Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285790795
label
OSTP Report [3]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285790795
contentType
document
title
OSTP Report [3]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
06820-005
collections
Records of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Rebecca Anderson Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285790795
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
6303f4e89f9afdfa
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
foia Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Legislative Affairs, White House Office of
Series:
Anderson, Rebecca, Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
06820
Folder ID Number:
06820-005
Folder Title:
OSTP Report [3]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
10
2
2
THE OF TAKING
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 22, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4939 - Additional Requirements Which China
Must Meet to Receive Most Favored Nation (MFN)
(Pease (D) Ohio and 19 others)
If H.R. 4939 were presented to the President, his senior advisers
would recommend that he veto it. H.R. 4939, as passed by the
House, significantly resticts the President's flexibility to
recommend extension of MFN trade status to China in 1991. The
bill requires that before the President can recommend extending
MFN, he must certify that the Chinese government has:
-- accounted for any detained or accused citizens
and released those imprisoned because of their
actions at Tiananmen Square;
-- implemented and faithfully executed measures that
terminate specified repressive practices; and
-- adhered to the 1984 Joint Declaration on Hong Kong.
In May, the President determined that China met the requirements
of the Jackson-Vanik amendment and that continuing MFN would
serve broad U.S. economic and foreign policy interests. The
Administration shares the sponsors' desire to promote human
rights in China but believes this can be done best by keeping
China's economy open to the outside world and maintaining the
broadest possible range of people-to-people contacts. Trade and
investment provide a vital link with those Chinese who want
positive change.
Our continued economic involvement with China has encouraged
important positive steps. The Chinese authorities have released
almost 900 political prisoners this year and, following the
President's decision to renew China's MFN status, have permitted
Fang Lizhi and his family to depart the country. Beijing has
supported all nine UN Security Council resolutions on the Persian
Gulf crisis and acted decisively to enforce the UN-approved trade
embargo. We continue to need China's support in the Persian Gulf
Crisis. China's active intervention was crucial for achieving
the latest breakthrough toward a peaceful settlement in Cambodia.
The United States cannot return to doing business as usual with
China until a better human rights condition exists there. The
Administration will continue to press for the release of the
estimated 300-400 political detainees resulting from the brutal
suppression of the prodemocracy movement of June 1989. But a
2
suppression of the prodemocracy movement of June 1989. But a
sound working relationship with China is still necessary so that
issues of vital concern to us can be addressed.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Rooney) in consultation
with IAD (DuSault), State (Morris), USTR (Krawitz), Commerce
(Dalmut), NSC (Lampley), OCA (Williamson), White House Counsel
(Rademaker), and CEA (Baldwin).
Background
Section 402 of the Trade Act of 1974 (the so-called Jackson-Vanik
amendment) sets forth three objectives relating to freedom of
emigration which must be met before a nonmarket economy country
may be granted most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status. (MFN
grants a country low tariffs on exports to the United States.)
Section 402 also authorizes the President to waive these freedom
of emigration requirements annually, if he determines that so
doing will substantially promote the objectives of freedom of
emigration.
The People's Republic of China has received MFN status through
the annual waiver process since 1980. On May 24, 1990, President
Bush notified Congress of his intention to waive the
Jackson-Vanik freedom of emigration requirements and extend MFN
trade treatment to products from China for an additional year,
beginning July 4, 1990.
Administration Position to Date
The Administration threatened veto of H.R. 4939, if it were
amended to further restict the President's flexibility. During
House consideration several objectionable amendments were adopted
that place significant restrictions on the President's authority
to waive current law and grant MFN to China. As reported,
H.R. 4939 required the President to determine that the waiver
would promote "significant progress" toward achieving seven
specified human rights objectives as well as freedom of
emigration. As passed by the House, the President must certify
in July 1991 that these human rights abuses have been terminated,
as described below.
3
Provisions of H.R. 4939
H.R. 4939 passed the House on October 18, 1990, by 384 to 30. As
passed, it would require that, before MFN status could be
extended to China in July 1991, the President certify that China
has:
(1) accounted for any detained or accused citizens and
released those imprisoned because of their actions at
Tiananmen Square;
(2) implemented and faithfully executed measures that
terminate the following:
-- practices of gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights dating from June 3, 1989;
-- martial law throughout China, including Tibet;
-- restrictions on freedom of the press and on
broadcasts by the Voice of America;
-- acts of intimidation and harassment of Chinese
citizens in the United States;
-- obstacles to study and travel abroad for students
and other citizens;
-- other appropriate action to promote improvement in
human rights and opportunities for freedom and
democracy in China;
-- religious persecution in China and Tibet, and releasing
those detained for their religious beliefs; and
(3) adhered to the 1984 Joint Declaration on Hong Kong.
H.R. 4939 would also require the President in deciding
whether to renew MFN status for China in 1991 to consider:
(1) the potential economic and political effects on Hong Kong;
and (2) the extent to which the Chinese government has moderated
its position on Taiwan's accession to the GATT.
A Miller amendment agreed to during House consideration
would establish certain human rights principles for U.S.
businesses operating in China. Further, U.S. businesses
operating in China would be required to register with the State
Department, indicate whether they agree to adhere to these
principles, and provide a report on how they have implemented the
principles. The State Department would be required to report to
4
Congress on the level to which U.S. companies have adhered to the
principles.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
October 22, 1990 12:20 PM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 13, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4952 Consumer Product Safety Commission
Reauthorization Act of 1990
(Walgren (D) PA and 15 others)
The Administration will not object to House passage of H.R. 4952,
although it prefers S. 605, the Senate-passed Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) reauthorization bill.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with HIMD (Kleinberg/Clendenin/Blickstein) and OIRA
(Hill/Harker).
Administration Position to Date
The Administration has not previously commented on H.R. 4952.
However, in a May 31, 1990, letter to the bill's sponsor, CPSC
Chairwoman Jacqueline Jones-Smith supported H.R. 4952, but
indicated concerns about the product-specific language in the
bill (discussed below).
During the last Congress, the Reagan Administration threatened
veto of both the House (H.R. 3343) and the Senate (S. 1882) CPSC
reauthorization bills. The House bill would have removed the
President's authority to appoint the Chairman of the CPSC and
would have established a personnel floor for the agency. Neither
H.R. 4952 nor S. 605 include these objectionable provisions.
Summary of H.R. 4952
H.R. 4952, as reported, represents a compromise between the
majority and minority members of the House Energy and Commerce
Committee. The major provisions of H.R. 4952 would:
-- Authorize appropriations of $42 million for FY 1991 and
$45 million for FY 1992. The President's FY 1991 Budget
contains $35.6 million for CPSC and projects $35.7 for
FY 1992.
-- Reduce the number of Commissioners required for a quorum
from three to two, if there are only three members serving
on the Commission. This provision moves in the direction of
2
Administration policy, which favors a single administrator
for the CPSC.
-- Require CPSC to issue proposed consumer product safety
regulations within 12 months of publishing the advance
notice of proposed rulemaking. However, the Commission may
extend the deadline for good cause.
-- Increase the civil penalties for manufacturers violating the
Consumer Product Safety Act and the Federal Hazardous
Substances Act.
-- Allow CPSC to disregard the benefits and costs of a
voluntary remedial action against a consumer product.
-- Require CPSC to study, or take action on, specific products,
including cigarette lighters, sleepware for elderly people,
all-terrain vehicles, and automatic garage door openers.
This bill would extend Federal inspection to mobile and
fixed amusement park rides, if the ride were involved in a
serious injury.
S. 605, the Senate companion bill, does not contain the
product-specific requirements cited above. These mandates
improperly impose specific tasks on CPSC without an assessment of
the relative hazards being encountered and the opportunity to
diminish them. As previously noted, CPSC Chairwoman Smith has
expressed concerns about the product-specific language. For this
reason, the proposed position is drafted to note the
Administration's preference for the Senate-passed CPSC
reauthorization bill.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
7/12/90
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 14, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4962 - 1992 Olympic Commemorative Coin Act
(Lehman (D) California and 246 others)
The Administration does not oppose enactment of H.R. 4962 if it
is Congress' judgment that this is the appropriate event to
commemorate, by the minting of a coin, in 1992.
The Administration would oppose enactment of more than one
commemorative coin bill for 1992. More than one commemorative
coin program during the same time period taxes the Mint's die
making capacity and is detrimental to the success of each
program. The Administration notes that Congress is also
considering a coin bill (H.R. 2754) commemorating the 500th
anniversary of the discovery of America in 1992.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Fotias), in consultation with
the Departments of the Treasury (Levy), Defense (Potuk), and the
Commission of Fine Arts (Atherton), HTF (Dickey), and BR
(Kaufman).
H.R. 4962 was marked up on September 12th by a House Banking
subcommittee. Committee staff (Edwards) advises that the
contents of the bill are as described below.
Description of H.R. 4962
-- Production of Coins
H.R. 4962 would require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and
issue three denominations of commemorative coins to support the
training of American athletes participating in the 1992 Olympic
Games, as follows:
-- not more than 500,000 $5 coins, containing 90 percent
gold and 10 percent alloy;
-- not more than 4,000,000 $1 coins, containing 90 percent
silver and 10 percent copper; and
-- not more than 6,000,000 half-dollar coins.
2
The design of the coins would be selected by the Secretary of the
Treasury in consultation with the United States Olympic Committee
and the Commission of Fine Arts. The silver would be obtained
from the strategic materials stockpile. Federal procurement laws
would be waived for purposes of the bill. No coins could be
minted after June 30, 1993.
-- Sale of Coins
H.R. 4962 would require that the coins be sold at a price equal
to their face value plus the cost of design and issuance. A
surcharge of $35 per coin for the $5 coins; $7 per coin for the
$1 coins, and $1 per coin for the half-dollar coins would be
deposited in the coinage profit fund. All surcharges received
from the sale of coins would be paid to the United States Olympic
Committee. The Comptroller General would be authorized to audit
the Committee's books.
The Secretary of the Treasury would be required to ensure that
the minting and issuance of the coins would not result in any
costs to the Federal Government.
Administration Position to Date
On August 1, 1990, the Director of the Mint testified before a
House Banking subcommittee on H.R. 4962 and several other coin
bills. She expressed concern about a potential proliferation of
commemorative coins and about the prospects for sale of the
Olympic coins. She concluded that Treasury "does not endorse"
H.R. 4962.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/14/90 -- 4:30 p.m.
OFFICE wish
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 5, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4982 - Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and
Science Education Amendments
(Sawyer (D) OH)
The Administration opposes H.R. 4982 for the following major
reasons:
-- The excessive authorizations for the Department of
Education's Eisenhower elementary and secondary mathematics
and science education program.
-- The reduced discretion for local educational agencies, in
using Federal program funds, to choose between training
elementary and secondary school teachers, regardless of true
local needs.
-- The duplication of existing activities by the proposed
regional consortia, which would disseminate math and science
teaching materials, methods, and assessment tools.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft of a position was developed by LRD (Suzanne Duval) in
consultation with LVE (Bernie Martin/Barry White/Kathy Burchard).
The Departments of Education (Paul Riddle) and Energy (Karen
Hunsicker) and National Science Foundation (John Chester) agree
with this position. The White House Office of Policy Development
(Rae Nelson) and Office of Cabinet Affairs (Holly Williamson)
also agree with this position.
H.R. 4982 was introduced on June 6, 1990, and reported on
June 27, 1990. No administration position has been taken to
date.
Description of H.R. 4982
Major provisions of H.R. 4982 would:
-- Establish authorization levels for grants to States for math
and science teaching in elementary and secondary schools at:
O
$300 million for FY 1991,
2
$500 million for FY 1992, and
$700 million for FY 1993.
-- Permit local educational agencies receiving less than $6,000
of Federal aid to form consortia.
-- Require States to give priority funding to training math and
science teachers at the elementary level over the secondary
level.
-- Increase the amount of Federal aid that small States can use
for technical assistance and administrative costs in
elementary and secondary school programs by setting the
limit at the greater of 5 percent or $30,000.
-- Increase the amount of Federal aid that small States can use
for assessment and administrative costs in higher education
programs by setting the limit at the greater of 5 percent or
$20,000.
-- Require Education to prepare an annual report on all sources
of Federal aid for math and science education and submit it
to Congress by March 1 of each year.
-- Increase from 4 percent to 5 percent the amount set aside
for Federally-directed math and science activities. The
bill would add two new authorities to this activity:
O A new grant or contract to establish a National
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Technology
Education Materials as a permanent repository of all
pre-college instructional materials developed with
Federal and non-Federal funds. The Clearinghouse would
spend one-third of its funds on dissemination of
materials to regional consortia.
Grants to model programs for training in use of
computers as part of curricula in elementary and
secondary schools. Priority would be given to programs
with potential for national application and for
integrating higher order analytical and problem-solving
skills into curricula.
-- Establish a program of grants to create and operate regional
science, math, and technology consortia. The consortia
would disseminate and implement exemplary instructional
materials, teaching methods, and assessment tools for
elementary and secondary schools. The bill would authorize
$15 million for FY 1991 and such sums as necessary for 1992
and 1993.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
7/5/90
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
SEAVIS UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
July 30, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4983 - Federal Employees Cost Savings Awards
(Kasich (R) OH and Sikorski (D) MN)
The Administration opposes H.R. 4983 because it is unnecessary in
light of the current Federal employees incentive awards program,
which is working very well. In particular, the special temporary
program for awards by Inspectors Generals (IGs) should not be
made permanent. This program has seldom been used, and IGs can
recommend awards under the regular incentive awards program.
Moreover, the proposed authority for IGs to grant awards to
former employees and certain non-Federal employees is an
undesirable departure from the current practice of giving these
awards only to current Government employees.
Further, the bill would increase significantly the maximum amount
for IG and incentive awards. For example, non-Presidential
incentive awards, which are currently capped at $25,000, would be
increased to as much as double the GS-18 pay level, or more than
$156,000 at current pay levels. This increase is excessive,
particularly given the lack of evidence that such an increase is
needed.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Hilda Schreiber) in
consultation with the Government Operations (GO) Division (Frank
Seidl) and the Financial Management (FM) Division (Susan
Gaffney). The GO Division concurs in the position. The FM
Division believes that (1) H.R. 4983 is not objectionable enough
to oppose and (2) awards to non-Federal employees would be
useful. The Departments of Health and Human Services (Susan
Burnett), the Interior (Don Harris), State (Will Davis), Treasury
(Linda Kaufman), and Veterans Affairs (John Szabo), and the
Office of Personnel Management (Jim Woodruff) concur in the
position shown above the stars. The Department of Defense did
not respond.
The IGs at State and VA, while not objecting to the overall
position, disagree with the objection to making awards to
non-Federal personnel.
The report on H.R. 4983 is not yet available. According to staff
of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee (Gerrie
Green), the bill was ordered reported June 21st with one
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
STATE UNITED OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 13, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5002 Veterans' Housing and Homeless
Amendments of 1990
(Staggers (D) WV and 5 others)
The Administration opposes H.R. 5002, because it contains the
following seriously objectionable provisions:
-- Authorization of a new program of direct loans of up to
$10,000 for certain veterans who are at least six months in
default on their VA guaranteed home loans. A new Federal
assistance program for chronically delinquent borrowers is
not warranted and would drain resources from the home loan
guaranty program. In addition, VA's current refunding
program already provides relief to qualified veterans.
-- Extension of home loan guaranty benefits to persons whose
only service was in the Reserves, including the National
Guard. This readjustment benefit should not be provided to
persons already in civilian life whose military service did
not limit their ability to finance the purchase of a home.
-- Prohibition on the sale of certain vendee loans. (These are
loans to finance the purchase of foreclosed properties from
VA.) VA should have flexibility to administer its loan
portfolio in the most cost-effective manner.
-- Authorization of a VA demonstration program for adjustable
rate mortgages (ARMs). Default rates for ARMs exceed the
default rates for fixed interest rate loans. Introduction
of ARMs, therefore, would increase Federal costs.
-- Authorization of a new loan program for nonprofit
organizations to lease group residences for veterans
recovering from substance abuse. This authority is
unnecessary because the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 contains
authority for States to make such loans. These loans are
also objectionable because they would be made from a Fund
intended to be used for hospitalized veterans.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Jeffrey Weinberg) in
2
consultation with LVE (Barry White, Susan Jacobs, and Jay Brown).
VA (per Henry Cohn, General Counsel's Office) concurs.
The Committee Report on H.R. 5002 has not been filed yet. The
description of the bill is based on information from VA staff.
Administration Position to Date
On June 27, 1990, the VA sent letters on H.R. 5002 and H.R. 5069
to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The letters
objected to the items listed in the position. At its June 27th
markup, the Committee added the provisions of H.R. 5069 to
H.R. 5002.
Major provisions of H.R. 5002 would:
-- Authorize VA to make advances of up to $10,000 to the holder
of certain VA home loans. The veteran would have to be
unemployed, or have suffered a substantial reduction in
income, and be at least six months in default. The advance
would be used to make the loan current.
-- Extend VA home loan guaranty benefits to persons with at
least six years of service in the Reserves. Reservists
would pay a higher loan fee than veterans, and the
Government would not make a contribution to the Guaranty and
Indemnity Fund for such loans.
-- Prohibit the sale of a vendee loan if the property securing
the loan originally secured a VA guaranteed loan closed on
or after January 1, 1990.
-- Generally require a 5 percent downpayment on vendee loans,
permit the loans to include amounts for property
rehabilitation, and permit below market interest rates on
the loans in certain markets.
-- Authorize VA to conduct an adjustable rate mortgage
demonstration program in at least 2 but not more than 10 VA
regional offices during FYs 1991 and 1992.
-- Make a series of minor amendments to the VA home loan
guaranty program. (These are favored by the VA.)
-- Broaden VA's authority to obtain therapeutic work
arrangements for patients in Compensated Work Therapy
programs. (VA supports this provision.)
-- Extend from September 30, 1990, to September 30, 1993, VA's
authority to sell acquired properties for use as shelter for
homeless veterans.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
7/12/90
DEPARTMENT MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
July 20, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
o
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5040 Reauthorization of the Tribally Controlled Community
Assistance Act of 1978 and the Navajo Community College Act
(Williams (D) Montana)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 5040.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with NR (Ron Cogswell). The Department of the
Interior (per Pam Somers, Legislative Counsel) concurs in the
proposed position.
The proposed position is consistent with the views expressed by
Interior in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on
Indian Affairs on April 9, 1990, on S. 2167, an identical Senate
bill.
H.R. 5040 would extend, through FY 1992, the authorization for
appropriations for grants to tribally controlled community
colleges and for the endowment program for these colleges. Both
activities are authorized by the Tribally Controlled Community
Assistance Act of 1978. H.R. 5040 also reauthorizes
appropriations for the Navajo Community College through FY 1992.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs provides grants under these two Acts
to 22 tribally controlled colleges for academic and
administrative purposes and for the operation and maintenance of
the colleges. Each college is governed by a local board of
regents, a majority of whom are Indian. Most of the colleges are
on Indian reservations making them accessible to the Indian
students.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
7/20/90
OFFICE COMPUTER WIN RESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
September 7, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5070 John F. Kennedy Center Act Amendments
(Bosco (D) California and 2 others)
The Administration supports the authorization of appropriations
of $30 million over fiscal years 1991 and 1992 for rehabilitation
and deferred maintenance of the Kennedy Center. However, the
Administration strongly opposes the provision of H.R. 5070 which
requires that the Secretary of the Interior provide all services
necessary for the operation of the building. Currently, the
Secretary is responsible only for services necessary to the
nonperforming arts functions of the Center.
Accordingly, the Administration has no objection to House passage
of H.R. 5070, but will seek an amendment in the Senate to limit
the services provided by the Secretary to those needed for
nonperforming arts functions.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Coleman), in
consultation with NRD (Cogswell and Gibbons) and Interior
(Somers).
H.R. 5070 was ordered reported by the House Public Works
Committee on June 28, 1990, without hearings. The Committee
report is not available. We have been advised by Committee
staff, however, that H.R. 5070 would:
-- Require the Secretary of the Interior to provide
the Center with all "services necessary for
operating the building." Current law requires
the Secretary to provide only those services
"necessary to the nonperforming arts functions."
2
-- Authorize appropriations totaling $16.6 million
over fiscal years 1991 and 1992 for operations
and maintenance of the Center. The budget
includes $10.5 million for these purposes over
the same period.
-- Authorize appropriations totaling $30,512,000
over fiscal years 1991 and 1992 for "deferred
maintenance, repairs, and alterations."
Administration Commitment to Repair the Kennedy Center
After negotiations between Governor Sununu and Kennedy Center
Board Chairman Wolfensohn, the Administration expressed its
support for expenditures of $30 million for rehabilitation of the
Center. This support was expressed in consultations with the
Kennedy Center Board. The Administration also advised the Board
that there would be no objection to over-budget appropriations of
$15 million in fiscal year 1991 for reduction of the Center's
operating deficit.
None of these discussions included Federal funding for any
operating services beyond those necessary for the nonperforming
arts activities of the Center, however. These activities include
those related to the Center's role as a memorial to President
Kennedy.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
July 12, 1990 - 6:00 PM
DEPARTMENT EDUCATION PRESIDENT UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 19, 1990
o
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5071 - Federal Triangle Development Act Amendments of 1990
(Bosco (D) California)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of
H.R. 5071.
However, the Administration will seek at a minimum the following
Senate amendments to:
Modify proposed new section 5 (h) (3) of the Federal Triangle
Development Act, which would authorize the Pennsylvania
Avenue Development Corporation (PADC) to enter into
agreements for the issuance of securities backed by the
General Services Administration (GSA). Any amendment to
the law should authorize and direct PADC to secure
financing directly from the Federal Financing Bank, not
from private sources.
Delete section 10 (c), which would authorize appropriations
to GSA to cover any shortfalls in lease payments by the
International Cultural and Trade Center Commission (ICTCC).
This provision authorizes unlimited appropriations to
underwrite the ICTCC. The original intent of the Act was
for the ICTCC to be self-sufficient.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Fotias), in consultation with
the Departments of the Treasury (Dorsey), Justice (Atcherson),
Labor (Cooper), State (Rappaport), General Services
Administration (MacKiclan), United States Information Agency
(Nash), National Capital Planning Commission (Dodd-Major),
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (Brodie), U.S.
International Cultural and Trade Center Commission (Newell),
White House Counsel (Paoletta), GC (Damus/Rettman), GM
(Lieberman/Haun), BR (Rea/Kaufman), NR (Long), and HTF
(Hannon/Hoffman).
The ICTCC (Newell) and PADC (Brodie/Schaller) recommended that
the SAP state the Administration supports House passage of
H.R. 5071, indicating more of an endorsement, rather than "has no
objection to House passage" as above. PADC also objected to the
two proposed amendments.
2
GSA Administrator Austin called Steve Lieberman (AD/GM) to object
to the second proposed amendment. He was advised that the SAP
would not be changed.
White House Legislative Affairs (Portman) asked about the
contents of this SAP and was briefed on it.
No response to our request for views was received from the
District of Columbia. According to press reports, the D.C.
Government opposes the State and local tax exemptions contained
in the bill.
Description of H.R. 5071
The Federal Triangle Development Act of 1987 authorized the
construction of a Federal building complex in the District of
Columbia and the establishment of an International Cultural and
Trade Center on this property. The Act also created the ICTCC to
oversee the establishment, operation, and management of the
Center. H.R. 5071 would amend the 1987 Act.
-- Provisions Similar to Administration Proposal
The ICTCC submitted an OMB-cleared draft bill to Congress on
September 26, 1989, that contains several provisions similar to
those in H.R. 5071. These provisions would:
-- Exempt the ICTCC from Federal laws related to acquisition,
disposal, or use of property.
-- Increase the current statutory limitation on the size of
the ICTCC staff from 15 to 17. This limitation would be
reduced to 10 once the Center is occupied.
-- Add the Secretaries of the Treasury and Labor or their
delegates as ex officio members of the Commission.
-- Authorize Federal agencies for which the Commission
performs specified services to reimburse the Commission for
such services.
-- Authorize appropriations for the ICTCC of $4 million in
FY 1991, to remain available until expended. (The FY 1990
Budget requested $3.5 million for the ICTCC.)
-- Principal Differences from Administration Proposal
H.R. 5071 would also:
-- Allow the PADC, in consultation with GSA, to obtain
financing for the development of the Federal Triangle
3
property from private sources, including through the sale
of securities backed by GSA.
-- Authorize appropriations to GSA to cover any shortfalls in
lease payments by the ICTCC. Appropriated funds would be
deposited in GSA's Federal Buildings Fund.
-- Exempt the PADC, and the developer and manager of the
ICTCC, from State and local taxation.
-- Allow the Center to be larger than previously authorized.
-- Permit the PADC's Board of Directors to hire not more than
three employees to engage in development of the property at
rates of pay equivalent to those of the Senior Executive
Service.
-- Set the terms of office of the private sector members of
the ICTCC at six years.
--
Cap at $1 million the aggregate amount of expenses which
the Commission may incur for its overhead costs in any
fiscal year after occupancy of the Center.
--
Allow the ICTCC to request transfers of funds, not to
exceed $1 million in any fiscal year, from the Departments
of the Treasury, Labor, and Agriculture to meet Commission
expenses not reimbursable from other agencies. Requests
for fund transfers are not to be made after occupancy of
the Center.
-- Designate the Center as the "Daniel Patrick Moynihan
International Cultural and Trade Center."
Administration Position To Date
The Administration has not previously taken a position on
H.R. 5071.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
10/19/90 -- 3:30 p.m.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
STUDENT OFFICE STATE UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 30, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5084 Mary McLeod Bethune Council House
National Historic Site
(Lewis (D) GA and 26 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 5084 which would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire and manage the
Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site. The
National Park Service is currently studying the National Historic
Site to determine the suitability and feasibility of adding it to
the National Park System. Until this study is completed and
reviewed, it would be premature to enact H.R. 5084. Moreover,
the National Council of Negro Women, which currently owns and
operates the site, already receives technical and monetary
assistance from the National Park Service.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Peterson) in
consultation with NRD (Reisner and Cogswell) and Interior
(Harris). Justice is reviewing H.R. 5084, but did not respond
within the stipulated comment period.
Administration Position to Date
The Administration has taken no position on H.R. 5084 to date.
The bill was introduced on June 19, 1990. The House Interior
Committee held no hearings on H.R. 5084 before ordering it
reported on July 25, 1990.
Background
P.L. 97-329 designated the Mary McLeod Bethune Council House in
Washington, D.C., as a National Historic Site. Mary McLeod
Bethune was a renowned educator, national political leader, and
founder of the National Council of Negro Women. The Bethune
Council House was significant as a center for the development of
strategies and programs that advanced the interests of black
women and the black community.
As required by P.L. 97-329, the Secretary of the Interior has
entered into a cooperative agreement with the National Council of
2
Negro Women (NCNW). Under the agreement, Interior provides
technical assistance for restoring, interpreting, operating, and
maintaining the historic site. The NCNW, however, owns and
retains overall responsibility for operating the Bethune Council
House.
Provisions of H.R. 5084
The committee report is not available. Interior Department staff
(Harris) advises, however, that H.R. 5084 would authorize the
Secretary to acquire and manage the Mary McLeod Bethune Council
House National Historic Site.
In addition, the bill would:
-- direct the Secretary to enter into a cooperative agreement
with nonprofit organizations dedicated to preserving and
interpreting the life and work of Mary McLeod Bethune;
-- require that the historic site be managed in accordance with a
General Management Plan (GMP) developed by the Secretary. An
Advisory Council would be established to assist the Secretary
in developing the GMP.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
July 27, 1990 - 1:40 PM
OFFICE PRESIDENT STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 12, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5093 Department of Veterans Affairs Codification Act
(Montgomery (D) MS)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of
H.R. 5093, but will work with the Senate to make certain minor
technical changes to the bill.
*******
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with LVED (Jacobs). The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) (per Jack Thompson) agrees with the proposed
position.
There is no House Veterans' Affairs Committee report on
H.R. 5093. The draft position is based on information provided
by VA staff.
H.R. 5093 is designed to codify and reorganize the provisions of
law relating to the new Department of Veterans Affairs.
Summary of Major Provisions of H.R. 5093
-- Strikes out the terms "administrator," "administered by the
Veterans Affairs," and "Veterans Administration." Inserts
the appropriate terminology to reflect the status of VA as
an Executive department headed by a "Secretary."
-- Provides the framework for the reorganization of the
Department. Establishes the positions of Under Secretary
for Health Affairs and Under Secretary for Benefits
Administration. Specifies the composition of other offices
and agencies within VA.
-- Enacts a new chapter 74 entitled "Veterans Health
Administration -- Personnel" which addresses personnel
administration, special pay for physicians, dentists, and
other health care providers. The new chapter also includes
disciplinary boards and Regional Medical Education Centers.
According to VA, the legislation is a necessary step in
completing the transition to an Executive department, and
complies with a congressional directive requiring these
2
conforming amendments. In addition, VA notes that the
legislation also provides the statutory authority for
reorganizations within VA to ensure that resources and personnel
are effectively utilized.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
10/11/90
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
July 20, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5112 - Home Health Care Demonstration Projects
Extension Act of 1990
(Bruce (D) IL and four others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 5112.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with HIMD (Kleinberg/Clendenin/Nakahata) HHS (per
Paul Spiegel, Office of the General Counsel) concurs in the
proposed position.
The Administration has not previously commented on H.R. 5112.
H.R. 5112 would reauthorize through FY 1993 the home health care
and Alzheimer's demonstration programs, which were first
authorized in 1987 as part of the Older Americans Act.
Home health care grants are made to States to provide skilled
medical services to low-income individuals who are uninsured, and
do not qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. H.R. 5112 would
(1) expand the services available to include home health aides or
personal care services, (2) expand the number of grants available
from five to ten, and (3) increase the authorization level from
$5 million for FY 1990 to $7.5 million for FY 1991. The bill
authorizes "such sums as may be necessary" for FYs 1992-93. (The
President's FY 1991 Budget contains no funding for this
activity.)
H.R. 5112 reauthorizes Alzheimer's care and treatment grants to
States to coordinate the development and operation of various
programs for individuals with Alzheimer's disease -- or related
disorders -- and to the families and care providers of these
families. H.R. 5112 would also reauthorize basic care to
Alzheimer's patients in health facilities and establish an
informational network on available services and the legal rights
of Alzheimer's patients. H.R. 5112 would increase the number of
available grants from five to ten and authorize appropriations of
$7.5 million for FY 1991 and "such sums as may be necessary" for
FYs 1992-93. (This authorization has not been funded by Congress
nor has funding been requested by the President.)
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
7/19/90
THE FINE CRESIDENT DEPARTMENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
July 20, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
o
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5113 - Injury Prevention and Control Amendments of 1990
(Bruce (D) IL and two others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 5113.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with HIMD (Kleinberg/Clendenin/Nakahata) HHS (per
Paul Spiegel, Office of the General Counsel) concurs in the
proposed position.
Administration Position to Date
The proposed position is consistent with the views expressed by
HHS in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on
June 27, 1990, on H.R. 5073 (the Subcommittee bill). The HHS
letter cited the Administration's concern over the authorization
level in H.R. 5073, which was higher than proposed in the
President's FY 1991 Budget. The authorization level in H.R. 5113
(the Committee bill) remains higher than the President's request.
H.R. 5113, as reported, would reauthorize the Centers for Disease
Control's injury control program. This program provides money
for research into preventing and treating injuries. The bill
would authorize appropriations of $30 million for FY 1991 and
"such sums as may be necessary" for FYs 1992 and 1993. (The
President's FY 1991 Budget contains $23 million for FY 1991 for
this activity.)
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
7/19/90
OFFICE PRINT STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 16, 1990
(House Floor)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5115 - Equity and Excellence in Education Act
(Hawkins (D) CA and 23 others)
The Administration strongly opposes the enactment of H.R. 5115.
The bill is a complex and costly amalgam of new program
authorities and duplicative and burdensome amendments to existing
programs. Its authorizations and student aid increases for FY
1991 alone are nearly $900 million above the President's Budget
for comparable activities. H.R. 5115 makes undesirable changes
to important provisions of the President's proposed Educational
Excellence Act. The bill also would establish Federal funding
goals for existing programs that call for increases of tens of
billions of dollars, which is totally unrealistic in the current
fiscal environment. If H.R. 5115 were presented to the President
in its current form, his senior advisers would recommend that it
be vetoed.
In addition, the Administration has the following specific
concerns about H.R. 5115 in its current form. The bill would:
-- Fail to authorize the President's Magnet Schools of
Excellence proposal. Magnet Schools are an effective way to
improve the quality of education and increase parental
choice.
-- Authorize a Presidential Schools of Distinction program (in
place of the Administration's Merit Schools) that restricts
participation to schools participating in Chapter 1
programs. This would exclude thousands of schools that
could benefit from these initiatives.
-- Establish a number of new, cumbersome and unjustified
requirements for adult literacy programs. Some of these new
requirements -- establishment of an Interagency Task Force
on Adult Literacy and a National Institute for Literacy --
raise constitutional concerns. They also duplicate existing
activities or authorized programs. For example, the
requirements for "Gateway Grants" and State advisory boards
on literacy are totally unnecessary for the improvement of
literacy. The creation of a new grant program solely for
commercial driver adult education is also unnecessary.
-- Authorize a number of poorly designed mechanisms to recruit
and retain teachers. The proposal to provide a separate
Perkins loan cancellation program for students who plan to
2
teach is objectionable. Evidence from similar programs
indicates that loan cancellation programs do not have a
significant impact on students' career decisions.
-- Make major changes to the Higher Education Act.
Consideration of these changes should await the upcoming
reauthorization of the Act. The bill would restrict the
Secretary's authority to address Pell grant funding
shortfalls. It also would change the calculation of
financial need for most student assistance programs to
increase the cost of the Pell grant program alone by at
least $166 million in the first year.
The Administration understands that a number of amendments to
H.R. 5115 may be offered on the House floor. The Administration
supports the goals of the Smith (VT) amendment (except for
section 1007) which, on a demonstration basis, would allow local
education agencies to combine specified programs' funds in
exchange for enhanced achievement for students. The
Administration also supports the goals of the Bartlett amendment
which would promote educational choice.
The Administration strongly opposes two other amendments to be
offered by Congressman Hawkins. The first amendment would bar
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from reviewing or
approving any statutorily-required reports, research or
evaluation plans, methodology, surveys, and findings. It also
requires that OMB's final determinations regarding Education
regulations be made in writing and included in the public
rulemaking record. These are intrusions into the functions and
prerogatives of the Executive Office of the President that limit
the President's ability to oversee the functions of Executive
branch agencies and jeopardize prudent administration of Federal
education programs. Even if all other objections were remedied,
if H.R. 5115 were presented to the President with this language,
his senior advisers would recommend veto.
The second amendment would require the Department of Education to
use negotiated rulemaking for all regulations. Education has
used negotiated rulemaking in Chapter 1 programs. An independent
study found that negotiated rulemaking is not an effective
strategy in large Federal education grant programs. Negotiated
rulemaking is expensive and time-consuming. This amendment would
cripple the Department's ability to issue needed regulations in a
timely basis.
The amendments. Administration reserves comment on the other proposed
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Duval) in consultation
with LVE (Barry White/Bayla White), and ES (Norine Noonan).
3
The Departments of Education (Jack Kristy), Justice (Mark
Pestal), and Labor (Mark Morin), the National Science Foundation
(John Chester), and the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(Kathy Yuracko) concur with the SAP as currently drafted. The
White House Office of Policy Development (Rae Nelson) and Office
of White House Counsel (Jay Bybee), and Office of Cabinet Affairs
(Holly Williamson) also agree with this position.
H.R. 5115 was introduced on June 21, 1990, and reported by the
House Committee on Education and Labor on June 27, 1990. The
bill is expected to be taken up by the House on July 16, 1990.
No report is available on H.R. 5115. This draft position is
based on information provided by the Department of Education
(Jack Kristy). The draft position is consistent with a letter
sent by the Department of Education on July 2, 1990, to the House
Committee on Education and Labor. The position is also
consistent with testimony by the Secretary of Education on
April 3, 1990, on a similar predecessor bill, H.R. 4379.
Major Provisions of H.R. 5115
H.R. 5115 would:
-- Establish a program of Presidential Schools of Distinction
to reward public and private elementary and secondary
schools that have made progress in: (1) improving student
achievement; (2) creating a safe and drug-free school
environment; and (3) reducing the dropout rate. The
Presidential Schools of Distinction program would be funded
at $280 million in FY 1991 increasing to $450 million in
FY 1993. This authority is conditional on the appropriation
of at least $5.6 billion for Chapter 1 elementary and
secondary school programs. The appropriations would be
allocated among the States using the formula for basic
grants.
-- Establish a new program for instruction on the history and
principles of democracy in the United States. The Secretary
of Education would be authorized to enter into a contract
with the Center for Civic Education to implement the
program. Authority is given to appropriate $5 million for
FY 1991 and sums as necessary for FYs 1992 and 1993.
-- Establish a National Science Scholars program to recognize
student excellence in physical, life, and computer sciences,
mathematics, and engineering. A $5 million authorization is
provided for FY 1991. Scholarships would be awarded by the
President. States would nominate from 4 to 10 students from
each congressional district and the President would select
at least 570 scholars.
-- Set literacy goals for the year 2000 and establish a number
of mechanisms intended to meet the goals. H.R. 5115
includes authority to appropriate $15 million in each of
4
FY 1991 through 1995 to fund these programs. An Interagency
Task Force on Literacy would be created to coordinate
literacy functions government-wide and measure progress
toward meeting literacy goals. The bill would establish the
National Institute for Literacy to conduct basic and applied
research and demonstrations on literacy. The Institute
would develop, implement, and evaluate policy on adult
literacy. The Governing Board of the Institute would
include the Secretaries of Education, Labor, and Health and
Human Services and eight others to be nominated by the
President and confirmed by the Senate. The President would
be required to select the eight members from literacy
organizations, businesses with interest in literacy, and
labor. The Institute would be required to submit an annual
report to the President and Congress. (Justice advises that
some of these requirements could infringe on the President's
prerogatives.)
-- Authorize the Department of Education to make formula grants
to States to establish a network of State or regional adult
literacy resource centers. H.R. 5115 would authorize annual
appropriations of $25 million from FYs 1991-1993. The
network would link the National Institute for Literacy and
literacy service providers.
-- Authorize appropriations for formula grants to States for
adult literacy programs at $280 million for FY 1991 and such
sums as necessary for FYs 1992-1995.
-- Authorize appropriations for challenge grants to States for
training and technology development to improve adult
literacy at $40 million for FY 1991 and amounts necessary
for FYs 1992-1995.
-- Establish a Literacy Leader Training Fund to make grants to
professional individuals pursuing careers in adult
education. Appropriations would be authorized for
$10 million in FY 1991 and for amounts necessary for
FYs 1992-1995.
-- Authorize the Secretary of Labor to make grants to business
and labor for model strategies for improving the basic
skills of workers. The bill would authorize an
appropriation of $40 million for FY 1991 and amounts
necessary for FYs 1992-1995.
-- Authorize the Department of Education to make grants for
increasing the skills of commercial drivers to businesses,
labor, colleges, and apprentice training programs. The bill
would authorize annual appropriations of $2.5 million for
this program in FYs 1991 and 1992.
-- Establish a number of new programs intended to recruit and
retain qualified teachers including:
5
Creation of a separate Perkins Loan program for students
who plan to teach. These students would have the option
to cancel one-third of the loan for each year of service
as a full-time teacher. Funds would be allocated among
institutions on the basis of the number of students who
receive Pell Grants. The bill would authorize annual
appropriations of $90 million for FYs 1991-1995.
Authority for formula grants to States for institutions
of higher education developing innovative programs to
recruit and retain students preparing to become teachers.
The bill would authorize appropriations of $90 million
for FY 1991 and sums necessary for FYs 1992-1995.
Authority for grants to States for professional
development academies that give in-service training for
teachers and administrators. The bill would authorize an
appropriation of $270 million for FY 1991 and amounts
necessary for FYs 1992-1995.
Authority for awards of $5,000 to excellent elementary
and secondary school teachers. The bill would authorize
annual appropriations of $5 million for FYs 1991-1993.
Authority for the Department of Education to allot to
States funds for developing and implementing programs to
provide nontraditional routes for fulfilling teacher
licensure requirements. The bill would authorize an
appropriation of $15 million for FY 1991.
-- Amend the Pell Grant program in the following ways:
Require the Secretary to expend funds from the following
year's appropriation when funds in one year are
insufficient to satisfy all entitlements.
Exclude from the calculation of "assets" a family's
principal residence or family farm for FY 1992-1993.
-- Amend the requirements for the National Summit Conference on
Education to increase the representation of members of the
Senate and House of Representatives.
-- Authorize grants to State or local educational agencies,
colleges, or consortia to demonstrate exemplary diagnostic
assessment systems. The bill would authorize an
appropriation of $20 million for FY 1991 and amounts
necessary for FYs 1992-1995.
In addition, the bill is replete with statements that begin, "It
is the policy of the United States that
"
These provide
rhetorical points that are used repeatedly to chastise the
Administration for insufficient funding. Examples of the bill's
policy statements are:
6
-- Enrollment of every eligible woman, infant and child in WIC;
-- Service for every student eligible for Chapter 1 (i.e.,
doubling the $5 billion program) ;
-- A Federal training grant for every elementary and secondary
math or science teacher;
-- An increase in the Pell maximum award by $1,400 (every $100
costs $250 million) by 1995, and 10 percent per year
thereafter; and
-- An expansion of student aid for middle income students.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
7/13/90
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 13, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5131, Extension of Civil Penalty Assessment Program
(Oberstar (D) Minnesota and Clinger (R) Pennsylvania)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 5131.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Brown), in consultation with
the Departments of Transportation (Herlihy) and Justice
(Dulmage), OIRA (Clarke), and TCJ (Adkins, Pheto, and McClean).
Background
In 1987, on a demonstration project basis, Congress authorized
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to assess civil
penalties up to a maximum of $50,000 for violations of its safety
regulations. Under this project, penalties are assessed and
enforced administratively rather than through the courts. This
program is currently scheduled to expire on July 30, 1990.
Provisions of H.R. 5131
A copy of H.R. 5131, as ordered reported by the House Public
Works and Transportation Committee, is not available. According
to Department of Transportation (DOT) staff (Herlihy), the bill
would:
-- Extend the civil penalty assessment program until
August 1, 1992.
-- Relieve (in limited, specified circumstances) an airport
operator of responsibility for violation of an
FAA-approved airport security program if the violation is
committed by an airport tenant.
-- Require the Administrative Conference of the United States
to study whether DOT's authority to adjudicate
administrative complaints under the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958 should be transferred to another agency such as
the National Transportation Safety Board. A report would
be due within 18 months of enactment. Appropriations of
$50,000 would be authorized for this study.
2
Administration Position To Date
The Administration has not previously taken a position on
H.R. 5131. However, a legislative proposal submitted to the
Congress by the Department of Transportation proposed to extend
this program until December 30, 1991.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
7/12/90 - 3:30 P.M.
OFFICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 20, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5146 National Organ Transplant Program
Extension Act of 1990
(Waxman (D) CA and seven others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 5146.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with HIMD (Kleinberg/Clendenin/Nakahata). HHS (per
Paul Spiegel, Office of General Counsel) concurs in the proposed
position.
Administration Position to Date
The proposed position is consistent with the views expressed by
HHS in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on
June 27, 1990, on H.R. 5146. The draft position also is
consistent with testimony given by the Health Resources and
Services Administration before the House Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment on April 20, 1990.
Summary of H.R. 5146
-- Authorizes appropriations of $5 million annually for
FYs 1991-93 for HHS' National Organ Transplant Program,
which helps procure and match human organs and tissues used
in transplants. (The President's FY 1991 Budget includes
$3.3 million for this activity.)
-- Authorizes appropriations of $15 million for FY 1991 and
"such sums as may be necessary" for FYs 1992-93 for the Bone
Marrow Registry. (The Bone Marrow Registry is presently
maintained by the National Marrow Donor Program within the
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.) The President's
FY 1991 Budget includes $3.7 million for the Bone Marrow
Registry.
-- Reauthorizes HHS' Scientific Registry of Transplant
Recipients -- a national database that tracks transplant
recipients until donor organ rejection or death.
2
-- Repeals a requirement that organ procurement organizations
be expected to obtain organs from at least 50 donors a year
in order to receive Federal assistance. (Agencies in
smaller and less populated areas have complained that the
requirement unfairly limited their ability to participate in
the Federal program.)
-- Reauthorizes the office within the Public Health Service
responsible for administering HHS' organ procurement and
transplantation activities.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
7/19/90
THE DEPARTMENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 10, 1990
o
(House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5170 Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act
(Oberstar (D) MN and 3 others)
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 5170.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Jukes and Brown), in
consultation with the Departments of Transportation (Herlihy),
Defense (Potok), the Treasury (Kaufman), Commerce (Brown), and
the Interior (Poling), GSA (Brady), TCJ (Schwartz, Pheto, and
McLean), NS (Murdoch), OFPP (Coleman), GC (Rettman), and BRD
(Zimmerman).
A copy of H.R. 5170 as ordered reported by the House Public Works
and Transportation Committee is not available for review. The
following description is based on a draft provided by the
Department of Transportation (DOT) (Herlihy).
Background
The authorizations for the major programs of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) expire on September 30, 1990. The
passenger, cargo, and fuel taxes that support these programs
expire on December 31, 1990. In March, DOT proposed legislation
to reauthorize FAA for five years and to extend and increase the
taxes. (H.R. 5170 does not contain tax provisions, as they are
not under the jurisdiction of the Public Works and Transportation
Committee.)
H.R. 5170
H.R. 5170 contains two titles. Title I authorizes FY 1991 and
1992 appropriations for programs of the FAA and the Commerce
Department's Weather Service. It also revises the Essential Air
Program; authorizes airports to impose passenger facility
charges; and provides for grants to develop former and joint use
military airports for civilian purposes.
Title II establishes procurement authorities and rules for the
FAA. Other than the multi-year contracts termination provision,
these provisions are generally comparable to proposals in the
Administration's bill.
The principal provisions of H.R. 5170 are described in more
detail below.
-- Appropriations Authorizations.
H.R. 5170 would reauthorize FAA programs as shown in the table
below.
(fiscal years; BA in $ millions)
Enacted
1991
1992
1990
Pres. HR 5170
Pres. HR 5170
Airport grants
1,651
1,800
1,800
1,800
1,900
Facilities and equipment
...
1,721
2,500
2,500
3,000
3,000
Research
170
190
255*
195
268*
Operations
3,824
** 4,088
** 4,413
Total, FAA
7,366
8,578
8,643
9,441
9,581
NOAA Weather Service
30
30
34.5
30
35.4
* These amounts, reported by the House Science, Space, and
Technology Committee, are not currently in the bill but are
expected to be added to it.
** The Administration did not request an authorization for FAA
operations because it believes that this account is already
covered by a standing "such sums" authorization. The
authorization levels for this purpose in H.R. 5170, however, are
consistent with appropriations requested in the President's FY
1991 budget.
-2-
-- "Penalty Provision. "
Under current law, 72 percent of FAA's budget is to be derived
from the Airport and Airways Trust Fund. However, a "penalty
provision" is triggered if actual appropriations for airport
grants, facilities and equipment, and research are lower than the
amounts authorized. The "penalty provision" reduces the funding
for FAA operations which may be derived from the Trust Fund by
$2.50 for each $1.00 of the shortfall. As a result of this
"penalty provision", only 58 percent of the FAA's FY 1990 budget
will actually be derived from the Trust Fund. The remainder will
come from General Fund appropriations.
H.R. 5170 would eliminate this "penalty provision," and provide
for 75 percent of the FAA's budget to be derived from the Trust
Fund. (By comparison, the Administration had proposed to
eliminate the "penalty provision" and recover 85 percent of the
FAA's total budget from the Trust Fund.)
-- Essential Air Service (EAS).
The EAS program subsidizes air service to small communities for
which such service would not otherwise be economically feasible.
H.R. 5170 would make several changes in this program, including:
(1) freezing eligibility of communities receiving EAS subsidies
after January 1, 1990, and which have not already been declared
ineligible by DOT; (2) prohibiting DOT from declaring communities
ineligible on the basis of excessive per-passenger costs or any
other basis not specified by statute; (3) funding the EAS program
from the Airport and Airways Trust Fund rather than the General
Fund and through contract authority rather than appropriations
authority; and (4) authorizing the obligation of $38.6 million
for each of FYs 1992-1998. This represents a $12 million
increase over FY 1991 levels. According to DOT, the bill's
authors intend that the additional funding be used to improve
facilities and equipment involved in the EAS program rather than
to increase levels of service.
-- Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs).
H.R. 5170 would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to
permit commercial airport authorities to impose PFCs. PFCs, at
the discretion of the Secretary, could be set at $1.00, $2.00, or
$3.00 per paying passenger. Proceeds from PFCs could be used
only to finance airport-related projects specifically approved by
the Secretary.
Where PFCs are approved for certain large and medium hub
airports, Airport Improvement Program apportionments would be
reduced in accordance with a formula set forth in the bill.
(These funds would be reapportioned, with 25 percent devoted to
an existing discretionary fund and 75 percent to a new fund to
assist small and non-hub airports.)
-3-
Airports would be prohibited from imposing PFCs on passengers
enplaning on EAS-subsidized flights. Moreover, airports would be
prohibited from imposing such charges for any project not
approved by the Secretary before September 30, 1992, if: (1)
aggregate amounts available for obligation for airport and
airways purposes during FYs 1991 and 1992 are below $3.7 billion;
or (2) amounts available for obligation for the EAS program are
lower than $26,600,000 in FY 1991 or $38,600,000 in FY 1992.
-- Former Military Airports.
H.R. 5170 would require the Secretary of Transportation to
conduct a survey and designate up to eight current or former
military airports for development "to improve the capacity of the
air transportation system." The bill would also require that at
least 1.5 percent of Airport Improvement Grant funds for FYs 1991
and 1992 be set aside for grants to the developers of these
airports. Should applications for such grants be insufficient to
support this level of funding, however, Transportation could
reallocate these funds to other airport improvement purposes.
-- Procurement.
H.R. 5170 would, consistent with the Administration's draft FAA
reauthorization bill, (1) authorize the FAA to enter into leases
of up to 20 years without GSA supervision (instead of only for
one year with GSA approval, as is currently the case) ; and (2)
transfer certain authorities relating to procurements of property
and services, limitation of competition for procurements, and
sole source procurements from the Secretary of Transportation to
the FAA Administrator.
In addition, H.R. 5170 would authorize the FAA to enter into
multi-year contracts for the acquisition of property or services
for periods of up to 5 years. Where such contracts are
terminated, the FAA (like the Department of Defense) would be
permitted to fund the costs of termination from appropriations
(1) for the performance of the contract concerned; (2) for the
performance of similar contracts; or (3) specifically enacted to
fund the termination of the contract. By contrast, the
Administration would have required the FAA to obligate amounts
equal to anticipated termination costs during the first year of
such contracts.
-- Miscellaneous.
In addition to the above provisions, H.R. 5170 would: (1) extend,
by one year, a pilot program of block grants for States for
airport purposes which is currently scheduled to expire on
September 30, 1991; (2) require the FAA to report to Congress on
methods of improving air safety in the Caribbean and Miami air
traffic control regions (the FAA would be prohibited from
contracting for the private operation of two specified airport
-4-
control towers in the Virgin Islands until 30 days after the
report has been submitted to Congress) ; (3) require the FAA to
rebuild, within 120 days of enactment, a radar facility in the
Virgin Islands destroyed by Hurricane Hugo; and (4) require the
Secretary of Transportation to provide Congress, within 180 days
of enactment, a plan for developing and implementing a system of
manned auxiliary flight service stations.
Administration Position to Date
The Administration has not previously taken a position on
H.R. 5170. However, DOT and OMB officials have indicated
informally to Chairman Oberstar that H.R. 5170 would be
acceptable to the Administration.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
7/6/90 -- 6:30 p.m.
-5-
DEFICE WTM PRESIDENT* UKITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
0
September 24, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5204 Tribal Herd Cattle Project
(Johnson (D) South Dakota)
The Administration strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 5204. If
H.R. 5204 is presented to the President in its current form, the
Secretary of the Interior will recommend that he veto the bill.
H.R. 5204 duplicates existing program authorities, is
inconsistent with Federal credit policies involving direct and
guaranteed loan subsidies, and would require the Department of
the Interior to assume additional costs related to technical
assistance grants that should be borne by the project
participants.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This position was developed by LRD (Goad) in consultation with
NRD (Gibbons, Cogswell and Tuccillo), Interior (Mills),
Agriculture (McAndrew), Justice (DeSanctis) and Treasury
(Kaufman).
Administration Position to Date
The Department of the Interior, in testimony before the House
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on July 24, 1990,
opposed H.R. 5204. At that same hearing, Agriculture deferred to
Interior on the need for such a program. Interior policy
officials now advise that a single agency veto threat will likely
kill the bill in the House, which is their reason for switching
to that position. A companion bill (S. 3083) has been introduced
in the Senate.
Provisions of H.R. 5204
The major provisions of H.R. 5204 are:
-- to create tribal cattle herd programs using Department
of the Interior low-interest loans or loan guarantees
to assist in the establishment or expansion of Indian-
owned cattle operations;
-- to provide for additional loan commitments or direct
loans with interest rates set at 5 percent regardless
of market conditions; and
-- to require the Department of the Interior to assume the
costs related the technical assistance grants.
Administration Objections to H.R. 5204
The Administration opposes H.R. 5204 for the following reasons:
-- Authority already exists to establish a tribal cattle
herd project using Federal loan guarantees. During the
past two years, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
earmarked $5 million in direct loan commitments at
Treasury interest rates to support Indian agricultural
enterprises. Demand for such credit has been less than
expected, leaving part of the $5 million in loan
commitments available for other purposes.
-- Fixed 5 percent interest rates on direct and guaranteed
loans is inconsistent with Federal credit policies as
provided in OMB Circular No. A-70. Circular A-70
requires that interest rates on new direct loans or
interest subsidies be related to market interest rates
and responsive to changes in capital market conditions.
-- Direct loan assistance to support the provisions of
H.R. 5204 could affect the Department's ability to make
loans to other tribes or individual Indians unless
additional Federal capital is appropriated.
-- The administrative costs supporting the project
consortium and the technical assistance grants should
be borne by the participating tribes and individuals.
The Department would likely incur the additional costs
of the technical assistance grants.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
September 21, 1990 - 5:45 PM
TOTAL THE PRESIDENT SECURITY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 22, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5237 - Native American Grave Protection
and Repatriation Act
(Udall (D) Arizona and three others)
The Administration supports the goals of H.R. 5237, but opposes
enactment in its current form. We will work in the Senate to
address the following issues:
-- If remains and funerary objects are not linked to
or claimed by a contemporary tribe, the Federal
government should maintain stewardship
responsibilities over the remains.
-- Aboriginal occupation should not be the sole
criteria for establishing affinity where no
affinity to contemporary groups can be
established.
-- Additional studies should be allowed where
necessary to ensure a correct determination of
affinity.
-- Because the time and costs for Federal agencies
to inventory their collections could be
substantial, Federal agencies should be given the
same opportunities for extensions of time for
inventorying items as would be provided to
museums.
-- The broad categories of "sacred objects" and
"objects of cultural patrimony" should be deleted
from the operation of this bill.
-- The review committee established in this bill
should be purely advisory in nature.
Additionally, conservative estimates suggest that full
implementation of H.R. 5237 could cost as much as $20 million.
Such costs are inappropriate given the current budget situation.
*****
2
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This position was developed by LRD (Goad) in consultation with
NRD (Tuccillo, Cogswell and Gibbons), ES (Norman), Defense
(Potuk), Interior (Harris), Justice (Malmquist), and Smithsonian
(Gaynor).
Administration Position to Date
The Departments of the Interior and Justice have sent reports to
the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs opposing
H.R. 5237. Justice's report advised that H.R. 5237 would violate
the Takings Clause of the Constitution. The bill has been
amended to resolve the Takings issue.
Provisions of H.R. 5237
The major provisions of H.R. 5237 would establish:
-- as a general premise that the descendants or
native tribes own, control, or have right of
possession of Native American human remains,
funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of
inalienable communal property;
-- criminal penalties for the sale, purchase, use
for profit, or transport of any Native American
human remain, funerary object, sacred object, or
object of inalienable communal property;
-- inventory and identification procedures for those
Federal agencies and museums which have
possession or control over holdings or
collections of these artifacts;
-- a repatriation process to tribes for excavated
remains and funerary objects; and
-- a committee to monitor and review the
implementation of the inventory and
identification process and repatriation
activities.
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make grants to
Native American tribes or organizations and museums to assist in
the inventory, identification, and repatriation of excavated
remains and funerary objects.
3
Administration Objections to H.R. 5237
The Administration opposes H.R. 5237 for the following reasons:
-- Authority to repatriate remains, funerary
objects, sacred materials, and cultural patrimony
currently exists; the highly structured
bureaucracy superimposed by the legislation is
unnecessary and undesirable.
-- A commission, independent of the Smithsonian,
would have oversight and advisory authority over
the Smithsonian's repatriation program.
-- The legislative definitions are fixed and
inflexible, and would invite lengthy and costly
litigation.
-- The full cost of H.R. 5237 cannot be determined,
and preliminary estimates suggest that
implementation would be at least $20 million.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
October 20, 1990 - 2:00 P.M.
EDUCATION PRESIDENT MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 21, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5255 National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Establishment Act Amendments of 1990
(Studds (D) Massachusetts and 3 others)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of H.R. 5255
which reauthorizes the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
However, the Administration strongly objects to the nearly five-
fold increase in the funding authorization for the Foundation
provided by H.R. 5255, and will seek amendments in the Senate to
eliminate this increase.
Chartered in 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Foundation was
established to attract private sector funding to complement the
activities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and
Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act authorized "seed money"
totaling $1 million over a period of ten years. The legislative
intent was that the Foundation would become self-sustaining.
The Foundation, however, has received ever-increasing amounts of
Federal moneys. In 1988, the ceiling on Federal funding was
increased to $5 million for each of fiscal years 1988 through
1993, and H.R. 5255 would increase the amount to $15 million for
FY 1991, to $20 million for FY 1992, and to $25 million for
FY 1993.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Goad) in consultation
with NRD (Kaplan, Cogswell, and Gibbons).
Interior Position
The Department of the Interior (Moore) encourages stronger
opposition to the bill. The Department recommends that the first
paragraph be replaced with the following one sentence:
"The Administration opposes House passage of
H.R. 5255."
Furthermore, the Department recommends that the following be
included as the final paragraph:
2
"H.R. 5255 violates the original self-sufficiency
intent of the Establishment Act, perpetuates the
Foundation's growing dependency upon Federal funding
and exhibits fiscal irresponsibility."
Administration Position to date
The Department of the Interior opposed H.R. 5255 in House
testimony on July 31, 1990. The testimony made the points
highlighted in the second and third paragraphs of this SAP. The
testimony also noted that "[i]t is time to return to the original
intent, and have the Foundation concentrate its efforts on
raising private sector funds to carry out its programs."
Provisions of H.R. 5255
H.R. 5255 would amend the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Establishment Act to:
-- authorize appropriations in the form of matching
grants from the Department of the Interior of not
to exceed $15 million for fiscal year 1991, not
to exceed $20 million for fiscal year 1992, and
not to exceed $25 million for fiscal year 1993;
-- prohibit the use of Federal funds for the
administrative expenses of the Foundation;
-- remove the existing cap on salaries of Foundation
employees; and
-- prohibit contributions used for administrative
expenses from being considered for purposes of
determining amounts to be matched by Federal
monies.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment Act
established the Foundation as a charitable and nonprofit
corporation. The Foundation was chartered to attract and
administer private gifts or property for the benefit of, or in
connection with, the activities and services of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The Establishment Act authorized appropriations of $1 million to
the Department of the Interior to be made available to the
Foundation over a ten-year period. The legislative intent was
for the Foundation to become self-sustaining. Appropriations
were to match, on a one-for-one basis, private contributions made
to the Foundation and to provide administrative services and
support.
3
The 1988 Amendment (P.L. 100-240) increased the Foundation's
appropriation authorization to $5 million for each of fiscal
years 1988 through 1993 and changed the matching grant standards
(partial matching allowed). H.R. 5255 proposes to increase the
Foundation's appropriation five-fold.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
September 20, 1990 - 3:45 p.m.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 10, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5267 - Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1990
(Markey (D) Massachusetts and Rinaldo (R) New Jersey)
The Administration strongly opposes reregulation of the cable
television industry. If H.R. 5267 were presented to the
President in its current form, his senior advisers would
recommend a veto.
The Administration opposes H.R. 5267 because it imposes a new
regime of Federal regulation over the cable industry beyond that
established in the Cable Act of 1984. Specifically, the
Administration opposes provisions that would implement additional
Federal regulation over cable rates. The Administration also
opposes provisions that place restrictions on the ability of
cable programmers to distribute their product.
The Administration opposes Section 15 of H.R. 5267 that would
restrict foreign ownership of U.S. cable systems. Such a
restriction invites retaliation by other nations that could
stifle the growing investment of U.S. firms in foreign cable
systems and could hinder U.S. efforts to open foreign markets.
These provisions would violate existing international obligations
under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's
(OECD) Code of Liberalization of Capital Movements and would
undercut U.S. efforts in the OECD and the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade.
In addition, Sections 4 and 5 of H.R. 5267 would require cable
operators to carry the signals of certain television stations.
This would be required regardless of whether the cable operator
believes that the stations are appropriate for inclusion in its
package of services, and regardless of whether such inclusion
reflects the desires and tastes of cable subscribers. The
Administration believes that these "must carry" requirements
would raise most serious constitutional questions under the First
Amendment by infringing upon the editorial discretion exercised
by cable operators in their selection of programming.
Section 3 of H.R. 5267 also raises similar constitutional
concerns by requiring cable operators to offer, as one of their
service options, a prescribed "basic service tier" to which they
may not add any video programming.
2
The Administration continues to believe that competition, rather
than regulation, creates the most substantial benefits for
consumers, and the greatest opportunities for American industry.
Consistent with this principle, the Administration supports
removing barriers to entry by new competitors into the video
services marketplace. Congress should consider removing the
current legislative prohibitions on telephone company entry found
in the 1984 Cable Act as an alternative to instituting a
burdensome and unnecessary regulatory regime.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Fotias), in consultation with
the Departments of Commerce (Powell), Justice (Dalmage), Treasury
(Levy), White House Counsel (Paoletta), TCJ (Edwards/Schwartz),
OIRA (Veeder), and IA (Dorsey).
Description of H.R. 5267
H.R. 5267 amends the Communications Act of 1934 in the following
areas:
O
RATE REGULATION
The FCC is required to establish a formula, to be initiated
120 days after enactment, for setting the maximum price cable
operators could charge for a local broadcasting tier.
The FCC is to develop criteria for identifying those in the
cable industry, within 180 days of enactment, that employ an
"unreasonable or abusive" standard for rates. The FCC's
"unreasonable or abusive" standard would be applied to
existing rates. Rates for similarly situated cable systems
offering comparable cable programming services would be among
the criteria to be taken into account by the FCC. A
franchising authority, or other relevant State or local
government entity, would be authorized to file a complaint
with the FCC. The FCC would be required to establish
procedures for resolving such complaints and for reducing
rates it deems unreasonable or abuse.
Programming for which consumers pay extra on a monthly basis
or pay-per-view special events that are paid for per
performance would remain unregulated under the bill.
The FCC would be required to set national standards for the
cost of providing such miscellaneous cable services as remote
control devices.
3
ACCESS TO PROGRAMMING
Vertically integrated cable programming services would be
prohibited by FCC regulations, to be in place 180 days after
enactment, from unreasonably refusing to deal with any
multichannel video system operator concerning the provision of
video programming. This prohibition would sunset nine years
after the date of enactment. The sunset could end earlier
under certain conditions: the sunset would be lifted
nationwide if the FCC determines that a "competitive national
market" exists for the delivery of video programming; the
sunset could end earlier at the local level if the FCC finds
that a competitive market exists on the local level.
An exclusive contract would be permitted as long as it does
not significantly impede competition.
Multichannel video system operators would be prohibited, by
FCC rules to be in place one year after enactment, from:
-- coercing programmers to enter into exclusive contracts as a
condition of carriage;
-- requiring a financial interest in a program service as a
condition of carriage; and
-- discriminating on the basis of affiliation with regard to
terms and conditions of carriage.
Any person who encrypts (scrambles) any satellite delivered
programming would be required to:
-- make such programming available for private viewing by home
satellite antenna users;
-- establish reasonable and nondiscriminatory financial,
technical, service and character criteria for dealing with
programming distributors; and
-- establish nondiscriminatory price, terms and conditions for
distribution of such programming.
MUST CARRY AND CHANNEL POSITIONING
Cable operators would be required to carry public and
commercial television stations pursuant to the agreements
reached by the National Cable Television Association (NCTA)
with the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the
Association of Independent Television Stations (INTV), and the
National Association of Public Television Stations (NAPTS).
4
Under this agreement, cable operators would be required to
reserve about 25 percent of their total channel capacity for
local broadcast signals.
CONSUMER PROTECTION AND CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS
Minimum Federal standards for customer service and consumer
protection enactment. would be established by the FCC within 180 days of
Local authorities would be allowed to seek enhanced customer
service and consumer protection standards as (or when) they
renegotiate their franchise agreements. States and franchise
authorities would retain the ability to enact legislation
imposing more stringent consumer protection standards.
The FCC would conduct an inquiry, to be initiated 60 days
after enactment, to determine whether standards for such
consumer-related cable equipment as converter boxes and remote
controls are necessary. In addition, the FCC would be
required to study whether various cable-enabling technologies
should be required in all television sets.
TECHNICAL STANDARDS
The FCC would establish minimum technical standards, within
one year of enactment, for the technical operation and signal
quality of cable systems.
FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Cable operators would be required to file financial
information with the FCC on an annual basis.
HOME WIRING
The FCC would establish rules concerning the disposition of
any cable, installed by a cable operator within the premises
of a subscriber, after such subscriber terminates service.
ANTI-TRAFFICKING
Cable operators would not be permitted to sell or transfer
ownership in a cable system within 36 months following the
acquisition or initial construction of that system, subject to
certain exceptions.
LEASED ACCESS
The FCC would establish a formula, within 180 days of
charge for leased access.
enactment, to determine the maximum rates a cable operator may
5
Cable operators would be permitted to reduce their leased
access obligations (a fixed percentage set by the 1984 Cable
Act) on a one-to-one basis, up to 1/3 of required leased
access capacity, by providing access for minority cable
programming services.
FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CABLE SYSTEMS
Current restrictions on foreign ownership that apply to
broadcast and common carrier licensees would be extended to
cable, wireless cable, and DBS systems. Corporate licensees
would be limited to 20 percent alien ownership of capital
stock while holding companies would be limited to no more than
25 percent foreign ownership.
H.R. 5267 would "grandfather" foreign ownership of those cable
systems already in place while limiting their future growth.
THEFT OF CABLE SERVICE
Penalties for theft of cable service would be brought into
conformity with those for theft of satellite signals.
DIVERSITY, COMPETITION, AND THE FUTURE OF THE VIDEO
MARKETPLACE
The FCC would be required:
-- to conduct a study and report to Congress, within one year
of enactment, on diversity and competition in the video
marketplace, including whether to place limits on
horizontal and vertical integration.
-- to submit a report to Congress, the first one due 18 months
after the promulgation of regulations, on the status of
competition in the market for the delivery of video
programming.
-- to initiate a rulemaking proceeding, within 180 days of
enactment, to impose access to broadcast time, use of
facilities, and other public interest requirements on DBS
systems not regulated as common carriers and to consider
the implications of DBS for localism. DBS operators would
be required to reserve 4 percent to 7 percent of channel
capacity for noncommercial public service uses. A study
panel would be established to consider strategies for
promoting and identifying sources of funding for such use.
-- to conduct an inquiry and rulemaking, 45 days after
enactment, to determine whether its rules act as barriers
to the use of smaller receivers by home satellite dish
owners.
6
-- to submit to Congress a report by January 1, 1995,
concerning the effects of exclusive licensing arrangements
for video programming on competition between classes of
multichannel video system operators.
-- to report to Congress by January 1, 1994, on the financial
condition, profitability, rates and performance of the
cable industry.
-- to submit to Congress, within one year of enactment, a
report, including legislative recommendations, regarding
the status, direction, and future of the U.S. video
marketplace.
Administration Position To Date
The Departments of Justice and Commerce co-signed letters
opposing pending legislation (S. 1880 and H.R. 5267) to
re-regulate the cable industry to Chairman Hollings of the Senate
Commerce Committee and Chairman Dingell of the House Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications on June 6, 1990, and
June 26, 1990, respectively. It has been the consistent position
of the Administration that competition, rather than regulation,
creates the most substantial benefits for consumers and the
greatest opportunities for American industry.
The Commerce Department testified on July 24, 1990, before the
Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications that, if
S. 1880 were presented to the President in its current form, the
Commerce Department would recommend a veto.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/10/90 -- 9:30 a.m.
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 10, 1990
(House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5269 - Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990
(Brooks (D) Texas and Hughes (D) New Jersey)
If H.R. 5269 were presented to the President in its current form,
his senior advisors would recommend a veto.
The President supports anti-crime legislation along the lines of
the "Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act of 1989" that he
transmitted to Congress last year. Major provisions of that
measure (H.R. 2709) would: (1) establish the procedures
necessary to institute the death penalty for certain Federal
offenses; (2) restore an appropriate degree of finality to State
and Federal criminal convictions by curtailing abuses of the writ
of habeas corpus; and (3) reform the "exclusionary rule" by
making admissible evidence obtained as a result of a search or
seizure undertaken in objectively reasonable good faith, as
determined by a court.
H.R. 5269 would accomplish none of these objectives. On the
contrary, it would:
Establish procedures that would effectively abolish the
death penalty in the United States.
Reduce the degree of finality of convictions by
weakening procedures relating to habeas corpus.
Establish "exclusionary rule" procedures that would
reverse existing case law by creating additional
barriers to the admissibility of evidence.
Excessively increase authorization levels for
drug enforcement beyond those provided in the
President's 1991 Budget for Federal grants for State
and local law enforcement and criminal justice systems.
The President's Budget already provides for a 21
percent increase in State and local drug assistance,
which will expand funding 161 percent since FY 1989.
While H.R. 5269 does contain a number of meritorious features,
the Administration will propose amendments to rectify its
deficiencies, including those noted above. The Administration
will continue to work with Congress toward the enactment of
effective anti-crime legislation.
2
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This Statement of Administration Policy was drafted by the
Legislative Reference Division (Fotias), in consultation with the
Departments of Justice (Webber), Transportation (Bronner), State
(Davis), Education (Riddle), Health and Human Services (Barnes),
and the Treasury (Kaufman), and the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (Rivait), White House Counsel (Lund), OPD
(McGettigan), GC (Aitken), Cabinet Affairs (Williamson) and TCJ
(Schwartz/Duke).
Description of H.R. 5269
-- Title I -- Correctional Options Incentives Amendments
Provides for a new program of Federal assistance for
experimental State correctional projects, such as community-based
and weekend incarceration, boot camps, electronic monitoring, and
intensive supervision probation. Authorizes $300 million in
special discretionary grants to be administered by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA), including a maximum of four grants to
public agencies, and grants to private nonprofit organizations
without numerical restriction.
-- Title II -- Death Penalty
Authorizes capital punishment for a limited number of
offenses where the specified acts were committed with the
intention of causing death. This is a basic departure from prior
Federal death penalty law and the general pattern of State death
penalty law. Title II establishes procedures that bar the
imposition of the death penalty unless at least two aggravating
factors are found. This holds even if no mitigating factors are
found, or where a single aggravating factor clearly outweighs any
mitigating factors. This title compares unfavorably to existing
Federal death penalty statutes and the President's proposal which
do not require "intent to kill" or extensive procedural rules.
-- Title VI -- Law Enforcement Scholarships and Recruitment
Incentives
Establishes a $30 million program for law enforcement
officers' scholarships and part-time employment for students
interested in a career in law enforcement. The program would be
administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and would
require 50 percent matching by States. Funds would be split 75-
25 between scholarship and part-time work programs.
-- Title VII -- Firearms Provisions
3
crime bill (H.R. 2709). Title VII adds the banning of domestic
assembly of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns that are barred
from importation. This has the effect of banning "in production"
weapons and those manufactured for legitimate export to foreign
law enforcement entities. The title provides for increased
penalties for unlawful possession of firearms in Federal court
facilities. It provides a mandatory minimum penalty of ten years
imprisonment for using a short-barreled rifle or shotgun in a
drug trafficking crime or crime of violence. In addition, it
creates mandatory penalties for use of destructive devices
(bombs) that equate to those required for use of machine guns or
silenced weapons. These provisions fall short of the President's
bill by omitting a large number of firearms related provisions.
-- Title XIII -- Habeas Corpus
Establishes a one year limit on the time allowed for filing
appeals, and extensive procedures for processing "death row"
appeals. Permits challenges to the validity of capital sentences
in repetitive filings, even if those filings have been rejected
by the Federal courts in earlier petitions. Allows the
overturning of sentences by applying "new law" decisions
retroactively. Requires all States seeking to enforce a death
penalty to create an elaborate and expensive system for
appointing counsel in capital cases.
-- Title XV -- Criminal Aliens
Adds illicit trafficking in any controlled substance to the
definition of "aggravated felony" under the immigration laws and
changes the arrest authority of INS officers. Clarifies that the
Attorney General must take into custody an alien convicted of an
aggravated felony on release from incarceration. Conditions
Justice assistance funding on the submission by the States of
alien conviction records to the INS within 30 days of conviction.
-- Title XVIII -- Racially Discriminatory Capital Sentencing
This title is a variant of the so-called "Racial Justice
Act" which would authorize the invalidation of capital sentences
on the basis of statistical disparities among various offender
and victim classes in the imposition of capital punishment. It
imposes the burden of proof on the prosecution to show no
discrimination exists in the face of statistical disparities.
-- Other Provisions
The bill contains a number of other provisions such as:
Anabolic Steroids provisions which place such chemicals
on the controlled substances list and provide criminal
4
penalties for coaches or others who endeavor to
persuade or induce athletes to use steroids;
Asset Forfeiture provisions which authorize quarterly
transfers from the Justice Asset Forfeiture Fund to the
Special Forfeiture Fund, and effectively bar the
transfer of forfeited assets to State law enforcement
activities where State law prohibits such transfers;
Drug Paraphernalia provisions which make it a Federal
offense to sell or offer for sale drug paraphernalia;
Obstruction of Justice provision which increases
penalties for extreme acts of criminal violence against
witnesses, jurors, and court officers;
Shock Incarceration provision which authorizes "boot
camp" type programs;
Public Safety Officers' Disability Benefits program
which would authorize a one-time $100,000 Federal
benefit to public safety officers who become
permanently and totally disabled in the line of duty
[capped at a total of $5 million annually];
Intoxication and Restitution provision which clarifies
that the bar to discharge in bankruptcy for debts
arising from driving while intoxicated includes
intoxication resulting from drugs other than alcohol;
and
Child Abuse provisions which create new grant programs
relating to the handling of child abuse cases.
Position To Date
A May 21, 1990, Statement of Administration Policy on S. 1970,
companion to H.R. 5269, stated that the President's senior
advisers would recommend that S. 1970 be vetoed if it were
presented to the President without addressing satisfactorily the
Administration's concerns. The Justice Department has prepared a
report on H.R. 5269 for transmittal to the House leadership by
September 10, 1990, stating that if H.R. 5269 were presented to
the President without satisfactorily addressing the Department's
concerns, the Attorney General would recommend a veto.
Legislative Reference Division
9/10/90 -- 5:00 p.m.
RESIDENTER MASSACHUSETTS UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 21, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5314 - Water Resources Development Act of 1990
(Anderson (D) California and three others)
Any new Water Resources Development Act must preserve the
critical cost sharing principles and policy reforms established
by the Water Resources Development Acts (WRDA) of 1986 and 1988.
These reforms emphasize high priority urban flood control and
commercial navigation water resources projects. They ensure that
all projects have thoroughly documented economic and
environmental justifications in accordance with long-standing
Federal principles and guidelines. Finally, they guarantee that
the beneficiaries of water resources projects pay for their share
of project-related benefits.
H.R. 5314 fails to maintain these principles and reforms.
Preliminary estimates indicate that the bill would create over
$4.1 billion in future funding commitments. Given the demand to
reduce current and future appropriations, this would preclude
Federal funding of worthy, high priority flood control and
navigation projects in the future. Thus, if H.R. 5314 were
enacted in its current form at the House reauthorization levels,
the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the
bill.
The Administration could support H.R. 5314 if were amended to
delete:
-- 18 projects which have not undergone environmental
and economic feasibility studies, and five
conditionally authorized projects;
-- numerous provisions which would require the Federal
Government to assume various non-federal
responsibilities. These responsibilities include the
development of recreation facilities, replacement of
a U.S. highway bridge, levee beautification, and
agricultural land improvements, and;
-- numerous provisions which would weaken established
cost-sharing reforms. These provisions include
waivers of WRDA cost sharing requirements for
specified projects and studies, and an unwarranted
expansion of the "ability to pay" policy, which
ensures that appropriate State and local resources
2
are considered when calculating beneficiary financial
means.
In addition, the Administration strongly objects to the bill's
failure to include certain provisions contained in the
Administration's Water Resources Development bill.
****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Fitter) in consultation
with NRD (Long, Gibbons), OIRA (Hunt), Army (Rees), Energy
(Tyson), Commerce (Brown), Transportation (DeCell), EPA (Wood),
Interior (West), Justice (DeSanctis), USDA (McAndrews), FEMA
(Hirsch), GSA (Brady), CEQ (Curtis), State (Davis), Treasury
(Levy), and OSTP (Maynard).
Administration Proposal (S. 2469/H.R. 4867)
The Administration's water resources development proposal would
have authorized four projects and one project modification for a
total cost of $996 million, of which $728 million would have been
federally funded. The Administration's bill also contained
several user fee proposals, including an increase in recreation
user fees and the ad valorem harbor maintenance fee imposed on
commercial waterborne cargo. These proposals were estimated to
generate $420 million in FY 1991. Additionally, the
Administration's bill would have authorized the Corps to work
with the Department of Transportation in undertaking research and
development of an advanced magnetic levitation high speed
transportation system.
Position taken on Senate companion bill, S. 2740
A July 25, 1990, Statement of Administration Policy opposed
S. 2740 for many of the same reasons expressed in this position.
The draft position on H.R. 5314 contains a senior advisers veto
threat, however, because H.R. 5314 is a far more costly, and
consequently a more objectionable bill. H.R. 5314 would
authorize 30 projects versus S. 2740's 22, and would create an
initial cost of $3.75 billion versus $3.22 billion and a future
Federal commitment of $4.1 billion versus $2.5 billion.
H.R. 5314
H.R. 5314 would authorize 30 Army Corps of Engineers water
resources development projects and numerous other projects and
program-related provisions totalling $3.75 billion.
Approximately $2.57 billion of this amount would be federally
3
funded. In addition, the bill contains a number of provisions
that would alter WRDA cost-sharing requirements, and affect the
management and execution of the Army Civil Works programs. The
major components of the bill are described below.
Project Authorizations
The bill contains 30 project authorizations, 23 of which are
objectionable. of these, five are conditionally authorized
pending further project review and 18 have not completed the
Administration's policy and planning review process.
Project Modifications
The bill contains 59 modifications to authorized projects.
Forty-eight of these provisions are objectionable because they
would result in the inappropriate Federal assumption of a non-
federal responsibility, are contrary to WRDA cost-sharing
principals, or are premature. Particularly objectionable are
provisions which would require the Corps to:
-- develop recreation facilities as part of the Santa
Anna mainstream Flood Control Project;
-- replace the St. Georges Highway Bridge;
-- undertake a major rehabilitation of the Kentucky
Locks and Dams No. 5-14; and
-- construct flood levee beautification measures.
Additionally, the bill would exempt the Hatfield Bottom flood
control project in Matewan, West Virginia, from WRDA cost-sharing
requirements.
Miscellaneous Project-Related Provisions
The bill contains an additional 61 provisions relating to Corps
projects. Fifty-six of these are objectionable because they
would result in an inappropriate Federal assumption of non-
federal responsibilities, violate WRDA cost-sharing principals,
are premature, or would unnecessarily interfere with Corps
administrative procedures. These provisions include requirements
to carry out numerous studies on local water supplies and water
quality, and to construct wastewater treatment facilities.
General Provisions
Finally, the bill contains 36 general provisions, 24 of which are
objectionable because they would alter WRDA cost-sharing
requirements and/or unnecessarily intrude into the Corps'
management procedures. These provisions include modifications to
4
the "ability to pay" procedures for flood control, and extension
of the these procedures to municipal and industrial water supply
systems. Additional provisions would require the creation of
reservoir management advisory committees for every major Corps
reservoir, and mitigation for Corps project impacts on
recreation.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
9/18/90 5:30 PM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
September 24, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5316 Federal Judgeship Act of 1990
(Brooks (D) Texas and Smith (R) Texas)
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 5316 and will
continue to support the Judicial Conference's request for
additional judgeships.
H.R. 5316 would create 11 new judgeships for the courts of
appeals and 48 for the district courts. These judgeships will
fill some of the clear needs in the Judicial branch. The bill,
however, does not meet the needs expressed in the Judicial
Conference recommendations of June 22, 1990, for 96 additional
judgeships - -- 20 for the courts of appeals and 76 for the
district courts.
The Administration supports the Judicial Conference
recommendations and believes that these additional resources are
needed to meet current caseload requirements. Furthermore, the
Administration supports additional judgeships to hear the many
new drug trafficking and money laundering cases, and savings-and-
loan and other financial institution cases (criminal and civil
fraud, tax, and bankruptcy), that it is pursuing.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Ratliff), in consultation
with the Department of Justice (Dulmage), the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts (Fiedler), TCJ (Schwartz, Silas), White
House Counsel (Liberman), and Cabinet Affairs (Williamson).
OPD (McGettigan) did not respond to our request for views.
Provisions of H.R. 5316
A copy of H.R. 5316 as ordered reported by the House Judiciary
Committee on September 18th is not available for review. This
SAP is based on a draft provided by Justice (Dulmage).
H.R. 5316 would create 59 additional Federal circuit and district
court judges (11 circuit and 48 district). Twelve of the new
district judgeships would be temporary (i.e., vacancies occurring
2
five years or more after the effective date could not be filled).
The bill would also convert 6 existing temporary judgeships to
permanent judgeships.
H.R. 5316 would also authorize appropriations of such sums as
necessary to carry out its provisions. It would also require the
Comptroller General to review the Judicial Conference's
procedures underlying its recommendation to create additional
judgeships, in particular its measure of judges' workloads.
Administration Position to Date
In a September 12, 1990, report to the House Judiciary Committee,
the Department of Justice expressed concern that H.R. 5316 does
not provide for a sufficient number of additional judgeships.
Justice recommended that H.R. 5316 be amended at least to bring
it into conformity with the most recent recommendations of the
Judicial Conference.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/24/90 -- 12:00 P.M.
OFFICE wish RESIDENT UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
August 2, 1990
(House Floor)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5350 Debt Limit Increase
(Rostenkowski (D) Illinois)
The Administration supports enactment of a long-term debt limit
increase bill without extraneous amendments. However, in light
of the House's action on July 31st, it appears unlikely that such
a bill will be enacted. Accordingly, the Administration will
support the enactment of a clean short-term debt limit increase
sufficient to accommodate planned Federal borrowing through
October 1, 1990.
A default would almost certainly occur on August 15th if the debt
limit is not increased. Failure to enact a debt limit increase
by August 13th would prevent Treasury from auctioning securities
on August 14th and settling on August 15th.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Jukes/Fotias), in
consultation with the Department of the Treasury (Deputy
Assistant Secretary Basham), GC (Damus), and BRD (Anderson and
Kilpatrick).
H.R. 5350
H.R. 5350 would increase the public debt limit from $3,122.7
billion to $3,195 billion through October 15, 1990. After that
date, the debt limit would revert to $3,122.7 billion. Treasury
advises that the $3,195 billion level is high enough to
accommodate planned borrowing during the period of the temporary
debt limit increase. If the debt limit reverted to $3,122.7
billion, Treasury estimates that they would run out of cash on
October 18, 1990.
2
Administration Position to Date
In a June 28, 1990, letter to Congress, Secretary Brady stated
that it appeared that a debt limit increase would be needed by
mid-August to avoid a default on the Government's obligations.
(On August 15th, Treasury notes of $23 billion will mature and
interest payments of $21 billion are due.)
In July 11, 1990, testimony, Treasury Under Secretary Glauber
estimated a need for a debt limit of $3,509 billion for FY 1991,
$3,806 billion for FY 1992, and $4,046 billion for FY 1993. (The
FY 1991 amount is $30 billion higher than the Mid-Session Review
estimate for the end of FY 1991 to allow for the full investment
of the normalized tax transfer to the social security trust funds
in early September. Allowances of $35 billion and $40 billion
are included in the amounts for FY 1992 and 1993.)
Recent Treasury testimony has suggested that a multi-year
increase be considered in the context of the budget summit
negotiations.
A SAP sent to the House on July 31, 1990, supported enactment of
H.R. 5355, which would increase the debt limit to $3,444 billion.
Treasury estimates that this amount would be sufficient to
support Government borrowing through June 30, 1991. The SAP
urged enactment of debt limit legislation without amendment.
However, on July 31, 1990, the House passed H.R. 5355 with a
Dorgan amendment to remove the Social Security trust funds from
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit calculations.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
7/31/90 -- 6:00 p.m.
OF PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 31, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5355 - Debt Limit Increase
(Rostenkowski (D) IL)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 5355, which would
increase the public debt limit from $3,122.7 billion to
$3,444 billion. The Administration urges that legislation to
increase the debt limit be enacted without amendment.
The Administration estimates that the debt limit increase
contained in H.R. 5355 would be sufficient to meet the
Government's borrowing needs through June 30, 1991.
A default would almost certainly occur on August 15 if the debt
limit is not increased. Failure to enact a debt limit increase
by August 13 would prevent the Treasury from auctioning
securities on August 14 and settling on August 15.
An auction of Treasury securities is scheduled to be announced on
August 1. Failure to enact a debt limit increase by that date
would compress the time period for distributing those securities.
This would raise the cost of Treasury borrowing, all other things
being equal. The cost of the delay would grow with its length.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Jukes/Fotias), in
consultation with the Department of the Treasury (Deputy
Assistant Secretary Basham), BRD (Anderson and Kilpatrick), HIMD
(Fontenot), HTF (Rhinesmith), EP (Al-Samarrie), and GC (Damus).
H.R. 5355
H.R. 5355 would increase the public debt limit from $3,122.7
billion to $3,444 billion.
BRD (Kilpatrick) advises that this amount would be insufficient
to meet anticipated borrowing needs through FY 1991. The
Mid-Session Review estimates a need for $3,479 billion in debt
subject to limit on September 30, 1991. Treasury estimates that
a debt limit of $3,509 billion would be sufficient to last
through FY 1991. (The debt subject to limit is expected to hit a
peak level on Septmber 3, 1991, when the normalized tax transfer
2
to the Social Security trust funds is invested. The $3,509
billion figure includes a $30 billion allowance for this
transfer.)
The debt limit of $3,444 contained in H.R. 5355 is $65 billion
less than $3,509 billion. This difference is the amount of
additional outlays for FY 1991 if the Resolution Trust
Corporation (RTC) obtains the authority that would allow it to
spend the amount estimated in the Mid-Session Review.
According to Treasury (Ouseley), Chairman Rostenkowski wants the
Administration to make a specific proposal to provide additional
authority for the RTC. Treasury Under Secretary Glauber is
expected to announce an Administration proposal on Monday, July
30th.
Dorgan Amendment
Chairman Rostenkowski has announced his support of a Dorgan
amendment to H.R. 5355 that would:
-- Exclude Social Security receipts and disbursements from the
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (GRH) deficit and deficit reduction
targets, effective in FY 1991.
-- Make out of order legislation that would:
o Increase Social Security (OASDI) benefits by: (1)
$100 million for the five fiscal years beginning with the
year in which it would become effective; or (2) .005
percent of the present value of future taxable payroll
for the 75-year period utilized in the most recent Board
of Trustees' annual report. However, the legislation
would be in order if it provided for a fully-offsetting
increase in OASDI taxes.
O Reduce OASDI taxes by at least $100 million or .005
percent of the present value of future taxable payroll
for the two periods specified above, unless the
legislation provides a fully offsetting net decrease in
OASDI benefits. However, it would be in order to reduce
OASDI taxes if the same bill contained an equivalent
increase in Medicare taxes.
For purposes of this provision, CBO would estimate receipts
and outlays. In the Senate, a point of order could be
waived only if three-fifths of all members voted in favor.
-- Require the Annual Report of the OASDI Board of Trustees to
state whether the Social Security trust funds are in close
actuarial balance.
A related proposal was recently ordered reported by the Senate
Budget Committee by a vote of 20-1. The Senate has also voted
3
96-1 in favor of including in debt limit legislation a provision
to remove Social Security from GRH deficit calculations.
Related Bill - H.R. 5350
On July 25th, the Ways and Means Committee ordered reported two
debt limit bills -- H.R. 5355 and H.R. 5350. The latter bill
would increase the debt limit to $3,195 billion through
October 15, 1990. We understand that the Rules Committee may
make H.R. 5350 in order as an amendment to H.R. 5355.
Administration Position to Date
In a June 28, 1990, letter to Congress, Secretary Brady stated
that it appeared that a debt limit increase would be needed by
mid-August to avoid a default on the Government's obligations.
On August 15, Treasury notes of $23 billion will mature and
interest payments of $21 billion are due.
The Administration has not explicitly requested a specific level
or period of a debt limit increase. Recent Treasury testimony
has suggested that a multi-year increase be considered in the
context of budget summit negotiations.
In July 11, 1990, testimony, Treasury Under Secretary Glauber
estimated a need for a debt limit of $3,509 billion for FY 1991,
$3,806 billion for FY 1992, and $4,046 billion for FY 1993.
(These amounts include allowances of $30 billion, $35 billion,
and $40 billion, respectively, for early September investment of
the normalized tax transfer to the Social Security trust funds.)
Legislative Reference Division Draft
7/27/90 -- 5:00 p.m.
EDUCATION OFFICE PRESIDENT STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 9, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5367 Seneca Nation Settlement Act of 1990
(Houghton (R) New York)
The Administration strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 5367
because it requires an unnecessary Federal payment of $35 million
to the Seneca Indian Nation to resolve a dispute that exists
between the Indian community, the City of Salamanca, and the
State of New York.
H.R. 5367 requires the United States and the State of New York to
compensate the Seneca Nation for a 1890 lease arrangement
approved by Congress. The bill provides no justification for the
$35 million Federal payment, which was negotiated without
Executive Branch participation and represents more than half of
the total settlement. Furthermore, the United States has already
compensated the Seneca Nation for any impropriety relating to the
lease arrangement, and should not be expected to provide further
substantial funding to settle a local issue. The Department of
Justice advises that the United States has no further legal
liability for the lease arrangement.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This position was developed by LRD (Goad) in consultation with
NRD (Gibbons, Cogswell, and Tuccillo), Interior (Poling), and
Justice (Malmquist).
Administration Position to Date
This Statement of Administration Policy is consistent with
testimony presented by Walter Mills, Deputy to the Assistant
Secretary-Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, before the
House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on September 13,
1990. At the hearing, Mr. Mills expressed the Administration's
strong opposition to the bill.
Provisions of H.R. 5367
H.R. 5367 would implement an agreement negotiated between the
State of New York, the City of Salamanca (NY), and the Seneca
Indian Nation to renew leases within the reservation. The
current lease, approved by Congress in 1890, expires in February,
1991. The Seneca Nation threatened not to renew the leases with
2
residents of Salamanca unless the tribe was compensated for the
rental rates established in 1890. There are approximately 3,000
lessees living on Seneca land, many of whom pay between $1 and $3
annually.
The agreement requires the Federal government to contribute $35
million and New York to contrinute $25 million to resolve
disputes involving the terms of the original 1890 lease
arrangement.
The $60 million would be used to support tribal economic
development projects on the reservation, including the City of
Salamanca, and to make per capita payments to the 3,400 members
of the Seneca Nation.
In 1977, the United States and the Seneca Nation reached a
settlement over the improper use of lease fees, whereby the tribe
was awarded $600,000. The Department of Justice advises that the
United States has no further legal liability for the lease
arrangement.
Administration objections to H.R. 5367
The Administration opposes H.R. 5367 for the following reasons:
-- The United States is being asked to commit $35 million as
compensation to the Seneca Nation to resolve a dispute that
exists largely between the Indian Community and the State
of New York.
-- The United States has already compensated the Seneca Nation
for any impropriety relating to the lease arrangement and
has minimal, if any further, legal liability.
-- H.R. 5367 provides neither justification as to how the $60
million in compensation was derived, nor the basis for the
amount of the contributions by the United States or the
State of New York.
-- H.R. 5367 establishes the most undesirable form of
precedent towards the resolution of Indian issues.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
October 5, 1990 - 6:15 P.M.
OFFICE OF
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 24, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5381 Federal Courts Study Commission Implementation Act
(Kastenmeier (D) Wisconsin and Moorhead (R) California)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of
H.R. 5381, but will seek Senate amendments to delete:
-- Section 109, which would allow removal to Federal district
courts of civil actions involving more than one claim or
cause of action only where at least one of the claims
involves a "Federal question." This section would relegate
many matters, in which a Federal interest predominates, to
State courts. It would impair the Justice Department's
ability to defend the United States and its agencies,
officers and employees.
-- Section 110, which would allow actions to be brought
against the United States in any district where "a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred" or a "substantial part of the property
... is situated." This section would generate additional
litigation over the meaning of these ambiguous terms and
invite plaintiffs to engage in forum shopping.
-- Section 114, which would create new jurisdiction in the
Federal courts to hear State law claims. This section
would invite plaintiffs to use limited jurisdictional
grounds as an unwarranted basis to bring related State law
suits into Federal court. It would complicate
unnecessarily private and Government litigation.
Section 108 of the bill incorporates the Administration's
proposal for an orderly phase-out of parole. The Administration
supports this provision. The Administration defers to the
Judicial branch with respect to provisions involving the internal
administration of that branch.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Ratliff), in consultation
with the Department of Justice (Dulmage), the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts (Fiedler), White House Counsel
(Liberman), TCJ (Silas), and LR (Schreiber).
2
OPD (McGettigan) did not respond to our request for views.
Provisions of H.R. 5381
A copy of H.R. 5381 as ordered reported by the House Judiciary
Committee on September 18th is not yet available for review.
This SAP is based on a draft supplied by Justice (Dulmage).
The bill would implement certain recent recommendations of the
Federal Courts Study Commission. Its principal provisions
include:
-- Section 109, which would allow removal to Federal district
courts of civil actions involving more than one claim or
cause of action only where at least one of the claims
involves a "Federal question." (Under current law, there
are other bases for removal to Federal courts.) The bill
would also allow the district judge to remand to the State
court all matters in which State law predominates. Justice
believes that this provision could cause confusion and
unnecessary litigation.
-- Section 110, which would expand choices of venue in many
civil actions. Under current law, an action against the
United States may be brought in a district where a "cause
of action arose" or "the property is situated. " H.R. 5381
would change these terms to "a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" and
a "substantial part of the property is located,"
respectively. Justice believes that this change could
invite litigation over the terms "substantial" and "events
or omissions."
-- Section 111, which would establish a four-year statute of
limitations for all civil actions arising under Federal
statutes that do not currently have them.
-- Section 114, which would give the district courts
supplemental jurisdiction over certain related claims.
Other provisions of H.R. 5381 would:
-- require studies of intercircuit conflicts, structural
alternatives for the courts of appeals, and the Federal
defender program;
-- increase witness and juror fees;
3
-- establish a Federal Offender Review Board, as proposed by
the Administration, to provide for an orderly phase-out of
parole; and
-- establish a new retirement system for Claims Court judges.
The Federal Courts Study Commission recommended an enhanced
retirement system for the Claims Court. AOUSC states the
system is similar to the U.S. Tax Court system and has some
of the features of the more recently created system for
bankruptcy judges.
Administration Position to Date
On September 6, 1990, the Department of Justice testified before
a House Judiciary subcommittee on H.R. 5381. Justice opposed
much of H.R. 5381 as drafted but expressed support for several
specific sections. Some of the Administration's concerns were
subsequently addressed by the Judiciary Committee.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/24/90 -- 12:00 P.M.
OFFICE PRESIDENT STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
August 2, 1990
(House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5400 - Campaign Cost Reduction and Reform Act of 1990
(Swift (D) Washington)
Although the Administration agrees that the current campaign
finance system suffers from a number of serious defects and that
there is a need for real reform, the Administration strongly
opposes enactment of H.R. 5400. While the following statement
details several of the Administration's most serious objections
to the bill, it does not represent an exhaustive list. If H.R.
5400 were presented to the President in its current form, his
senior advisors would recommend that it be vetoed.
The Administration urges the Congress to enact the President's
campaign finance proposal (H.R. 3425). H.R. 3425 contains
several far-reaching and much-needed reforms, and is fully
consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment. The
Administration's bill directly confronts the twin evils of the
current system -- practices which give incumbents unfair
advantages and the role played by special interest "PACs"
subsidized by corporations, labor unions, and trade associations.
By contrast, H.R. 5400 would aggravate many of the worst features
of the existing financing system which heavily favors incumbents.
The bill would unconstitutionally coerce House candidates into
agreeing to participate in a program of campaign spending limits.
Under the program, if a challenger raises or spends even $1 over
an amount equal to approximately 36 percent of the "voluntary"
limit, the participating incumbent -- who receives postal
subsidies, free broadcast advertisements, and indirect subsidies
resulting from tax credits to his contributors -- may make
expenditures without regard to the applicable limit. Thus, even
if a challenger raised or spent only 40 percent of the applicable
limit, the participating incumbent would receive all of the
benefits of participation with few of the costs. Given the
attractiveness of the benefits and the fact that most candidates
will inevitably go over the 36 percent mark, the system would
create enormous coercive pressure to participate.
The effect, if not the purpose, of this scheme would be to coerce
challengers to limit their efforts against incumbents. In doing
so, the bill would place unconstitutional burdens on the rights
of individual candidates to make campaign expenditures as well as
on the rights of contributors. In addition, by attempting to
2
equalize campaign financial resources, the proposed program would
stack the deck even more heavily in favor of incumbents, who
enjoy substantial name recognition at the start of a campaign.
In a time of significant fiscal constraints, there is no
justification for spending federal dollars, whether in the form
of tax credits or postal subsidies, on an incumbent protection
scheme. Moreover, any amendments providing for even greater use
of taxpayer dollars in House campaigns would aggravate the bill's
deficiencies by further weakening the role of individual
contributors, increasing the drain on the Federal Treasury, and
enhancing the biases in favor of incumbents.
The Administration also objects to several sections of H.R. 5400
that would unconstitutionally regulate the content of political
advertisements. Section 117 of H.R. 5400 would impermissibly
require that: (1) photographic images of the candidate be
displayed in candidate television broadcast advertisements, and
(2) independent broadcasts display continuously certain
prescribed information.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Brown), in consultation with
the White House Counsel's Office (Nelson), Department of Justice
(Pestal), TCJ (Beebe), HTF (Hannon), LVE (Matlack) and GC
(Damus). Time did not permit reactions to this SAP by the
Departments of Commerce or The Treasury.
This draft SAP, and the following description of the bill, are
based on a "rough draft" provided by LA (Pierson) that we
understand was subsequently introduced as H.R. 5400. An article
in the Washington Post of August 2, 1990, (page A18) suggests
that the bill will be amended by the leadership before it goes to
the floor. We do not have the the text of the amendments.
In addition to H.R. 5400, a substitute version sponsored by
Representatives Obey ((D) Wisconsin) and Synar ((D) Oklahoma)
may also be considered. Unlike the base bill, this provision
would provide $100,000 in public financing for House candidates
who agree to abide by the bill's expenditure limitations.
This possible amendment is addressed in the draft Statement of
Administration Policy (SAP). (The campaign finance reform
package introduced by the House Republican Leadership is not
addressed in the SAP because: (1) Justice staff advise that they
do not expect these proposals to be considered on the House
floor; and (2) while preferable to the two Democratic proposals,
the package does not achieve all of the reforms sought by the
Administration.)
3
Provisions of H.R. 5400
Changes to Generally Applicable Federal Campaign Finance Laws
H.R. 5400 would:
-- eliminate the current limit on expenditures by Presidential
candidates on primaries in any one State (while retaining
the overall limitation of $10,000,000 on expenditures by
candidates for nomination for President);
-- prohibit any candidate for Federal office from (1)
maintaining or controlling any political committees other
than the candidate's own authorized committee or the
committee of a political party, or (2) accepting any
contribution if the contribution was originally given for a
non-Federal campaign;
-- require that any contributions made through intermediaries
be counted against applicable Federal expenditure
limitations for both the individual and the intermediary;
-- prohibit lobbyists from serving as intermediaries for
contributions for any Federal campaign;
-- make total contributions to Federal candidates from all
party committees, including State or local party committees,
subject to the overall limit which now applies to
contributions by national party committees; and
-- require Federal candidates to include, in any television ad,
a photographic or similar image of the candidate as well as
a statement that the candidate "takes full responsibility
for the content of [the] advertisement", covering at least
1/3 of the screen and shown for at least 4 seconds;
-- require similar statements of responsibility in radio and
print ads placed by candidates;
-- require independent expenditure organizations to include, in
print and broadcast advertising, statements that they are
not authorized by the candidate and an identification of who
has paid for the advertising;
-- require independent expenditure organizations to include in
solicitations for contributions notices that neither the
committee nor the communication are authorized by or under
the control of a candidate;
-- prohibit false claims that funds are being solicited on
behalf of a Federal candidate;
4
-- prohibit the conversion of political contributions to
personal use by candidates or other individuals;
-- prohibit PACs with average donations exceeding $240 from
contributing more than $1,000 to a Federal candidate (PACs
with average contributions of less than $240 could
contribute up to $5,000 to a Federal candidate);
-- require several new reports by State and national political
party committees;
-- require broadcasting organizations to sell time to Federal
candidates at rates which do not exceed rates for comparable
use by other advertisers; and
-- tighten several miscellaneous definitions relating to
campaign contributions and expenditures.
House Campaign Expenditures
H.R. 5400 would establish a system under which House candidates
who agree to adhere to the spending limitations set forth in the
bill would become eligible for reduced postage and broadcast
advertising rates. Candidates who agreed to the limitations
would continue to receive these benefits but would be released
from any restrictions on spending if opponents who have not
agreed to these limitations receive contributions or make
expenditures exceeding $200,000. Participating candidates would
be required to agree:
-- not to spend more than $75,000 of their own money on their
campaigns;
-- not to spend more than $550,000 for a general election,
$300,000 for a primary election ($400,000 in States where
candidates who receive a majority of votes in the primary
are elected to office), or $100,000 for a runoff election
(beginning after calendar year 1992, these figures would be
adjusted every four years in accordance with a formula set
forth in H.R. 5400) ; and
-- to pay to the Treasury (for deposit as miscellaneous
receipts), in the event that any of these limits are
exceeded, an amount equal to (1) the amount of the overage,
if the excess was less than 5 percent of the limit; (2) 3
times the overage, if the excess was more than 5 or less
than 10 percent of the limit; and (3) 3 times the overage
plus a civil penalty in an amount determined by the Federal
Election Commission, if the excess was more than 10 percent
of the limit.
5
Limitations on PAC Contributions to House Candidates
H.R. 5400 would prohibit candidates for the House or their
political committees from accepting contributions from PACs
totalling more than 50 percent of the total expenditures
permitted for the applicable election.
Requirements With Respect to Broadcasts in House Campaigns
H.R. 5400 would require that broadcasters:
-- offer to provide to House candidates whose "honesty,
character, integrity" or similar qualities have been
attacked in an ad by an independent expenditure
organization: (1) the details of the ad, and (2) an
opportunity to respond, without cost, to the ad; and
-- sell time to participating House candidates at the rate of
three advertisements for the price of two.
Tax Credits for Contributions to House Campaigns
H.R. 5400 would provide for a maximum tax credit of $50 (or $100
for a couple filing jointly) for an individual contributing to a
participating candidate for the House. Contributions to
non-participating House candidates would not qualify for the
credit.
Administration Position to Date
The Administration has not previously taken a position on
H.R. 5400. However, a Statement of Administration Policy dated
July 31, 1990 regarding a similar bill in the Senate (S. 137)
stated that the President's senior advisors would recommend that
he veto that bill.
The President's proposal (H.R. 3425) would:
-- eliminate PACs supported by corporations, unions, or trade
associations, and prohibit such entities from paying for the
overhead or administrative costs of any independent PAC;
-- increase the amounts that political parties can spend on
behalf of Congressional candidates;
-- reduce the unwarranted advantages of incumbency by
prohibiting the personal use of excess campaign funds,
reduce franked Congressional mailings, ban the rollover of
campaign funds from one election to another, and legislate
fair criteria for Congressional redistricting; and
-- require full disclosure of all "soft money" spent by the
political parties and all labor unions, corporations, and
trade associations to influence a federal election.
6
In a letter to Senator McConnell dated May 24th, the President
stated that limitations on campaign spending "would simply
entrench incumbents further while ironically enhancing the
influence of specific political action committee contributions.
It is my intention to veto any such counterproductive legislation
should it reach my desk."
Legislative Reference Division Draft
8/2/90 -- 11:00 a.m.
OFFICE the PRESIDENT UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 5, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5422 Intelligence Authorization Act
For Fiscal Year 1991
(Beilenson (D) California)
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 5422, but will
seek to restore the requested authorization levels in certain
high priority programs during conference. Furthermore, the
Administration urges the House to delete certain burdensome
reporting requirements contained in section 503 regarding DOD
intelligence collection activities.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Goad), in consultation
with NSD (Gessaman, Donahue, and Scheid), GC (Damus), IAD
(Eisenhour), White House Counsel (Rademaker), CIA (Manget),
Defense (Hawkins), Energy (Connolly), Justice (Wise), ONDCP
(Dorn), NSC (Pilling), OGE (Condray), OPM (Woodruff), State
(Davis) and Treasury (Levy).
The authorization levels for H.R. 5422, as included in the
classified schedule of authorizations, are less than 2% below
those requested by the President for FY 1991. The National
Foreign Intelligence Program was reduced by approximately 5%, the
Tactical Intelligence Program was reduced by 1%, and
intelligence-related drug interdiction funding was reduced over
50%.
Other provisions of H.R. 5422 include:
Titles I, II and III -- Appropriations Authorizations
-- Authorizes $34.5 million in appropriations for
the Intelligence Community staff for FY 1991.
-- Authorizes 311 full-time personnel for the
Intelligence Community Staff.
-- Authorizes $164 million for FY 1991 for the
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and
Disability System.
2
Title IV and V -- Administrative Provisions
-- Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to grant the
use of the Department's reimbursement rate for
military airlift services provided by Defense to
the CIA.
-- Amends Chapter 21 of title 10, United States
Code, granting the Secretary of Defense the
authority to engage in commercial activities to
provide cover for the conduct of authorized
intelligence collection activities through
September 30, 1995.
Section 503 adds some administrative requirements
to the Administration's proposed bill that the
Department of Defense deems burdensome. These
include: a requirement that the Secretary of
Defense notify the Intelligence Committees of his
intent to use the authority to establish a
corporation, partnership or other legal entity
for cover purposes; and a sunset clause on the
conduct of such commercial activities after
September 30, 1995.
H.R. 5422 includes the following provisions to which the
Administration has no objection:
-- Section 307 (Restoration of Former Spouse
Benefits after Dissolution of Remarriage) which
amends the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement
Act of 1964. Specifically, it restores the
entitlement of the former spouse to the survivor
annuity, retirement benefits, and health benefits
on the date that the remarriage is dissolved.
-- Section 502 (Public Availability of Maps, Etc.,
Produced by the Defense Mapping Agency) which
amends Chapter 167 of title 10, United State
Code, to allow the Defense Mapping Agency to sell
specified maps, charts and geodetic data.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
October 1, 1990 1:40 PM
OFFICE PRESIDENT MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 12, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5506 Transfer of Pershing Hall to the Department of
Veterans Affairs
(Montgomery (D) MS and Stump (R) AZ)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 5506.
*******
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with LVED (Jacobs/Blanchon), NSD (Stanners), and IAD
(Sasser). The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (per Bob Coy,
Deputy General Counsel) concurs in the draft position.
There is no House Veterans' Affairs Committee report on
H.R. 5506. The proposed position is based on information from VA
staff.
Background
Pershing Hall is an asset of the United States, valued at $43 to
$80 million, exclusive of its contents. It is located at 49 Rue
Pierre Charron, one block from the Champs Elysee and several
blocks from the Arch of Triumph. It is in the so-called "Golden
Triangle," the most expensive commercial real estate area of
Paris.
Pursuant to P.L. 74-171, The American Legion transferred title to
Pershing Hall to the United States in 1936 for the use and
benefit of World War I veterans. Presently, the offices, rooms,
and courtyard in Pershing Hall are leased at less than market
rates to a variety of entities, including a restaurant, a student
exchange, the USO, local expatriate support groups, and Paris
Post No. 1.
In May 1990, a VA team headed by Deputy Secretary Principi
visited the site to develop a recommendation for VA utilization
of the building. Rep. Montgomery, Chairman of the House
Veterans' Affairs Committee, requested the visit because of
concerns about the current condition and use of the building.
Pershing Hall is currently managed by the Pershing Hall Operating
Committee (PHOC). The PHOC is a non-profit association organized
in both France and the U.S. (Maryland).
2
H.R. 5506 would transfer custody and control of Pershing Hall,
and its contents, to VA. The Secretary would administer,
operate, develop, and improve Pershing Hall as he determines
appropriate to the needs of veterans and veterans organizations.
In addition, the bill would:
-- Permit the Secretary to enter into lease agreements (not to
exceed 35 years for new construction and 20 years in all
other cases) for the operation, development, and improvement
of Pershing Hall.
-- Establish in the Treasury the Pershing Hall Revolving Fund
(the Fund), a public enterprise revolving fund, administered
by VA.
-- Permit VA to transfer up to $5 million to the Fund from
funds appropriated to the Department's major projects
construction account. Any funds transferred to the Fund
must be reimbursed to the VA appropriation as soon as
possible.
-- Require that funds received by VA from the operation of
Pershing Hall or from any leases or other agreements be
deposited in the Fund.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
10/11/90
EDUCATION PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 22, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5539 - San Carlos Apache Tribe Water Rights
Settlement Act of 1990
(Udall (D) Arizona and Rhodes (R) Arizona)
The Administration strongly opposes enactment of H.R. 5539. The
bill imposes a settlement about which there has been insufficient
congressional review and minimal Executive branch involvement.
Moreover, the settlement may not resolve the dispute between the
San Carlos Apache Indian Tribe, the United States, the State of
Arizona, and other parties.
Additionally, some of the parties involved have yet to agree on
the issues of water rights and sources, total settlement costs,
and the contributions, financial or otherwise, contained in the
bill. Furthermore, H.R. 5539 may resolve the water dispute to
the disadvantage of other nearby Indian communities. Finally,
proponents of H.R. 5539 have not provided justification for the
significant Federal funding, estimated at more than $50 million,
that would be required by the bill.
*****
(Not to be distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This position was developed by LRD (Goad) in consultation with
NRD (Tuccillo, Cogswell and Gibbons), Interior (Glidden), Justice
(Malmquist), Treasury (Dorsey), and EPA (Wood).
Administration Position to Date
The Department of the Interior, in testimony before the House
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on September 11, 1990,
strongly opposed H.R. 5539.
Provisions of H.R. 5539
The major provisions of 5539:
-- authorize the allocation and use of water from
the 1984 Ak-Chin settlement surplus, municipal
and industrial supplies to the San Carlos Indian
tribe, at an estimated cost to the United States
of approximately $14 million;
2
-- ratify and confirm a 66-year old contract between
the Salt River Project (SRP) and the Roosevelt
Water Conservation District (RWCD) i
-- provide that the SRP and RWCD lands would be free
from the ownership limitations and full cost
pricing provisions of federal law;
-- establish a Tribal Development Trust Fund and
authorize appropriations of $36.2 million over
fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 1994, with interest
dating from one year after enactment to which the
State of Arizona would deposit an additional $3
million to the Fund;
-- permit the Tribe to use the Fund's principal and
interest for the purpose of long-term economic
growth;
-- direct the Secretary to design and construct new
water distribution facilities for the Tribe's
12,700 acre feet allocation of the Central
Arizona Project water;
-- provide for the relief of $3.3 million in debts the Tribe
owes the United States for construction of a dam and
domestic water/sewage treatment system on the
reservation;
-- waive the tribe's water rights claims against the
United States and the parties to the agreement;
and
-- require the Secretary to comply with all
applicable environmental laws in implementing the
provisions of the settlement, and exempts the
Secretary's ministerial act of signing the
agreement from the National Environmental Policy
Act.
Administration Objections to H.R. 5539
The Administration opposes H.R. 5539 for the following reasons:
-- There is no final agreement among the parties on
water rights, water sources, total settlement
costs, and the specific financial and other
contributions to the settlement.
-- There is no justification for the level of
Federal funding, estimated at more than $50
million.
3
-- The settlement does not adequately resolve the
water-related disputes between the Tribe and the
United States, and could adversely affect the
interests of other Indian Communities.
-- Relief from the Reclamation Reform Act is
inconsistent with general Administration policy,
and the waiver appears unnecessary.
-- Guidance regarding environmental compliance is
not provided.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
October 20, 1990 -- 2:30 P.M.
OFFICE WITH
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 24, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5640 Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990
(Brooks (D) TX)
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 5640, which
would establish a uniform, nationwide system for the collection
of debts owed the Federal Government. The Administration will,
however, work with Congress to conform the bill to the proposal
submitted by the Department of Justice to the House Judiciary
Committee on August 10, 1990.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Ratliff), in consultation
with the Department of Justice (Jones), TCJ (Beebe), FM (Green),
and BR (Rea).
The August 10, 1990, language cited above the line was received
and approved by the Departments of Education (Gellisen), HHS
(Burnett), HUD (Fuentes), Labor (Cooper), Transportation
(Donelan), Treasury (Kaufman), and Veterans Affairs (Bartow).
Background
H.R. 5640 would establish uniform procedures for the collection
of debts owed to the United States. Currently, the U.S. must
execute judgments obtained against debtors under procedures which
vary markedly from State to State. Moreover, the homestead laws
of several states, in particular Texas and Florida, create
"debtor havens" which make collection on judgments difficult.
Enactment of debt collection legislation in the 101st Congress is
a major priority for the U.S. Attorneys.
Description of H.R. 5640
The printed version of H.R. 5640 is not available for review.
The following description is based on a typed copy provided by
Justice staff (Jones).
2
The civil procedures established by the bill include:
-- Authorization to order the sale of perishable personal
property of the debtor.
-- Joinder as an additional defendant of a person reasonably
believed to owe money to the debtor arising out of the
transaction giving rise to the debt.
-- With limitations, exemption from attachment of certain
residential and other property, such as one motor
vehicle, household furnishings, and certain earnings.
-- Availability in some circumstances of prejudgment
remedies after notice to the debtor with provision for
reduction or discharge of the attachment if excessive or
unreasonable.
-- Provision for judgment liens which would render the
debtor ineligible for Federal grants or loans and certain
other Federal funds until the judgment is satisfied.
-- Enforcement of judgments after detailed notice to the
debtor with specific provisions for execution liens, the
conduct of execution sales, installment payment orders,
and garnishment.
-- Postjudgment discovery regarding the financial condition
of the judgment debtor.
-- Avoidance of certain fraudulent transfers made by a
judgment debtor after a court awards a judgment for the
U.S. A good-faith transferee would be entitled to
certain relief to the extent of the value given the
judgment debtor.
The bill also features:
-- A surcharge against the debtor of ten percent of the
amount of the debt to cover the cost of litigation and
enforcement.
-- Appointment of receivers to take possession of and
administer attached or levied property who would be
entitled to up to a five percent commission.
-- Agency authorization to sell debts to private debt
collection agencies and involve private debt collection
agencies or law firms in the collection of debts.
3
Administration Position to Date
The Administration has not previously taken a position on
H.R. 5640, which was introduced and ordered reported by the House
Judiciary Committee on September 18, 1990. In testimony of July
31, 1990, to the House Government Operations Committee, the
Department of Justice supported enactment of S. 84, a related
bill that passed the Senate on November 3, 1989. On August 10,
1990, Justice transmitted to the House Judiciary Committee
proposed substitute language for S. 84.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/12/90 -- 1:00 P.M.
OFFICE MINI PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 21, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5643 Temporary Extension of Executive Exchange Programs
(Sikorski (D) MN and Morella (R) MD)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 5643.
*******
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Schreiber) in
consultation with the Federal Personnel Policy Branch (Ray
Kogut). The Department of Justice (Faith Burton), the Office of
Government Ethics (Jane Ley), the Office of Personnel Management
(Jim Woodruff), and the Office of White House Counsel (Amy
Schwartz) concur in this position.
Background
Under existing law, a limited number of private sector executives
may participate in the President's Executive Exchange Program by
"volunteering" their services as Federal employees. That is,
they serve in Federal agencies, but remain on their company
payroll. Currently, nine private sector executives are
participating in this capacity. The legislative authority
allowing this arrangement expires on September 30, 1990. Because
of potential ethics problems, the White House Counsel's Office,
Justice, Office of Government Ethics, and OMB agree that the
legislative authority should not be extended.
Provisions of H.R. 5643
Section 1 would allow private sector executives now
"volunteering" in Federal agencies to extend their service period
for 90 days beyond September 30, 1990 -- i.e., until December 30,
1990. This section is based upon language supplied by OMB to the
President's Exchange Commission. This extension responds to
requests from the Department of State and the Office of National
Drug Control Policy to extend the service period of three private
sector executives currently working for them.
Section 2 of H.R. 5643 would allow Federal employees to remain on
their agencies' payroll when working in the private sector as
participants in the Exchange Program. Currently, Federal
employees participating in the program must be on leave without
pay. The purpose of this section is to allow Federal employees
2
to retain Federal retirement and life and health insurance
coverage during their participation in the Exchange Program. The
private sector firms, to which the Federal employees are
assigned, would be required to reimburse the Federal agencies for
the salaries of the assigned employees.
Section 2 parallels the laws governing assignment of Federal
employees to international organizations and to State and local
governments.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
9/21/90
PM
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 27, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5649 - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Appropriations Authorizations
(Roe (D) New Jersey and 27 others)
The Administration is pleased that H.R. 5649 authorizes multiyear
appropriations for essential National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) programs, particularly the President's
Space Exploration Initiative. However, the Administration
opposes enactment of H.R. 5649 unless it is amended as follows:
-- Delete the requirement in Title II for a case-by-case
determination of agency launch needs by the Administrator
of NASA and for reporting of each determination to
Congress. (The overall intent of Title II, however, is
consistent with the National Space Policy's provision on
commercial launch services.)
-- Modify Section 204 (b) to add national security and foreign
policy considerations to the grounds for exceptions from
the launch services purchase requirement.
-- Delete Section 124, which requires the National Space
Council to establish a space Users' Advisory Group. This
would duplicate and conflict with the Vice President's
Space Policy Advisory Board established by Executive Order
No. 12675.
-- Delete the proviso that none of the funds authorized for
FY 1991 for aeronautical research and technology shall be
expended unless at least $119 million is made available
for FY 1991 for the National Aero-Space Plane (NASP)
program. This provision would penalize the entire NASA
aeronautics program if compliance proves impossible.
-- Delete Section 116, and modify Section 102 (13), which
prescribe the details of the NASP program, including
specific goals, agency responsibilities, and funding.
These are more appropriately specified in a NASA-Defense
joint management plan, consistent with the recommendations
of the National Space Council, as approved by the
President. The funding ratios for the two agencies in
Section 116 are contrary to those contained in the Budget.
2
-- Delete Section 117, subsections (b) through (h). The
effect of these subsections would be to require that
necessary facilities which support important government
programs but which may support limited commercial activity
be made available for sale. Disposition of excess Federal
property is determined by the General Services
Administration as required by statute. These provisions
would confuse existing responsibilities and create a new
category of disposable property.
-- Delete Section 114, requiring the National Space Council
to conduct a major Study on International Cooperation in
Planetary Exploration and report to Congress on mission
strategy. Some aspects of this study would be premature
considering the early stage of the Space Exploration
Initiative. The study would also duplicate and conflict
with existing Space Council efforts in international space
cooperation and would adversely affect the workload of the
Space Council, preventing the completion of other
important activities.
-- Delete the set-aside requirements under the Space Research
and Technology and Human Exploration Initiative for
university contracts and grants. The Administration is
committed to strong university involvement in these
programs; however, earmarking a specific percentage for
universities is not an effective way to manage the
available resources for these programs.
-- Delete the language for Space Station Freedom to mandate
the use of solar dynamic power for future growth and to
initiate a flight test of the solar dynamic power program.
Such a test should not be conducted in the absence of a
decision to develop solar dynamics, and should not
preclude other options to provide additional power.
-- Delete Section 110, an objectionable "Buy America"
provision.
-- Delete Section 115. Establishing, statutorily, an Office
of Space Commerce in the Department of Commerce would
restrict the Secretary's flexibility to manage space
programs.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Bowers), in consultation with
the Departments of Transportation (David), Commerce (Sockett),
and the Treasury (Levy), the National Space Council (Prestridge),
the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Phillips), the
3
Council of Economic Advisors (Jaffe), Office of Cabinet Affairs
(Williamson), ES (Noonan/Campbell), IA (Kizer), TCJ
(Gold/Corbett), NS (Wu), and OFPP (Brown). The Departments of
Defense and Justice, the National Security Council, the General
Services Administration and the U.S. Trade Representative did not
comment due to time constraints.
Provisions of H.R. 5649
-- Appropriations Authorizations
H.R. 5649 would authorize appropriations for NASA for FYs 1991-
1993 generally consistent with the Budget. For FY 1991, the bill
would authorize a total of $15,351 million, which is $226 million
above the Budget. Most of the difference is continuation of a
multi-year Space Station authorization from several years ago
that is higher than the FY 1991 request.
The Senate authorization bill for NASA has cleared committee but
not gone to the floor. H.R. 5649 authorization levels equal or
exceed Senate levels for all programs except Earth Science and
Applications. (The Senate bill adds $18 million; the House keeps
it at requested level). The House bill authorizes all new Space
Exploration Initiative (SEI) funding ($188 million), while the
Senate version authorizes none. The House bill assumes that
Space Station is covered by an earlier multi-year authorization,
while the Senate bill would reauthorize the Station at a new
level $70 million below the request. Additionally, the House
bill assumes the Polar Platform is covered under the previous
Space Station multi-year authorization, while the Senate version
reauthorizes funding in the Earth Sciences line.
The House VA/HUD/IA Appropriation bill cleared the floor several
months ago, while the Senate VA/HUD/IA bill has cleared committee
but not gone to floor. H.R. 5649 funding levels for NASA equal
or exceed levels in both appropriation bills in nearly all
program areas. The most significant difference between H.R. 5649
and the appropriation bills is that H.R. 5649 includes new
funding for the SEI, while the others do not.
In addition, H.R. 5649 would authorize the appropriation of
$1.363 million for FY 1991 for the National Space Council,
consistent with the Budget. It would require the Council to
reimburse other agencies for half of the cost of personnel
detailed to it. It would also authorize the appropriation of
$4.517 million for FY 1991 for the Department of Transportation's
Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
-- Legislative Provisions
4
H.R. 5649 contains several legislative provisions, the most
objectionable of which are described above the line. Other
provisions would:
-- Earmark Space Shuttle production and operational
capability funds for certain safety enhancements to the
Space Shuttle.
-- Require the National Academy of Public Administration to
conduct a review of NASA management, and a cost benefit
analysis of the Shuttle-C program.
-- Require NASA to distribute research funds geographically
to provide for broad participation.
-- Provide reprogramming authorities, subject to certain
limitations.
-- As noted above the line, require the NASA Administrator to
award to domestic firms contracts that would have been
awarded to foreign firms under the use of competitive
procedures if certain conditions are met. This annually-
approved "Buy America" requirement also contains, however,
a burdensome reporting requirement with respect to
contracts with foreign entities determined to be in
violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT).
-- Require NASA to report to Congress periodically on the
Advanced Solid Rocket Motor costs.
-- State that it is U.S. policy that space related activities
be conducted so as not to increase orbital space debris.
-- Provide NASA with authority to purchase all U.S.
Government commercial space goods and services.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/27/90 -- 7:00 p.m.
OFFICE wish RESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 12, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5657 - U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals Amendments
(Montgomery (D) MS and Stump (R) AZ)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 5657.
*******
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with LVED (Jacobs/Kopca). The Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) (per Jack Thompson, Office of the General
Counsel) agrees with the position.
There is no House Veterans' Affairs Committee report on
H.R. 5657. The draft position is based on information provided
by VA staff.
H.R. 5657 would make technical amendments to the Veterans
Judicial Review Act. Specifically, it would authorize the Court
of Veterans Appeals to conduct judicial conferences to improve
the administration of veterans' appeals. In addition, the bill
would clarify the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to make veterans' medical records available to the Court in
connection with litigation pending before it.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
10/11/90
UNITED OFFICE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 9, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5675 Saguaro National Monument Boundary Expansion
(Kolbe (R) AZ and Udall (D) AZ)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 5675, which would
extend the boundaries of the Saguaro National Monument by some
3,600 acres. The National Park Service has not had the
opportunity to determine the merits of the proposal given the
lack of time available to obtain information about the area to be
added to the Monument. Cost estimates for the large amount of
land to be acquired have ranged from $10 to $30 million. Given
existing budgetary constraints, expansion of Saguaro National
Monument must be carefully evaluated against other land
acquisition priorities.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Peterson), in
consultation with NRD (Cogswell and Gibbons) and Interior
(Harris).
The Saguaro National Monument was created by Presidential
Proclamation in 1933 to preserve the life and landscape of a part
of the Sonoran desert of Arizona that was considered to be of
outstanding scientific interest. This area is known for its
exceptional growth of various species of cacti, including the
saguaro, or so-called "giant" cactus. The area also abounds in
other kinds of flora and fauna. The current boundary of the
Saguaro National Monument includes 83,576 acres.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
October 5, 1990 - 11:30 a.m.
OFFECE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 22, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5693 - Family Planning Reauthorization Act of 1990
(Waxman (D) CA)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 5693, which would
extend the current family planning program through FY 1994. This
bill is inconsistent with the proposal in the President's FY 1991
Budget to change the current family planning program from a
categorical grant program to a program of direct grants to
States. Continuation of the family planning program as a
categorical grant program would thwart the Administration's
efforts to provide maximum State and local control over the
delivery of family planning services. It would also undermine
the Administration's efforts to promote better integration of
family planning services with maternal and child health services.
*******
This draft position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with HIMD (Clendenin/Steil). HHS (per Linda
Eischeid, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislation) agrees with
the draft position.
Background
The President's FY 1991 Budget proposed to restructure the
title X family planning program from a categorical grant program
to a program of direct grants to States. The Administration
believes that a State-administered program of family planning
grants is the best mechanism for delivering family planning
services to low-income persons.
A draft bill to implement the budget proposal was submitted to
Congress on June 2, 1989. In addition to restructuring the
family planning program, the bill would have prohibited funding
programs in which abortion is a method of family planning.
Senator Coats (R-IN) introduced the Administration's bill as
S. 1671.
2
Provisions of the Bill
H.R. 5693 would:
-- Extend through FY 1994 the authority of the Secretary of HHS
to make grants to, and enter into contracts with, public or
private nonprofit entities to assist in the establishment
and operation of family planning projects. The bill
authorizes appropriations of $156.2 million for FY 1991,
$164.2 for FY 1992, $172.6 million for FY 1993, and
$181.5 million for FY 1994.
-- Authorize appropriations of $4.9 million for FY 1991,
$5.1 million for FY 1992, $5.3 million for FY 1993, and
$5.5 million for FY 1994 for family planning training and
technical assistance contracts.
-- Authorize appropriations of such sums as may be
necessary for each of FYs 1991-1994 for family planning
informational and educational materials.
S. 110, the Senate companion legislation, is seriously
objectionable. The bill contains provisions promoting abortion.
A recent SAP and HHS letter indicated that the President's senior
advisers would recommend a veto of S. 110. On September 26,
1990, the Senate defeated a motion to invoke cloture in
considering S. 110. In effect, that vote ends Senate
consideration of S. 110 for this year.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
10/18/90
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 22, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5791 - National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Appropriations Authorization
(Hertel (D) Michigan and 6 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 5791 because it
would:
Authorize appropriations for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ocean and coastal
programs, totalling $470.8 million, that exceed the
FY 1991 Budget by over $143 million.
Limit the price of nautical charts and other nautical
products produced or published by NOAA. This would
restrict NOAA's flexibility to adjust prices to reflect
actual costs, as provided by existing law.
Exempt obligations to carry out certain real property
lease-purchase acquisitions from the Anti-Deficiency Act
and understate the true cost of such acquisitions for
budget purposes. This requirement would circumvent the
"full funding" agreement between the Executive and
Legislative branches to score these purchases to avoid
misrepresenting total project costs.
Require the Secretary of Commerce to provide notice to
Congress before reprogramming appropriated funds. The
Congressional oversight process makes this limitation
unnecessary and burdensome.
Require the Secretary of Commerce to submit a report to
the Congress on the status and modernization needs of the
NOAA fleet. This is unnecessary because NOAA is presently
conducting a study and intends to provide its findings and
recommendations to Congress early next year.
In addition, if the version of H.R. 5791 that is brought to the
House floor contains provisions in H.R. 4115 as reported by the
House Science Committee, the Administration would object to the
title that would establish within the Department of Agriculture
an Agricultural Weather Office. This office would duplicate
existing Federal, State, and private sector programs. It would
also be inconsistent with existing law which designates the
2
Department of Commerce as the lead Federal agency for providing
agricultural weather services.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Bowers), in consultation with
the Departments of Commerce (Brown) and the Treasury (McGiven),
TCJ (Tornquist), NR (Offut), and BR (Kaufman).
According the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
minority staff (Pittman), H.R. 5791 is scheduled for House floor
action. An earlier version of the NOAA authorization legislation
(H.R. 4115) was reported, in different forms, by both the House
Merchant Marine and Science Committees. H.R. 5791 is similar to
the Merchant Marine Committee reported version of H.R. 4115. The
House Science Committee staff are attempting to incorporate the
text of the version of H.R. 4115 it reported into H.R. 5791
before House floor action. This would expand coverage of the
bill to NOAA atmospheric and satellite programs. The title of
that version establishing of an Agricultural Weather Office is
objectionable as described above.
Provisions of H.R. 5791
H.R. 5791 would authorize FY 1991 appropriations for ocean and
coastal programs at NOAA (in the Department of Commerce) and make
changes to NOAA programs as described below. It would:
--
Authorize FY 1991 appropriations totalling $471 million
for NOAA ocean and coastal programs. This would exceed
the Budget level of $328 million by $143 million for
comparable programs in the three NOAA functions it
authorizes. The major points of difference are: (1) $55
million over the Budget for the National Ocean Service,
including $32 million over the Budget for ocean and
coastal management; (2) $54 million over the Budget for
Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, including $46 million
for oceans and Great Lakes programs; and (3) $35 million
over the Budget for Program Support, including $26 million
over the Budget for marine services.
The Commerce appropriations bill has been passed by the
Senate with $366 million for these programs. (The House-
passed appropriations bill does not contain funding for
unauthorized programs.)
--
Prohibit the Secretary of Commerce from reprogramming
amounts appropriated under this Act without prior
notification to the House and Senate.
3
Place a price freeze on nautical charts or other products
of NOAA sold after the date of enactment. This provision
is intended to prevent NOAA from continuing to include
printing and distribution costs in its chart prices.
Establish within NOAA a Cooperative Institute of Fisheries
Oceanography in partnership with Duke University and the
Consolidated University of North Carolina. It would
authorize the appropriation of $500,000 for FY 1991 and
$525,000 for FY 1992 for administration, research, and
preparation of a 5-year R&D plan (which is to be submitted
to the Congress within one year of enactment) for the
Institute. Such an institute was created in 1989 by a
memorandum of understanding between the parties to promote
cooperative fisheries research in the South Atlantic
Bight.
Authorize Commerce to acquire, by exchange or lease-
purchase or both, real property and improvements thereto
in the area of Newport News-Norfolk, Virginia, to
consolidate NOAA facilities. The bill would prohibit any
lease from exceeding 30 years and would require that title
to property be transferred to the United States upon
expiration of the term. The bill also states that
obligations of funds for lease-purchase arrangements be
made without regard to the Anti-Deficiency Act and be
treated as budget authority and outlays for a fiscal year
only to the extent that expenditures pursuant to such
obligations are made in the fiscal year.
These provisions would understate the true cost of such
acquisitions in the budget and allow the appearance of
lower near-term outlays and budget authority at the
expense of higher long-term costs. They would be
inconsistent with the proposed rule on scoring purchases,
lease-purchases, and leases developed by the Executive and
Legislative branches. This rule states that "language
that attempts to waive the Anti-Deficiency Act, or to
limit the amount or timing of obligations recorded, does
not change the Government's obligations or obligation
authority, and so will not effect the scoring of budget
authority and outlays."
Require Commerce to submit a report to the Congress, by
December 31, 1990, on the status and modernization needs
of the NOAA fleet and the funding required to meet these
needs. The report is to contain a plan for replacing the
current NOAA fleet over the next 15 years and for
acquiring new vessels to meet current and projected
requirements.
4
Require Commerce to submit to the Congress, within six
months of enactment, a plan for the movement of the
National Marine Fisheries Service facilities on Kodiak
Island, Alaska, to an alternative location within the
boundaries of the Kodiak Island Borough.
Authorize Commerce to make grants and provide other
financial assistance to States, within funds authorized in
this bill, and provide technical assistance to States, to
develop geographic information systems relating to lands
and waters within the coastal zone. It would require
Commerce to develop a standard format and guidelines for
geographic information systems that might be developed.
Administration Position To Date
On June 26, 1990, Commerce testified before a House Science
subcommittee opposing H.R. 4115 unless it is amended consistent
with the Budget. The Administration has not commented on
H.R. 5791, which was introduced on October 4, 1990.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
10/19/90 -- 4:00 p.m.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 12, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R 5814 Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act
Amendments of 1990
(Rep. Montgomery (D) MS and 2 others)
On October 9, 1990, the Administration transmitted to Congress a
draft legislative proposal "To amend the Soldiers' and Sailors'
Civil Relief Act of 1940." That proposal would address the
concerns of Reserve Forces activated for Operation Desert Shield.
It would provide Reservists on active duty with protection in
court proceedings and protection from adverse action by
creditors. It would also protect their dependents from eviction.
In addition, the Administration has transmitted to Congress draft
legislation to provide professional liability protection for
certain military personnel.
The Administration supports House passage of H.R.
. That
bill has the same goals as the Administration's proposals, but
differs in certain respects. The Administration will work with
the Senate to conform H.R.
more closely with the
Administration's proposals.
*******
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Jeffrey Weinberg) in
consultation with NSD (Tom Stanners). The Department of Defense
(per Frank Rush, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Reserve Affairs) concurs.
H.R.
differs from the Administration's legislative proposal
in the following respects.
(1) The Administration proposed to protect from eviction
the dependents of activated Reservists paying up to
$750 per month in rent. That amount would be adjusted
each year for inflation. H.R.
sets the rent limit
at $1200 per month, without any adjustments.
(2) The Administration proposed to protect the credit
rating of activated Reservists who avail themselves of
the protections provided by the Soldiers' and Sailors'
Civil Relief Act. H.R.
contains no such
provision.
2
(3) H.R.
provides for reinstatement of health
insurance of activated Reservists upon their
reemployment and clarifies the reemployment rights
coverage for Reservists. The Administration did not
propose such provisions, but they do not seem to be
objectionable.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION
10/11/90
is
OFFICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 22, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 5855 Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act of 1990
(Fascell (D) Florida and 10 others)
The Administration fully supports H.R. 5855, which provides for
part of the President's proposal for economic growth and
environmental improvement in Latin America and the Caribbean.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Rooney) in consultation
with IAD (DuSault), Treasury (Mulford), State (Rappaport/Varga),
AID (Honnold), and NSC (Melby).
H.R. 5855 was ordered reported by the House Foreign Affairs
Committee on October 18, 1990. Although the reported version of
the bill is not yet available, HFAC staff has provided OMB with a
copy of the bill to be reported.
Provisions of H.R. 5855
H.R. 5855 provides those authorities for the President's
Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, transmitted to Congress
on September 14, 1990, that are within the House Foreign Affairs
Committee (HFAC) purview. Specifically, the bill establishes the
Enterprise for the Americas Facility in the Department of the
Treasury. This facility will support the objectives of the
Initiative through administration of debt reduction operations
for those countries that meet investment reforms and other policy
conditions.
H.R. 5855 provides for Environmental Framework Agreements, as
requested. The major differences in the Framework Agreement
provisions from the Administration's request are:
-- the Secretary of State rather than the President
would negotiate the agreements, with required
consultation with the Enterprise for the Americas
Board;
-- the contents of the agreements are more specifically
identified in the legislation; and
-- an administering body would be established to review
proposals for grant assistance and disburse funds from
the Environmental Fund.
H.R. 5855 also establishes an unrequested Enterprise for the
Americas Board, appointed by the President and composed of 5
U.S.G. employees and 4 representatives of private nongovernmental
organizations. This Board would (1) advise the Secretary of
State on negotiations of the Agreements; (2) ensure that a
suitable administering body is identified; and (3) review the
programs, operations, and fiscal audits of each administering
body.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
October 22, 1990, 2:00 P.M.