Although environmental awareness has been a long-running theme in American culture from Henry David Thoreau’s books like Walden to the present, and while Theodore Roosevelt’s initiatives to preserve the beauty of large portions of the American wilderness increased this awareness, concerns over environmental pollution are of more recent origin.

Warnings about the dangerous effects of chemicals and other pollutants on wildlife began to be sounded when industrial production increased as part of the effort to fight and win World War II, and it was just after that war that the legislation now administered by the EPA and other Federal agencies began to be enacted, or, in some cases, replaced earlier bills restricting pollution. It is worthwhile to note that such legislation as the Water Pollution Control Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act emerged from a Republican Congress.

But it was with the serialization of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in the New Yorker in the summer of 1962, and its publication in book form that fall, that public awareness of the adverse effects of chemicals in the environment gained momentum. The following year, Congress enacted the Clean Air Act; in 1964, the Wilderness Act; and during the days of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society in 1964-1968, a half-dozen more major bills addressed these concerns.

A leading figure in Congress in pushing such legislation through was Sen. Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin. In late September 1963, Nelson had accompanied President Kennedy on a five-day, 11-state trip intended to raise public awareness of pollution and environmental issues. Although that effort had failed to produce the impact intended, because the press was more interested in questioning Kennedy about foreign policy and the economy, Nelson continued to push for more legislation through the 1960s. In this effort, he was strongly supported within the Kennedy and Johnson White Houses by Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall.

During the 1968 campaign, Richard Nixon devoted comparatively little time to speaking on environmental issues, focusing his speeches more on foreign policy and how to deal with the increase in crime and violent radicalism. But eight days after he took the oath of office and became the 37th President, on January 28, 1969, an event in California nearly swept all other news off America’s front pages and suddenly put environmental questions into the forefront of America’s consciousness to an almost unprecedented degree.

This event was a rupture of one of Union Oil’s platforms, off the Pacific coast, eight miles from Santa Barbara. 100,000 barrels of oil flowed out in the spill, polluting a 60-mile stretch of coastline from Goleta, just northwest of Santa Barbara, to Ventura in the south; disrupting the natural balance of the Channel Islands offshore; and wreaking havoc on fishing and other activities which formed an important part of the local economy.

The public’s reaction to the oil spill spurred Sen. Nelson and a group of like-minded colleagues to quick action. Just three weeks after the spill, Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington introduced the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Initially, President Nixon had some reservations about the sweeping nature of the bill, which called for action on a far broader scale than anything undertaken by the Federal government before.

But broad action, in the wake of the Santa Barbara spill and other much-publicized environmental mishaps like the Torrey Canyon tanker disaster of 1967 in England, was what the electorate wanted, and the Senate responded by passing the NEPA unanimously on July 10. Two months later, the House passed the bill by 372 votes to 15.

In June 1969, President Nixon set up the Environmental Quality Council by executive order to address the public’s concerns on these issues. During this time, Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel and Undersecretary of the Interior Russell E. Train (who had headed the environmental task force in Nixon’s 1968 campaign) were the leading White House figures discussing such issues in the media. Later that year, Nixon asked John Ehrlichman, at that time White House counsel, to head a White House committee examining the current status of environmental policy in the executive branch.

At the time, such policy was the responsibility of various offices, particularly in the Interior and Agriculture Departments, although other Cabinet departments, such as Health, Education and Welfare and Transportation were also involved. The lack of efficient coordination and the expensive overlap between these departments convinced Ehrlichman, a man with strong feelings about nature and ecology (to use a word rapidly becoming familiar to Americans in 1969), that the White House needed to consolidate these efforts into one strong unit to administer environmental initiatives.

After the House and Senate versions of NEPA were reconciled in committee, and President Nixon signed the finished bill on January 1, 1970, the Council on Environmental Quality, as provided for by NEPA, replaced the Environmental Quality Council. Russell E. Train became the chairman of the new Council and it set about examining the question of how to put together a high-level agency to deal with ecological and pollution issues. The public demand for increased education and awareness about ecology was answered when Sen. Nelson proposed Earth Day, an occasion for “teach-ins” (a favorite concept of the counterculture of that day) and promotion of environmental awareness. The first Earth Day was scheduled for April 22, 1970.

By this time, Sen. Edmund Muskie of Massachusetts, who had become the front-runner for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination, had made dozens of speeches focusing on ecology, and it was evident that the issue would be a major one in the 1970 congressional and gubernatorial elections. President Nixon, well aware that before the 1960s nature and wildlife issues had been ones where Republicans had taken a strong initiative, decided to support Train and Ehrlichman’s recommendations, sent Reorganization Plan No. 3 to Congress on July 9, 1970.

This plan followed up on several important initiatives launched by the White House, particularly its 37-point action program which had been announced on February 10. The plan called for the establishment of an Environmental Protection Agency which would “set and enforce standards for air and water quality and for individual pollutants,” and would have as its “principal roles and functions.”

The establishment and enforcement of environmental protection standards consistent with national environmental goals.

The conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution and on methods and equipment for controlling it, the gathering of information on pollution, and the use of this information in strengthening environmental protection programs and recommending policy changes.

Assisting others, through grants, technical assistance and other means in arresting pollution of the environment.

Assisting the Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending to the President new policies for the protection of the environment.

One natural question concerns the relationship between the EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality, recently established by Act of Congress. [From the text of the President's Special Message to Congress concerning Reorganization Plan No. 3.]

This plan was received with much enthusiasm and praise not only by legislators of both parties, but by many environmental activists and the general public. On November 9, William D. Ruckelshaus, Assistant Attorney General, was nominated by the President as the EPA’s first Administrator, and was quickly confirmed by the Senate. On December 2, 1970, the EPA started operations.

During its early years in Nixon’s first and second terms, the EPA quickly established itself as an agency that worked with an authority and effectiveness that met the expectations of its supporters, and in the forty years since it has continued to be regarded among President Nixon’s finest contributions to American life. Today, as the Internet and other forms of mass communication make Americans even more aware of the sometimes fragile nature of life on the planet than was the case in 1970, the EPA is an essential part of the effort undertaken to preserve our natural resources.

Lacking Congressional action on a comprehensive water pollution enforcement plan, President Nixon moved administratively in December of 1970, using the permit authority in the Refuse Act of 1899 as a vehicle to control industrial pollution of waterways. This allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require that, in order to obtain a permit to discharge effluents into navigable waters, industries had to disclose the amount and kinds of effluents being discharged. Therefore, much more accurate data on the precise nature and quantities of pollutants being discharged into the nation’s waterways could be obtained and the cost of obtaining the data was borne by industry. This program was stopped by court action in December 1971. Later the 1972 Amendment to the Water Pollution Control Act provided the authority to reinstate the program. John Whitaker believed the institution of a permit program was the single most important step the administration took to improve water quality. Environmental groups eventually accepted the permit program and it gave industry a greater sense of certainty in its pollution abatement planning.

Twenty years later the Clean Water Act made significant improvements in pollution control technology. The federal government invested $56 billion in municipal sewage treatment from 1972 to 1989, with total federal, state and local expenditures of more than $128 billion. These investments gained impressive results. The percentage of the U.S population served by wastewater treatment plants jumped from 42 in 1970 to 67 in 1975, to 70 by 1980, and up to 74 by 1985. As of 1988, plant providing secondary treatment or better served 58 percent of the U.S population. This improved treatment, according to EPA, has reduced annual releases of organic wastes by 46 percent, despite a large increase in the amount of wastes treated.

Another significant piece of environmental legislation during the Nixon administration was the Clear Air Act of 1972. The bill, indeed important, was another milestone in the nation’s struggle to ensure environmental quality. Nixon endorsed critical legislation that, for the first time, armed the country with sufficient power to address the horrible degradation of its air. The Clear Air Act remains the basis for air pollution control policy.  It has four major components.  First, it put into place National Ambient Air Quality Standards.  Targeted at major polluting chemicals, such standards were intended to protect human health as well as the environment.  These standards were to be developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Second, the EPA was to establish New Source Performance Standards to determine how much pollution should be allowed by different industries in different regions.  Third, the Act specified standards for controlling auto emissions with the aim of reducing various gases by almost 90 percent.  Finally, the law encouraged states to develop plans to achieve such standards and then required that the EPA approve state plans.  If a state chose not to form such a plan or did not complete it by a specified date, the EPA would take over the administration of the law for that state.  The states were also required to enforce the Clean Air Act.

Using a sophisticated array of computer models, EPA found that if the Clean Air Act did not pass, an additional 205,000 Americans would have died prematurely and millions more would have suffered illnesses ranging from mild respiratory symptoms to heart disease, chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, and other severe respiratory problems. Other benefits which could be quantified and expressed in dollar terms included visibility improvements, improvements in yields of some agricultural crops, improved worker attendance and productivity, and reduced household soiling damage.

The Clean Air and Water Act spoke to the highest aspirations of the American people with regard to the environment they wished to inhabit. The Clean Air and Water Act set the stage that society needed to take to insure the continuance of a healthy and productive natural environment. The task of politicians today is to discover more efficient means, including the development of new technologies, in order to achieve the objectives set forth during Nixon Administration.

In his 1971 State of the Union message, RN declared: “I will propose programs to make better use of our land, to encourage a balanced national growth–growth that will revitalize our rural heartland and enhance the quality of life in America. And not only to meet today’s needs but to anticipate those of tomorrow, I will put forward the most extensive program ever proposed by a President of the United States to expand the Nation’s parks, recreation areas, open spaces, in a way that truly brings parks to the people where the people are. For only if we leave a legacy of parks will the next generation have parks to enjoy.”

He implored Congress to make environmental protection a prominent issue, saying: “This can be the Congress that pressed forward the rescue of our environment, and established for the next generation an enduring legacy of parks for the people.”

In his special message to Congress proposing the Legacy of Parks program, RN said: “Merely acquiring land for open space and recreation is not enough. We must bring parks to where the people are so that everyone has access to nearby recreational areas. In my budget for 1972, I have proposed a new “Legacy of Parks” program which will help States and local government provide parks and recreation areas, not just for today’s Americans but for tomorrow’s as well. Only if we set aside and develop such recreation areas now can we ensure that they will be available for future generations.

As part of this legacy, I have requested a $200 million appropriation to begin a new program for the acquisition and development of additional park lands in urban areas. To be administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, this would include provision for facilities such as swimming pools to add to the use and enjoyment of these parks.

“Also, I have recommended in my 1972 budget that the appropriation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund be increased to $380 million, permitting the continued acquisition of Federal parks and recreation areas as well as an expanded State grant program. However, because of the way in which these State grant funds were allocated over the past five years, a relatively small percentage has been used for the purchase and development of recreational facilities in and near urban areas. The allocation formula should be changed to ensure that more parks will be developed in and near our urban areas.”

This “Legacy of Parks” became a substantial Nixon Administration initiative in its own right. The program took existing federal land and placed it in possession of the states, whereby the states would transform it into protected land areas for recreational or historical purposes. By the late 1970s, over 80,000 acres of land were converted into over 640 new parks. Many featured playgrounds, forests, wilderness areas, jogging paths, and bicycle trails. Land that benefited from this project includes Michigan’s Fort Custer Recreation Area and New Jersey and New York’s Gateway National Recreation Area. They ranged anywhere in size from under 20 acres to over 20,000 acres.

First Lady Pat Nixon undertook a cross-country trip to kick off the Legacy of Parks program in August 1971. She presided over a ceremony at the U.S.-Mexican border in San Diego, California, to turn a 370-acre former naval base into Border Field State Park. Hundreds of Mexicans watched from the other side of a barbed wire fence, so in her remarks, Mrs. Nixon ordered that the fence be cut down for she said that there was no need for a barrier that “separates the people of two such friendly nations.”

Those in Southern California should be particularly thankful for the Legacy of Parks program. In 1969, the Nixons purchased a home overlooking the sea in San Clemente, California, which bordered the Camp Pendleton Marine Base. As a part of the Legacy of Parks, RN directed the Secretary of Defense to allocate 6 miles of the Pendleton beach for public use. Thus beaches including Trestles, Califia, and the San Clemente State Beach were established.

In a 1971 statement by RN released on the Legacy of Parks program, he said: “It is essential that our system of parks satisfy both the casual tourist and the avid outdoorsman, that we have places where families can meet other families and places where people can be alone.” Parks were thus brought to urban places, where people of all walks of life could enjoy them. The Legacy of Parks program was the most significant environmental conservation program of the 20^th century.

While Nixon was facilely classified as a conservative, his own self-characterization may perhaps turn out to have been more acute and accurate: he called himself a “pragmatic idealist.” His idealism was based on his instinctive belief in the goodness and greatness of the American nation and people; he was an unabashed American exceptionalist. His pragmatism was based on a canny sense of politics and personalities and, not least, the awareness that he was the first President since Zachary Taylor to enter office with both houses of Congress controlled by the opposition party.

Nixon’s approach was to combine his recognition of, and respect for, the limits of government’s role in the lives of its citizens with his conviction that some of the social and cultural achievements of FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society were worth preserving and even expanding.

Nixon’s approach was to combine his recognition of, and respect for, the limits of government’s role in the lives of its citizens with his conviction that some of the achievements of FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society were worth preserving or perfecting. During the series of monthly Nixon Legacy Forums that are being jointly sponsored by the Nixon Foundation and the Nixon Presidential Library, special attention will be paid to several domestic areas, including reforming the American system of health care, shaping the nation’s first environmental policy, beginning the quest for energy independence, reforming the welfare system, and the desegregation of America’s schools..

In his second State of the Union Message, delivered on 22 January 1971, the President challenged Congress to join him in achieving six great goals. (And, more immediately, he pressed them to pass the xx pieces of major legislation that had been languishing on Capitol Hill.)

The first goal was to reform the welfare system, which he said had become “a monstrous, consuming outrage — an outrage against the community, against the taxpayer, and particularly against the children it is supposed to help.” His proposed solution was little short of stunning (and no less so for coming from Richard Nixon): the government would provide a guaranteed minimum income for every American family with children. This was the revolutionary Family Assistance Program of 1970 crafted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The second goal was to achieve prosperity in peacetime — a condition Americans hadn’t enjoyed for more than a decade.

The third goal — and it was the first time such a goal had been presented by a President to Congress — was to restore and enhance America’s natural environment. In his 1970 State of the Union message, he said: “Clean air, clean water, open spaces — these should once again be the birthright of every American. If we act now — they can be.”

The fourth goal was to improve America’s health care by making it available more fairly to more people, and by making sure that no family would be prevented from obtaining basic medical care because of their inability to pay for it. As part of his proposals in this area, he asked for an extra $100 million to launch an intensive campaign to find a cure for cancer.

The fifth goal was to strengthen and renew State and local governments by sharing federal revenues with them. In words that still have a contemporary ring, he said:

I reject the patronizing idea that government in Washington, D.C., is inevitably more wise, more honest, and more efficient than government at the local or State level. The honesty and efficiency of government depends on people. Government at all levels has good people and bad people. And the way to get more good people into government is to give them more opportunity to do good things.

The idea that a bureaucratic elite in Washington knows best what is best for people everywhere and that you cannot trust local governments is really a contention that you cannot trust people to govern themselves. This notion is completely foreign to the American experience. Local government is the government closest to the people, it is most responsive to the individual person. It is people’s government in a far more intimate way than the Government in Washington can ever be.

People came to America because they wanted to determine their own future rather than to live in a country where others determined their future for them.

And, not lacking for audacity, the President’s sixth goal was a complete reform of the Federal Government in order to achieve the maximum efficiency and effectiveness. This work had begun, when he was President-Elect, with the appointment of the Ash Council, and it continued, in July 1970, with the creation of the Domestic Council.

The President concluded by describing his proposals as nothing less than a New American Revolution:

But above all, what this Congress can be remembered for is opening the way to a new American revolution — a peaceful revolution in which power was turned back to the people — in which government at all levels was refreshed and renewed and made truly responsive. This can be a revolution as profound, as far-reaching, as exciting as that first revolution almost 200 years ago — and it can mean that just 5 years from now America will enter its third century as a young nation new in spirit, with all the vigor and the freshness with which it began its first century.

The story of whether, and how, these goals were achieved will unfold at the Nixon Legacy Forums and here on the Nixon Foundation’s website.

The Domestic Council and Office of Management and Budget were created on July 1, 1970. The result was that policy making on major domestic issues was consolidated into the Executive Office of the President. Henceforth, on domestic affairs—as had been the case on foreign affairs since creation of the National Security Council in 1947—policy decisions would be made by the President, with Cabinet Departments still having input, but becoming largely responsible for execution.

Washington’s Political Environment

When elected President in 1968, RN may have been the best prepared individual to assume that office in recent history: He had been involved in national affairs since 1946—as a Congressman, a Senator, Vice President for two terms and then as a private citizen. He had been a candidate for President or Vice President in four of the last five elections—spanning a period of sixteen years.

He had had lots of time to think about what he wanted to accomplish and how to go about getting it done. He did not lack for ideas or approaches; what he lacked was institutional support: he was the first President in 120 years to assume office without controlling either House of Congress. In fact, the Democrats controlled virtually everything in Washington, DC except the Presidency: they had vast majorities in both Houses of Congress—which they had essentially controlled since 1932; they had eighty percent of the Congressional staff; and virtually all of the career bureaucrats throughout the Executive Branch were reliably Democratic. Metropolitan law firms, lobbyists and think tanks were also uniformly Democratic.

Even President Nixon’s political appointees—except for the White House staff – had to be chosen with one eye on Senate confirmation. Thus, it was no accident that three of his Secretaries were former State Governors, without much experience in national affairs (Romney of Michigan, Hickel of Alaska and Volpe of Massachusetts).

Early White House Staff Organization

What President Nixon did with regard to his own White House Staff, however, was quite different—and virtually unprecedented: As his top three policy advisors, he appointed absolutely top people in their field—but ones who had not supported his run for the Presidency:

Henry Kissinger, the Harvard professor of international relations that Nixon picked to head his National Security Council, had long been a member of Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s inner circle of advisers. You would be hard-pressed to find a group within the Republican Party that was less in step with the Nixon wing than those beholden to his primary competitor, Governor Rockefeller.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, also a Harvard professor, was the biggest surprise: He was not only a liberal Democrat; he actually had campaigned against Nixon’s election, and was opposed to the Vietnam War. He also had served in both the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. Nonetheless, he had attractive ideas on welfare reform and agreed to head the Urban Affairs Council, Nixon’s first attempt to duplicate the National Security Council on the domestic side.

Arthur Burns, the renowned economics professor from Columbia University, was made Counselor to the President, a Cabinet level position. While certainly conservative, Burns was much older, associated with the Eisenhower wing of the party and also did not campaign for Nixon. He did, however, provide a counterweight to the far more liberal Moynihan.

Foreign Affairs-Kissinger and the NSC

The operations of Kissinger’s National Security Council are only relevant in the sense that they provided the model after which the Domestic Council was shaped.

The NSC had an interesting approach to obtaining Presidential decisions on foreign affairs matters: They would prepare NSDMs: National Security Decision Memorandums. Two things were rather vital in making such decisions: First, that the President get the benefit of input from all relevant points of view—including in any given issue, input from not only the NSC, but also the Departments of State, Defense, and perhaps Treasury, but also from the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and Foreign Affairs Advisory Council. Of course, there might well be differences of opinion within each of these organizations, too. Second, it was equally important that the President’s decision itself be precise, well documented and understood.

NSDMs fit this need, especially for someone with a legal background like Richard Nixon: They were in writing, they gave background on the issue and why a decision need be made at this time (the famous “action forcing event”). His options were clearly indicated and his decisions were not only preserved, but could be circulated, if need be, on a need-to-know basis.

Domestic Affairs—Burns v Moynihan

Nixon knew Arthur Burns, then Chancellor of Columbia University, from their service together in the Eisenhower Administration and brought him to the Hotel Pierre in New York City to assist the transition team that was being assembled right after the election. Burns came on board as Counselor to the President with Cabinet Rank and head of the Council of Economic Advisors, which he held until he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in January of 1971. Burns had several staff members, including Charles Clapp, Martin Anderson and Richard Burress. Their work on domestic issues tended to reflect their more conservative point of view.

In contrast, Pat Moynihan, the enthusiastic and innovative ‘idea’ man from Harvard, really came on board to chair the Urban Affairs Council, the first attempt to build a counterpart to the National Security Council within the President’s own staff. Pat was a charmer, full of Irish blarney. His staff consisted of Steve Hess, John Price, Charles “Checker” Finn, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Nathan and Christopher C. DeMuth . Naturally, their approach to most domestic problems tended to start from the more liberal side of the ledger.

At least initially, Nixon felt the exchange of opinions and clash of ideas would produce a more reasoned outcome—but it did not work out that way.

Papers were researched and drafted, proposals were debated, but no resolutions were achieved. Even in meetings involving the Presidents himself, it seemed like two giants were seated at opposite sides of the table—lobbing cannon balls toward each other. The first conflict was over welfare reform, Moynihan’s famous Family Assistance Plan, but expanded to include conflicts over aid to cities and immigration.

Ehrlichman was invited to attend some of these sessions by Haldeman to see if anything could be done to help achieve a better process of resolution. Especially after it became clear the President disliked refereeing the disputes—and began to avoid their meetings entirely. It was Ehrlichman’s suggestion that the approach to policy making on domestic issues emulate the process utilized by the NSC: In other words, domestic NSDMs.

Thus, Ehrlichman and his legal staff, as lawyers without a real ideological stake in the game, would attempt to draft issue papers which would bring together in one place the background, alternatives and possible options for Presidential actions.

The idea caught on—and was expanded to accommodate concurrent recommendations for modernizing the Bureau of the Budget, that had been drafted by the President’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization (the Ash Council), which President Nixon had established in April of 1969, chaired by Roy Ash (President of Litton Industries).

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970

We in government often are quick to call for reform in other institutions, but slow to reform ourselves. Yet nowhere today is modern management more needed than in government itself.

President Nixon, Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorganization Plan 2 of 1970, March 12, 1970

Thus was born Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1970, which was transmitted to the Congress on March 12, 1970, and which, unless sooner rejected by a Resolution of Disapproval, would become law under Chapter 9 of title 5 of the US Code, on July 1st, 1970.

The theory of the proposed reorganization within the Executive Office of the President was detailed in the Presidential Message which accompanied submission of the Plan:

Essentially, the plan recognizes that two closely connected but basically separate functions both center in the President’s office: policy determination and executive management. This involves 1) what government should do, and 2) how it goes about doing it.

My proposed reorganization creates a new entity to deal with each of these functions:

It establishes a Domestic Council, to coordinate policy formulation in the domestic area. This Cabinet group would be provided with an institutional staff, and to a considerable degree would be a domestic counterpart to the National Security Council.

It establishes an Office of Management and Budget, which would be the President’s principal arm for the exercise of managerial functions.

The Domestic Council will be primarily concerned with what we do; the Office of Management and Budget will be primarily concerned with how we do it, and how well we do it.

Role of the Domestic Council Staff

The Domestic Council would be chaired by President Nixon and include Secretaries of all the domestic agencies (Treasury, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, HEW, and Transportation) as well as the Vice President, the Attorney General, the Postmaster General, and the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity.

So far this is not all that different from occasional establishment of ad hoc Cabinet Committees on one topic or another. What was different about Nixon’s approach—and led to the basis of all of John Ehrlichman’s considerable power and influence—was the creation of a separate staff:

The Council will be supported by a staff under an Executive Director who will also be one of the President’s assistants. Like the National Security Council staff, this staff will work in close coordination with the President’s personal staff but will have its own institutional identity. By being established on a permanent, institutional basis, it will be designed to develop and employ the “institutional memory” so essential if continuity is to be maintained, and if experience is to play its proper role in the policy-making process.

There does not now exist an organized, institutionally-staffed group charged with advising the President on the total range of domestic policy. The Domestic Council will fill that need. Under the President’s direction, it will also be charged with integrating the various aspects of domestic policy into a consistent whole.

Among the specific policy functions in which I intend the Domestic Council to take the lead are these:

Assessing national needs, collecting information and developing forecasts, for the purpose of defining national goals and objectives.

Identifying alternative ways of achieving these objectives, and recommending consistent, integrated sets of policy choices.

Providing rapid response to Presidential needs for policy advice on pressing domestic issues.

Coordinating the establishment of national priorities for the allocation of available resources.

Maintaining a continuous review of the conduct of on-going programs from a policy standpoint, and proposing reforms as needed.

Overall, the Domestic Council will provide the President with a streamlined, consolidated domestic policy arm, adequately staffed, and highly flexible in its operation. It also will provide a structure through which departmental initiatives can be more fully considered, and expert advice from the Departments and agencies more fully considered.

Let us interrupt our review of the President’s message at this point—and in President Nixon’s words, ‘to make one thing perfectly clear’: the Transmittal Message did not mince any words about what was intended. In the months ahead, Cabinet Secretaries would complain that their memos to the President—almost always advocating some domestic initiative focused solely on and designed to grow their particular Department—could not even reach his desk without a cover memo from the Domestic Council staff discussing alternatives and indicating the reactions of other members of his Cabinet and White House staff. This was precisely the envisioned and intended role of the Domestic Council staff!

Role of the Office of Management and Budget

The other new entity, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would be far more than a new name for the Bureau of the Budget. It would certainly absorb and continue its traditional functions of overseeing the preparation of the annual Federal budget and the Legislative Reference functions, but these would no longer be the primary focus, which would switch to Management:

While the budget function remains a vital tool of management, it will be strengthened by the greater emphasis the new office will lace on fiscal analysis. The budget function is only one of several important management tools that the President must now have. He must also have a substantially enhanced institutional staff capability in other areas of executive management—particularly in program evaluation and coordination, improvement of Executive Branch organization, information and management systems, and development of executive talent. Under this plan, strengthened capability in these areas will be provided partly by internal reorganization, and it will also require additional staff resources.

Let us briefly review the role of the Bureau of the Budget (BoB), OMB’s predecessor: First and foremost, it was responsible pulling together and documenting the annual Federal budget, the only comprehensive account of the proposed expenditures of the entire Federal Government. Usually transmitted to the Congress in February, several weeks following January’s re-convening of Congress and the Presidents’ State of the Union Address, the President’s budget proposal would be divided into sections for action by various Committees of the House and Senate. What the President proposed and what actually passed Congress, of course, might be considerably different—but the first shot, the base from which all budgetary debate commenced was the BoB Budget document.

The other coordinating function performed by BoB was that of Legislative Review. While various Cabinet Departments and agencies would testify at hearings on any number of proposals, the key phrase in the testimony—controlled exclusively by Bob—was the ‘official’ level of support from the Administration—and there were only three levels of BoB “clearance”: The proposal under consideration by this Committee was (1) a part of the Program of the President (i.e.: was actually proposed and supported by the President), (2) was consistent with the Program of the President (i.e.: while not specifically proposed by the President, its enactment could be seen as furthering his effort) or (3) not a part of the Program of the President (and, it would come as no great surprise, the testimony about to be offered would largely point out shortcomings the Administration felt were in that particular proposal.

It was through these two roles that BoB sought to maintain some semblance of order and control within the Executive Branch—at least as far as a President was concerned.

Contrast this for a moment with what was proposed as the role for the new OMB: Substantially greater oversight of Departmental and agency function, performance and executive talent. The intended result—announced in his Message and achieved when Reorganization Plan No. 2 came into law on July 1, 1970, was an awesome consolidation of authority—away from the Departments and agencies and into the Executive Office of the President. Not that there was anything wrong or sinister with this approach:

With this newly proposed authority, the President stood a better than even chance of exercising the oversight of the Executive Branch that he felt he had been elected to execute.

Congressional Response

The response within the Congress was not enthusiastic: hearings were held in by the House Committee on Government Operations, under its chairman, Rep. Chet Holifield of California. On May 8th, the committee passed a Resolution of Disapproval (with five Republicans dissenting) which set the stage for a showdown in the full House of Representatives.

Following a furious lobbying campaign, mainly from within the Bureau of the Budget, just five days later (on May 13th) the House—by vote of 193 to 164—rejected its own Committee’s recommendation and thereby declined to pass the necessary Resolution of Disapproval—paving the way for OMB and the Domestic Council to come into being. This is the only known instance under Title 5 (which has since been allowed to expire) of the House not following a recommendation of its Government Operations Committee.

Initial Leadership of Domestic Council and OMB

Ehrlichman was named Executive Director of the Domestic Council staff and Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs on July 1, 1970—and his staff consisted of the following direct reports:

Jana Hruska, his personal secretary (and daughter of Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska, ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee). Jana was the finest of personal secretaries: very competent and hard working, politically astute and very loyal.

Tod Hullin, his personal aid, whose father had been Ehrlichman’s law partner in their Seattle firm

Ken Cole, his Deputy, who had come in with Haldeman and had worked on the 1968 Campaign (in which Ehrlichman had been in overall charge of scheduling). Ken took Ehrlichman’s place as Executive Director following the 1972 election.

Along with Ken’s personal secretary, this group had the suite of offices in the West Wing directly over the Oval Office. Across West Executive Avenue on the first floor of the OEOB-near where John’s office had been as Counsel to the President-were housed his four Associate Directors:

Egil “Bud” Krogh, Jr, who also was from the Counsel’s office and was responsible for Crime, Drugs and the District of Columbia

Ed Harper, Bud’s roommate from Principia College, a Christian Science College in St. Louis, and was responsible for Federal budgetary matters.

Ed Morgan, a lawyer from the 1968 campaign and who had been in JDE’s Counsel office, was responsible for HEW and HUD

John Whitaker, a long time campaign aide, who was responsible for Natural Resources, including issues involving energy and the environment.

The Founding Director of OMB was George Shultz, who had joined the Nixon Administration as Secretary of Labor. He was followed, in June of 1972, by Casper Weinberger, formerly head of the Federal Trade Commission, who in turn was followed by Roy Ash in February of 1973. Deputy Directors during this era were Paul O’Neill, a career BoB employee and Fred Malek, who had headed the White House Office of Personnel.

These individuals, and their team of Associate OMB Directors, completely transformed the former Bureau of the Budget, and then went on to highly successful careers elsewhere in industry, as well as in the Executive Branch.

Conclusion

Each President absorbs information and governs differently: President Nixon preferred written presentations, devoid of personal salesmanship. Others prefer oral briefings or rely on delegation to trusted aides. Regardless of individual preference, three organizations have survived within the Executive Office of the President to provide policy staffing for the President: the National Security Council staff, the Domestic Council staff (now referred to as the Domestic Policy Staff) and Presidential appointees to the Office of Management and Budget.

Together they provide the resources for a President to direct actions of the millions of employees of the Executive Branch—and to lead the nation itself.

“If the Government pays all the medical bills, then only the Government has a stake in holding down medical costs. This means that Government officials would have to approve hospital budgets and set fee schedules and take other steps that would eventually lead to the complete Federal domination of American medicine. I think this is the wrong road for America. It is the road that has been taken by so many countries abroad to their regret.” (Richard Nixon Radio Address November 3, 1972)

The Obama administration has taken on the issue of health care reform today in the United States, but this type of reform is not new. Richard Nixon had a significant role in healthcare during his presidency and if unimpeded could have helped prevent the current health care crisis in the United States. Specifically, in 1973, Nixon passed two important pieces of legislation that changed health care in the country. The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 required employers with traditional health plans to also provide the option of choosing an HMO for its employees. The act also made it mandatory for employers to contribute as much to the HMO as they did to their regular plans. The Veterans Health Care Expansion Act of 1973 substantially expanded the health benefits available to our nation’s veterans and their families.

These two bills were only a piece of Nixon influence on health care during his presidency. Nixon’s most controversial and far reaching policy proposal was the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. This plan had seven key principles. First, it offered every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits. Second, it would cost no American more than he can afford to pay. Third, it built on the strength and diversity of the existing public and private systems of health care financing and harmonized them into an overall system. Fourth, it used public funds only where needed and required no new federal taxes. Fifth, it would maintain freedom of choice by patients and ensure that doctors work for their patient, not for the federal government. Sixth, it encouraged more effective use of our health care resources. Seventh, it was organized so that all parties would have a direct stake in making the system work: consumer, provider, insurer, state governments and the federal government.

The most crucial part of Nixon’s plan was the employer mandate. Under this plan, every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan. Additional benefits could then be added by mutual agreement. The insurance plan would be jointly financed, with employers paying 65 percent of the premium for the first three years of the plan, and 75 percent thereafter. Employees would pay the balance of the premiums. Temporary federal subsidies would be used to ease the initial burden on employers who face significant cost increases.

In a unique moment of bi-partisan cooperation, in early 1974 Nixon’s political opponent in the Senate, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, agreed to a compromised deal of the Comprehensive Health Insurance Program and together they prepared to get the health care legislation passed through Congress. Unfortunately, the brewing Watergate scandal which soon took over the headlines, coupled with the subsequent lack of cooperation from Kennedy, prevented the President from pushing through with this initiative. With the President unable to continue to rally support, the efforts of labor unions, who hoped for a better deal under a new presidential administration, succeeded in derailing the Nixon-Kennedy health care bill.

For his part, Nixon emphasized that his Comprehensive Health Insurance would not lead to an extreme program that would place the entire health care system under the dominion of social planners in Washington. Nixon wanted to continue to have doctors to work for their patients, not for the federal government. He believed that one of the most cherished goals of our democracy is to assure every American an equal opportunity to lead a full and productive life. Nixon saw his Comprehensive Health Insurance as an idea whose time had come in America. He saw a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care.

“I think for people who follow health issues, who follow health policy, who follow the history of healthcare programs in this country,” RN’s legacy “will be fairly good.” Cavanaugh said. “People who realistically look at what his program had look at it favorably.”

One of those people was Dr. Alva Hamblin Letton.

As President of the American Cancer Society, he was present at the White House on December 23, 1971 when RN signed the National Cancer Act.

Dr. Letton called the legislation “the greatest thing ever done by the United States,” and expressed his deepest appreciation that President Nixon made the fight against cancer a national priority.

According to the estimates of the American Cancer Society, the decade of the 1970s would see 3.5 million deaths from cancer, 6.5 million new cancer cases diagnosed, and more than 10 million cancer patients under medical care. Cancer accounted for roughly one-sixth of all deaths in the United States each year, second only to cardiovascular diseases. But though second in mortality, cancer was consistently cited by the public as the most feared disease. This prompted the formulation of the National Cancer Act.

Elmer Bobst, who was an advisor on health issues for RN and Benno Schmidt, Chairman of the special Panel of Consultants for the Conquest of Cancer, started assembling a host of recommendations for legislation by House leadership and other prominent Republican lawmakers.

Schmidt stressed that the controversial recommendation for a separate agency was necessary if cancer were to be declared a national goal, and expressed the hope that the President would find the panel’s recommendation worthy of support.

George Shultz, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Ehrlichman were in a position to get this to the President’s attention. President Nixon seized the initiative and recommended an additional $100 million to the budget for cancer research and announced this step in his State of the Union message.

“ I will ask for an appropriation of an extra $100 million to launch an intensive campaign to find a cure for cancer, and I will ask later for whatever additional funds can effectively be used. The time has come in America when the same kind of concentrated effort that split the atom and took man to the moon should be turned toward conquering this dread disease. Let us make a total national commitment to achieve this goal.”

Exactly one week later, President Nixon sent The Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal 1972 to the Congress. It included a request for $232 million for the National Cancer Institute and a special request of $100 million for “cancer research initiatives” that would use “all pertinent institutes and agencies” of the federal government.

Two months before the December 23rd signing, RN announced the conversion of a biological research facility “into a leading center for cancer research.”

Almost forty-years on, RN’s cancer initiative continues to revolutionize the field of biomedical research. Today, there are 61 designated cancer cancers, 300 different antidotes for the disease including cures for childhood cancers, effective treatments for kidney and colo-rectal cancers, and adjuvant therapies for solid tumors. This progress against the world’s deadliest disease is not only a crowning achievement for RN’s Presidency, but also for the millions of cancer survivors today.

In 1965, a Gallup poll found 25 percent of Americans citing pollution and other environmental matters as constituting as an important national issue. By the end of 1969, this figure had increased by 75 percent. There were a number of reasons for the rise. Concern over the indiscriminate use of pesticides had loomed large in the national consciousness since the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962. Environmentally minded writers and champions of “small is beautiful” such as Henry David Thoreau and Aldo Leopold formed part of the curriculum of the “counterculture.” The nation’s embrace of suburban development and new technology in the 1950s had been replaced by apprehension about the effects of untrammeled growth on wildlife, the waterways, and the atmosphere.

As these concerns came to the fore, a movement arose which sought to address them. In the early days of 1970, plans were fully underway to celebrate the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. This event was intended by its organizers to be a moment calling for new laws to guarantee clean air and water and to safeguard the integrity of natural landscapes, like forests, seas, and lakes.

Restoring nature to its natural state is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. It has become a common cause of all the people of this country. It is a cause of particular concern to young Americans, because they more than we will reap the grim consequences of our failure to act on programs which are needed now if we are to prevent disaster later.

President Nixon, in his First State of the Union Address, January 22, 1970.

The first mainstream politicians to embrace the Earth Day message were mostly Democratic, such as Gaylord Nelson, a Wisconsin Senator who took the initiative among his colleagues in helping to organize events connected with the day. Soon Sen. Edmund Muskie from Maine, the 1968 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, was calling for quick legislative action in the field of the environment. Liberal columnists and commentators, at the time, seemed to take it for granted that the Nixon White House would drag its feet on the matter.

But in his first annual address to Congress, RN took note of the nation’s worry over the future of its resources, and called for the passing of laws to protect the environment, pledging to use $10 billion to ensure clean air and water for Americans.

Six months later, in July 1970, RN set up the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This was a Cabinet-level agency; its head reported directly to the President. $1.4 billion was redirected from other Cabinet departments for its budget (primarily the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Health, Education and Welfare), and it started operations with 5,650 employees. Within a short time the EPA, under its first director William Ruckelshaus, launched a series of important initiatives. In the same year, the passage of the Clean Air Act, with the support of the White House, marked the most comprehensive antipollution legislation to date.

The President followed this with another far-sighted idea. Having grown up in a family of modest means, he was aware that visiting major national parks such as Yellowstone or Yosemite was beyond the financial reach of many Americans. He therefore promoted the idea of creating new national parks from Federal land unused for other purposes, and during his Administration 642 such parks were created. He also made it a point to confer on a regular basis about the environment with two of his staffers with strong interests in the subject, chief domestic advisor John Ehrlichman and aide John C. Whitaker.

In April 1971, the President marked the first anniversary of Earth Day with a proclamation establishing Earth Week, an event which helped further education and awareness of environmental issues, especially among schoolchildren.

From 1970 until the end of his Presidency, Nixon made 36 different environmental proposals, including ones addressing such issues as noise pollution and oil spills. One matter to which he devoted considerable attention, and which was close to his heart as a Californian, was the cooperation of federal and state agencies in maintaining the integrity of coastlines.

Two events marked a divergence between the President’s views and those of many environmentalists. In 1971, the EPA recommended standards for the Big Four automakers (at that time General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, and AMC/Jeep) to decrease fuel emissions. Nixon felt that the requirements were too stringent, and agreed with automakers who feared that manufacturing cars to conform to these standards would raise car prices and considerably decrease sales.

And, in 1972, Nixon vetoed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. Again, this action was motivated by concern that to enforce the legislation as written would put American manufacturers at a disadvantage compared to their overseas counterparts.

But while keeping American business competitive, the Nixon White House was also able to lay the groundwork for the effective environmental infrastructure Americans rely on today to ensure clean air, clean water, preservation of wildlife and plant life for future generations, and a safer, healthier environment.

At the start of the Administration, in 1969, this did not seem to be much of an issue. In the late 1930s, vast oil reserves were found in Saudi Arabia and what was then the British protectorate of Kuwait. Shortly after the end of World War II, full-scale production and exportation of petroleum from these nations began. This seemingly boundless and ever-increasing supply of cheap energy was the trigger for unprecedented changes in the American economy. The price of gas rose less than two percent per year for a quarter-centry after World War II, helping to ensure low inflation for American goods, and encouraging consumer spending at levels unimaginable since the 1920s. Low fuel costs spurred Americans to buy cars and travel more, and thus made necessary the creation of the interstate highway system which helped secure the pre-eminent economic position of the United States.

In the opening years of President Nixon’s first term, concerns about energy were tied to concerns about the environment. For example, worries about air pollution led to studies recommending the use of unleaded gasoline. But during that time several studies were published suggesting that at the rate of consumption then prevalent, oil reserves in the Arab countries could be completely exhausted sometime in the first half, or perhaps the first third, of the twenty-first century.

In 1968, enormous oil reserves were discovered in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, on the Arctic coast of the state. It soon became apparent that a large-scale pipeline project would be needed to transport the fuel to the comparatively ice-free port of Anchorage, and, although this would make possible oil production on a scale larger than even that of Texas and Oklahoma, at the time the plentiful supply of fuel in the United States made it a low priority. But President Nixon kept this information in mind, and from time to time conferred about energy matters with his aide John C. Whitaker, a geologist familiar with the issues involved.

Also in 1971, and 1972, the President, in several speeches and messages to Congress, mentioned the importance of developing resources as as shale oil, and of making Alaskan oil production feasible. On June 13, 1973, he delivered a nationwide speech in which the latter proposal was stressed. Sixteen days later he established the Energy Policy Office and appointed former Colorado Governor John A. Love its director. (Later, newspapers and TV broadcasters began to refer to Love as the “energy czar,” making him the first of many “czars” to work in the executive branch of the Federal government.) But these remarks and actions were made in the context of larger domestic programs and proposals and received comparatively little attention.

An ample supply of energy has long been recognized as a central element in a healthy economy. To improve the quality of life for all, it is also important that Americans have energy that is clean, energy that does not pollute. President Nixon Statement About Government-Industry Cooperation in Energy Resource Development. President Nixon – Statement About Government-Industry Cooperation in Energy Resource, September 26, 1971.

But this changed almost overnight, with a series of unexpected events. On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Jordan decided to attack Israel on that nation’s most sacred holiday, Yom Kippur. Thanks to the President’s quick actions on behalf of Israel, that nation was able to rapidly regain the initiative and defend itself. But Arab anger at this intervention was immediate, and the nations in the area that were major oil producers decided to retaliate.

On October 16, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) voted to raise the price of oil by 70% a barrel. Three days later, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab countries in OPEC, joined by Egypt, Jordan and Syria, voted to cut off oil supplies to the United States. Iran was the one Mideast country that continued to supply fuel to America, although doing so at the increased price decided by OPEC.

This provoked a fuel shortage in the United States. Gas began to run out at service stations across the country, and long lines for fuel became a familiar sight. Inflation had been a constant problem in the American economy since the lifting of most wage and price controls at the end of 1972, and the decrease in the availability of fuel made it difficult to transport goods, which in turn resulted in an increase in consumer prices. The cost of heating oil had dramatically increased the previous winter, and this continued high price, as cold weather set in during the fall of 1973, produced hardship in many households.

By the beginning of November 1973, the problem had grown to the point where “energy crisis” was a phrase more often seen in newspapers and heard on television than the word “Watergate.” On November 7, 1973, President Nixon, in a nationwide television address, spoke about the origins of the energy crisis; pointed out that he had spoken about the prospects of an energy shortage for two years; and offered a comprehensive solution for the crisis. The programs specified in this solution included a nationwide 55-mile-per-hour speed limit; increased use of car pools; the construction of the Alaskan oil pipeline; turning down themostates to below 70 degrees Fahrenheit; and a reduction in commercial aviation flights. These policies were presented as “Project Independence,” an overall effort to make the United States largely free of dependence on overseas fuel by 1980.

The speech also addressed some of the questions raised by President Nixon’s dismissal a few days before of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the subsequent vote of the House of Representatives to have its Judiciary Committee consider articles of impeachment. The next day’s discussion of the speech on television and in newspapers focused mostly on this part of the address, so the President, on November 25, delivered another speech solely concerned with energy, introducing proposals more far-reaching than those presented before. These included a 15 percent reduction in the supply of gasoline to retailers; an equal cutback in domestic heating oil; a 25 percent cut in commercial heating oil; and, most controversially of all at the time, a call to service stations to voluntarily close for 27 hours starting at 9 pm Saturday. Before the speech, John A. Love urged the President to announce gasoline rationing, and when Nixon refused to do so, Love resigned as EPO director. On December 4, 1973, the EPO was reorganized as the Federal Energy Office, and William E. Simon, the Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, became its director.

The Arab oil embargo was extended to some European countries, with effects rather more drastic than those felt in America, with oil prices tripling and sometimes quadrupling, and motor traffic nearly coming to a standstill on some days. But in America, the winter of 1973-74, although a rough one, proved manageable. With the spring came better news, when Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger traveled to the Mideast to persuade the Arab nations to lift the embargo. On March 18, 1974, this was done, with Libya being the only holdout.

Meanwhile, the Nixon Administration focused on efforts to revamp and expand Federal involvement in the energy field. The Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, signed into law by the President on May 7, transformed the Federal Energy Office into an agency with responsibilities approximating those of a Cabinet-level organization. (Three years later, this process was completed with the creation of the Department of Energy.) At the same time, William E. Simon, about to be sworn in as Treasury Secretary, transferred his responsibilities as “energy czar” to John C. Sawhill.

From May until early August of 1974, the Nixon Administration, despite the pressures on it resulting from the House impeachment hearings and court battles over Watergate, continued to work on far-ranging programs to enable the nation to be self-sufficient in the energy field.

In his 2007 biography Richard Nixon: A Life In Full, Conrad Black states that the thirty-seventh President was “at the time of writing,” the last Chief Executive “to take energy matters seriously.” This is not fair to Presidents Ford and Carter, both of whom were forced by escalating inflation to work extensively on trying to curb it by getting the nation to decrease the consumption of expensive fuel.

But it is true that, after the inflationary spiral came to an end in 1982, subsequent economic growth encouraged less attention to the development of alternative energy resources except in regions where these were abundant – shale oil in Colorado, wind power in the Western states. In the 2008 election, with two overseas wars using up fuel at a considerable rate, energy policy again came to the fore, and President Obama has called for many initiatives focused on the kind of self-sufficiency that his predecessor called for in November 1973. In years to come President Nixon’s energy policies will be a touchstone for succeeding presidencies.

When I first came to Washington, D.C. to work in the White House of President Richard Nixon almost 40 years ago, you could count the number of women in the House and Senate on your two hands plus one toe. And, you wouldn’t have needed any additional digits for the women sitting on the Supreme Court or in the President’s Cabinet – because there weren’t any.

Then, in the early 1970s, thanks to the pioneering efforts of “A Few Good Women…” and the leadership of the President, it all began to change.

In January 1969, Richard Nixon took the oath of office as President. At one of President Nixon’s early press conferences, Ms. Vera Glaser stood amid a forest of male colleagues, raised her strong, clear voice, and asked:

“Mr. President, since you’ve been inaugurated, you have made approximately 200 presidential appointments, and only three of them have gone to women. Can we expect some more equitable recognition of women’s abilities, or are we going to remain the lost sex?”

The President seemed surprised, but he agreed: “We’ll have to do something about that.” It was a promise he kept.

President Nixon’s pledge to Ms. Glaser triggered a chain of events that led to the appointment of a White House Task Force on Women’s Rights and Responsibilities. Virginia Allan, a well-known Republican businesswoman, chaired it, and Vera Glaser was among its members.

By the end of the year, the Task Force delivered a report entitled, “A Matter of Simple Justice.” It contained five forward-thinking recommendations. One key recommendation was this: “The President should appoint more women to positions of top responsibility in all branches of the Federal Government, to achieve a more equitable ratio of men and women. Cabinet and agency heads should be directed to issue firm instructions that qualified women receive equal consideration in hiring and promotion.” It also recommended creation of a White House office dedicated to advancing women in appointive positions.

And, it didn’t happen overnight. It was more than a year before that first promise to Ms. Glaser moved into the implementation phase.

President Nixon Acts

In December 1970, the President approved an action memo that ordered the implementation of many of the Task Force’s key recommendations.

In April of 1971, the President publicly announced a three-pronged initiative:

o First, he asked each Cabinet Secretary and agency head to submit an action plan for hiring, promoting, and advancing women in each department. He told them he wanted the plan by the middle of the following month.

o Second, I was hired away from Citibank in New York City to join the White House staff and recruit women for high-level jobs in government. I was also directed to build a talent bank of women and monitor progress by the departments and agencies on their action plans.

o Third, Jayne Baker Spain, who had been the CEO of a company in Ohio, was appointed Vice Chairman of the Civil Service Commission with responsibility for watching over the advancement of women in the career civil service.

And, President Nixon asked two Counselors to the President – Bob Finch and Don Rumsfeld – to oversee progress. Bob Finch, had previously served in President Nixon’s Cabinet and was an early convert to our cause. Rumsfeld, later served as Secretary of Defense.

We set out to double the number of women in top jobs – GS-16 and above – during the first year. We did better. Within nine months, we had met our full first-year goal. In April 1972, a year after we began, the number of women in policy-making jobs had tripled from 36 to 105.

Even more importantly perhaps was the nature of the jobs themselves. There were many “breakthroughs” – jobs women had never held before. In other words, we were blasting through glass ceilings. Every “first” makes it easier to fill that job with a woman the second time around. Eventually gender would not even be a consideration.

Thanks to the President’s support, more than 1,000 women were hired or promoted into the middle management ranks of the career civil service, at a time when the Federal Government was reducing employment by 5%. For the first time, women were serving as generals, admirals, forest rangers, FBI agents, and even tugboat captains.

By March 1973, just two years after the effort began, the number of women in top jobs had quadrupled, and Anne Armstrong had become Counselor to the President with Cabinet rank.

President Nixon’s efforts to lift up women in the Federal Government spilled over into the rest of American society as he challenged the private sector, as well as, state and local governments “to follow our lead and guarantee women equal opportunity for employment and advancement…” Business leaders, state officials and sometimes governors themselves – came to my office to find out more about how we had achieved success.

The Nixon Administration effort is a powerful example of Presidential leadership that shows what can be accomplished with genuine commitment. It also shows how the stories that grab the headlines are not the only places where lasting change may be taking place.

Looking back now, we know that President Nixon’s actions brought gender equality into the mainstream of American life. He made equality “legitimate.” This legitimacy rippled through our society and helped create new opportunities for women in business, education, the professions, the arts and athletics.

But President Nixon threw himself unmistakably behind the cause of change, telling the nation in his 1972 State of the Union address, “While every woman may not want a career outside the home, every woman should have the freedom to choose whatever career she wishes, and an equal chance to pursue it.” That was a bold statement by a man of that time and that generation.