written. We are changing the ways the public interest groups are permitted to comment and the timeframes within which they are permitted to comment on proposed regulations in ways that I think make in our governmental participation in those

affairs much more significant much more timely. And I'll say in conclusion on this subject only one final word. Federal aid reform federal aid simplification constitute process is that never get finished. It is very much akin to dipping very large amounts of water out of a very large ocean with relatively small devices. But we're making very significant headway. To many governors the initiatives of the president and his assistant Jack Watson were not enough. And later governors listened enthusiastically to Representative John Anderson of Illinois who sponsored the proposed Regulatory Reform Act of 1978. The act would subject all federal regulatory activity to sunset reviews over four congressional sessions Addisons legislation deals mainly with federal

regulations that affect the private sector of the economy an area which Anderson says needs protection from government at the very heart of the discontent that exists in this country today with government is the idea that government is simply inefficient. One of the problem I almost feel is that there isn't any Howard Jarvis to dramatize the issue. As he has done in the case of property tax reform like Mount Everest the issue nevertheless is they are and it's one that simply has to be conquered. I checked with the man who has I think been one of the most effective spokesman. For the private sector in complaining about this problem of over regulation Mary White and bomb of Washington University and he of course is one of those who among others has pointed out that the cost to the private sector of government regulation the cost of compliance with government regulation may have gone up from around 63 billion dollars in 1076 to close to 100 billion dollars

in the coming fiscal year and you've all heard the doleful figures about the millions of man hours that are needed to. Fill in the forms and the paperwork that's required by the federal government. Governor Snelling you you mentioned a moment ago and I was interested I read somewhere the other day that despite the very fine start that was made by your lobbying I'm Dr Bingham to try to do something about the nit picking regulations of Oceana and that she found out apparently the other day that there were 11 hundred regulations that simply couldn't. Big gotten off the books which lead someone to cry free the eleven hundred get rid of the eleven hundred regulations. What I found from talking to Dr. White and Brown that we have virtually no idea of the economic impact of federal regulation on state or local government. That's an interesting thing. I believe in. In view of the empirical. Data base that has been assembled in recent years by the private sector which I think has served to

fortify the complaints that they are making about too much government regulation there is a private group called for mind regulation that's even going to have I guess a telethon a nationwide telethon here in a couple of weeks where people are going to be invited to call in specific complaints about regulation. To their appointed representatives representatives and senators. I think what we need to do and the message I think the challenge that I would like to leave with the governors association is that we need that kind of documentation specific documentation with respect to the impact the economic impact and the adverse impact that overregulation by the federal government is having on the state. You and I Congressman John Anderson one of the issues for which governors admittedly could not find a consensus was the issue of national health care policy. The issues of balancing the federal budget and making federal government smaller are supported by most governors ran headlong into Senator Edward Kennedy's proposal for a federally funded

national health care system. In introducing his senior senator from Massachusetts Bay State Governor Michael Dukakis underlined the lack of consensus on this one issue Governor Millikan yesterday at the opening press briefing was asked whether or not whether or not he thought that at this meeting of the national governors we could achieve unanimity or for that matter a consensus on the subject of national health policy and in particular the issue of national health insurance. And he said that he did not think we could because we had discussed this issue on a number of occasions and clearly there were divisions within and among the governors which reflected genuine divisions through this country and the future of health care and health policy for all Americans. And so the purpose of this first part of our plenary session this morning is not to take a vote or to come to any decisions but to listen

and learn and discuss what is clearly one of the most important single issues facing this nation. But national health insurance is not. It's not the government control of all aspects of our. Medicine. It's not government salaries for physicians are government controlled hospitals. It's not the government dictating which patient can get which physician or the government interfering in the practice of medicine or determining how a particular disease is going to be treated. What national health insurance is is a way to control inflation. It's a way to realize that every good quality health care. To try and do something about the billions of dollars every year that is wasted in unnecessary surgery and trying to do some. Thing about the reimbursement

mechanism that puts more and more people in high cost facilities. And penalizes the doctor for trying to prevent peace and prevent illness and disease under a reimbursement system that is going to be highly and continues to be highly costly and it's a way to foster competition in the health area which virtually doesn't exist today. Sure you get competition between various insurance company on experience rating who can level a particular insurance program for the healthiest people and have a lower premium sure we have that kind of competition. But we do not have competition on administrative efficiency. We do not have competition on the ability of companies to compete and not on the issue of illness and sickness and where the competition is today. Senator Kennedy's speeches on national health care are often greeted by enthusiastic crowds throughout the nation. But in this case this audience of state governors had more in mind the

mood of tax conscious voters independent Maine Governor James longly asked Kennedy why not a more cautious approach to government financed health care. Much more could be. To contain costs to the extent the quayside public Bluecross lack of accountability with tax freedom and discounting of bills the lack of containment of medical costs that do circumvent restrictions and under this circumstance of not having done everything perhaps that we could do in this country. I wonder if maybe Senator why President Carter's approach doesn't make more sense. The concern for federal spending was taken up again during the governor's conference on the second day of committee meetings as members of the Committee on executive management and fiscal affairs grilled James McIntyre director of the Office of Management and the budget on the growth of the half trillion dollar federal budget. McIntyre told governors that the only way to encourage the private sector to have a positive impact on inflation was to set an

example in Washington. And without question now inflation is our number one economic problem. That's not to say that we have turned our backs on the unemployment situation. Obviously we haven't. We are continuing to work on unemployment. And to try to get it down even further than it currently is. But I would have to say in all candor that looking at across the economic spectrum that we have to deal with inflation it's become such a serious matter in facing this challenge. It's clear that we must constrain the growth in the federal budget. And that's the direction in my opinion toward which fiscal policy must be shifted. And I believe that. It's it's also important for the federal government to show its willingness to conduct its own affairs in a more disciplined manner. If we are to ask for and expect to.

Get that result from other parts of our society. Quite frankly next year fiscal year 1980 it's my intention and the president's intention to restrain the growth in the federal budget. California Governor Jerry Brown told federal budget director McIntyre that he was encouraged by his comments. But Brown who has learned firsthand what the effect of a strong tax cut initiative such as Proposition 13 can do to a state government. One the Budget Director of the dangers of underestimating the anti-tax mood of the nation. We estimate that 13 will eliminate seven billion dollars of property tax. And in California alone and this year this week I expect to have a new law on the books that will reduce our income tax by 1 billion. So in the year 78 we'll have a total tax reduction of 8 billion which on a national basis which is 10 times larger than the state

would equal out to about an 80 billion dollar tax cut a few months ago I would have said that we couldn't survive an 8 billion dollar tax cut. To find out we can't. And let me start. For those who think that the citizens are not hungry for that magnitude of tax cut at the national level I would just give you a report from the West that they're very hungry and I think that the fact that 21 states have signed a cussed call for a convention is significant. California is a liberal state and yet our state Senate has already passed a call for a constitutional convention. There are 21 states today who are calling for a constitutional limit by way of a convention. It is very conceivable to me that if no significant action takes place at the federal level and throughout the country that the rest of those states will line up rather quickly and we could face the prospect of a second American revolution

in our own time. And I think that is a very very ominous thought they should not. Go unnoticed in Washington because it is something that can go unnoticed people thought 13 was not going to happen and it did happen and it came in like a tidal wave. And I think those worries will be breaking across the East Coast in the not too distant future. Governor Brown also introduced a resolution passed by the governors which would ask the federal government to pay state expenses for federally mandated programs. The theme of belt tightening continued into the third day and final day of the National Governors Conference as governors were lectured by President Carter's chief inflation fighter Robert Strauss Strauss told governors that states share an increasing responsibility in controlling inflation if only in terms of their spending power. State mon gars barrier an impact Berber murderous car for inflation just as individuals in their daily lives.

I would do it with respect to federal spending and to keep it in perspective. I would remind you that. State and local spending is about 15 percent of the GNP right now and we tend to forget it. And yet it is continuing to increase at the state level. I would also remind you that for the first time in many years the percentage of federal spending. The percentage of federal spending as related to the GNP total GNP has gone down the last 18 months for the first time in a long time and I hope it will continue to go down. The problem we have now is we are reaching some results were achieving some result but we have now and we want to continue to build substance into it in the next few months. Keeping in mind that there is one thing

we're not going to be all that good at is any dramatic bureaucracy or any mandatory wage and price controls mandatory wage and price controls. See Mike an easy answer to the average person and they are a political plus. Hers completed the poll last week you know it was which showed that 9 5 to 4 the American people. Think the American people think that mandatory wage and price controls can be the answer to the problems of inflation. Those of you who don't know the federal government as long as I mostly do it with sufficient ease not know what the right factor whether it be the federal or state I'm really going to go it's awfully easy to get involved in your business. It is very difficult to get out of business. At the closing session of the National Governors Conference all attending governors debated and

voted on the resolutions which the various committees have reported out. There was little debate on most of the committee resolutions and most were passed unanimously. The conference did not support either President Carter's or Senator Kennedy's health care proposals but instead voted for a wider federal support for private health maintenance organizations. Resolution by Governor radio via was supporting full representation for the District of Columbia was passed but ironically the governor has voted against inviting a representative of the district to become an association member. The conference also supported Puerto Rico's governor Carlos Romero's attempt for support of self-determination for Puerto Rico. A number of radical spending limit resolutions never reached the full body of voting governors as they were killed in committee. The one resolution which did reach the floor for debate was a resolution sponsored by Governor James Hunt of North Carolina Governor Hunt proposed at the Governors Association urged Congress to enact legislation that would require a balanced federal budget by the end of fiscal 1981. The debate began with a resolution sponsored.

Mr. Chairman my fellow governors. I just want to say without getting into a lot of detail with regard to this that it seems to me that of all people in this country who ought to speak to this matter it's governors who have to balance their budgets every single year. And it isn't easy and we have to work hard to do it. And if you had the same experience that I have you've you thank goodness that you have to do it. Because it's the best single thing that enables us to keep spending under control and not have to put on more employees who can afford. To not pay more salary increases than we can afford. It really is a self disciplining kind of process. And I think it's the best thing that's helped keep it helped to keep us in good shape within the states. Now the president campaign I want to play age to do this by the end of 1981. He's working toward that end. I

think the problems in the Congress they continue to devote the money and they're continuing every single day to vote more and more spending that is moving us farther and farther away I think from a balanced budget within this period of time. And of course when the Congress passes a law they're going to have some sort of safety valve and some sort of safety valve is necessary. But you could spend forever trying to figure out exactly what that ought to be. But the principle of a balanced budget within this period of time working down those deficits over time as we are already moving to do very nicely I think is one that we as governors definitely ought to support. And as we look at all these other things that we are doing and can and ought to do to try to be more fiscally responsible at all levels of government. Surely the idea of having a balanced federal budget is the single most important without any if ands or buts or qualifiers. That's what this resolution urges

that we do within this nation. And I would hope very much that all of you would support the chairman. Yes. If you're going to what you're selling up are not the goal of the governor of North Carolina. And I suppose that if the question is merely whether the governors here assembled favor the concept of a balanced federal budget by 1981 the vote will should be overwhelmingly in favor of that proposition. I hope we will carefully consider something else that would be achieved if asked to before you is passed by this body. And there's the question of how many times we ought to say the same thing. And my view is that if we are to adopt meaningful policies we must very carefully and sometimes with some pain avoid the temptation of saying over and over again for a fact. That which is currently popular and compelling now in

February of 1978 this body did establish as a policy of the N G A B 13. I'd like to quote from that to accomplish these goals we must guarantee accountability of the way in which our tax dollars are spent. Further it is imperative that we as governor support President Carter in his difficult goal of balancing the federal budget by fiscal year 1981. My position is not in opposition to the proposal offered by the governor of North Carolina. My position is that having once adopted a policy that we ought to restrain ourselves and not adopt it over and over again so that we can convince the public that we are on their side. We have adopted this policy once. I could be very bad form for us to get in the habit of adopting policies over and over again in effect saying we really do mean it. We have said it once and I think that's enough. And there's no need for the reintroduction of the same policy.

This German coming they say Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. I'm going to vote for this resolution but I hope it is with a clear understanding that if God forbid this nation finds itself in the middle of a recession in 1981 that our commitment to the principle of a balanced budget does not include a commitment to absolutely tie the hands of our national leadership so that they cannot use the kind of stimulative fiscal policy that you have to you when you're in the middle of that kind of recession. And I assume Governor Hunt that that's your understanding of this resolution as well. Is there further discussion Governor along the way. Very quickly Jack Lollie governor of Maine say no way to that because that's what the commitment we will see. But if it does nothing more than support the president and say one more time to the Congress that isn't listening when we're talking about energy a balanced budget suspending a mandated programs. I think I don't

think we can say it too often. I support the motion. Governor. It was to point out as the resolution is to jam on this is Pennsylvania Governor will set shop again to voice my opposition to this. But I do not think that putting the Congress on the straight jacket is necessarily in the best interest of this nation. Mike the caucus talk few moments ago about some of the things that he felt I think there are many programs that are important to the states. Counties cities and certainly we get funding streams from the federal government to help these programs and help individuals if this resolution should pass in its present form Amendment. Then we might find a case where emergencies cannot be financed. And I would hate to think of having a situation like this for example if we faced a military problem and were forced to defend

this nation and had a resolution like this adopted by Congress. I might say in the business world every year your biggest corporations find their expenses rising 1824 General Motors you name General Electric. Find their expenses rising to take care of the growing needs of their companies. I grant you they are in the profit business but to Assange so is the United States government and a profit business and the profit is achieved by enhancing the living conditions of all of our people and the opportunities of our businesses to make profits. I would hate to see. Governors Conference go on record with such a rule as resolution of this sort that could be interpreted that even in the case of emergencies this nation could not rise to help its citizens or even to defend itself. The question is the adoption of the resolution the chair recognizes Governor Thompson governor ask you Governor Thompson.

This is Meldrum Thompson the governor of New Hampshire chairman. I want to support this resolution wholeheartedly. I consider this a great step forward. I introduced before this committee on two different occasions at other conventions similar resolutions and they didn't come out of the committee. Maybe if I had a different label I would have. But I'm glad to say that this is on the floor I would like to say as most of the governors know I have also been supporting a resolution on a constitutional limitation on spending and I simply want to say that I've been to perhaps all but five or six of the governors here. It's clear to me that we would not have the necessary vote to suspend the rules. And so as far as this resolution is concerned I'm supporting it. And I don't think that time is quite arrived when we can push for a constitutional amendment. But I don't believe it's very far away.

Governor governor of Delaware your reason to vote for this resolution and that is that. You're trying to get the attention of the mule. Sometimes one shot with a two by four isn't enough. As a former member of the House of Representatives in Washington I can tell you that unless you say to them again and again and again. What you're trying to do they just don't understand. With that reason in mind I trust you'll have your support in the resolution. We do have we do have a motion for the previous question those in favor say aye. Always know you know it. The chair would rule the previous question has been ordered. The question now is the adoption of the resolution. All of those in favor will say I oppose no no. The resolution three quarters of those present and voting having voted therefore the resolution is adopted.

The resolution was carried with only two votes against it cast by Governor Stelling of Vermont and Gov. shap of Pennsylvania. Next year the National Governors Association meets in Louisville Kentucky the home of the associations new chairman Governor Julian Carroll. This concludes National Public Radio summary of the National Governors Conference of 1978 held at the Sheraton Boston hotel technical supervision for this program was by Margot Garrison. Production facilities were provided by WGBH radio in Boston. Funds for the program were divided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I'm Greg Fitzgerald and this is NPR National Public Radio.