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
285790791
label
OSTP Report [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285790791
contentType
document
title
OSTP Report [1]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
06820-003
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
285790791
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
941654da0dbf4b3e
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:
06820-003
Folder Title:
OSTP Report [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
10
2
2
OFFICE STATE OF The TRESIDENT STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
0
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
(House Floor)
October 3, 1989
H.R. 3385 - TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE FOR FREE AND FAIR
ELECTIONS IN NICARAGUA
Sponsor: (Obey (D), Wisconsin)
The Administration strongly supports passage of H.R. 3385, as
reported by the House Appropriations Committee, without any
further amendment. This legislation would permit the use of
previously appropriated funds to help assure fair elections in
Nicaragua. It is vital to U.S. efforts to promote democracy in
that country. There will be no budget impact from this
legislation.
The bill is intended, in part, to promote fair and widespread
voter registration, which in Nicaragua will take place only in
the month of October. Therefore, the Administration urges strong
bipartisan support for rapid approval of the bill.
We strongly oppose the proposed floor amendment by
Congressman Durbin, which is made in order under the rule.
CRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
P Or UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
March 23, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3386 - Safe Transportation of Food Act
(Clinger (R) Pennsylvania and 59 others)
The Administration opposes H.R. 3386. The Administration
appreciates the public health concerns expressed by the sponsors
of this legislation. The Food and Drug Administration and the
Department of Agriculture already have sufficient authority and
expertise to protect the public from food contamination.
H.R. 3386 would assign food safety responsibilities to the
Department of Transportation, which does not possess regulatory
expertise in this area.
*****
(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
DOT (Bronner), HHS (Steighen), Justice (Dulmage), USDA
(Fydenlund), EPA (Stevens), TCJ (Corbett), and OIRA (Theroux).
Existing Authorities
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Food and Drug
Administration is authorized to act in cases involving the unsafe
handling and transportation of food. In addition, the Department
of Agriculture, under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and other
statutes, has responsibility for assuring the safe handling of
certain foodstuffs.
Provisions of H.R. 3386
H.R. 3386, as reported by the House Energy and Commerce and
Public Works and Transportation committees, would:
-- prohibit the transportation of food in refrigerated vehicles
which have been used to transport solid waste (except for
solid waste items specified in regulations issued by the
Secretary of Transportation);
-- prohibit the transportation of food in cargo tankers which
have been used to transport nonfood products (except for
such nonfood items specified in regulations issued by the
Secretary);
2
-- require cargo tankers to bear signage indicating whether
they are used to transport food or nonfood products;
-- require that asbestos and infectious wastes be transported
in dedicated vehicles (the Secretary could also issue
regulations specifying other items which could be
transported in such vehicles) ;
-- require the Secretary to issue regulations, within 150 days
of enactment, specifying how the Act will be implemented;
-- permit the Secretary to issue waivers of any provision of
the Act where such waivers would be in the public interest;
-- require the Secretary to provide a report to Congress within
180 days of enactment on whether additional measures to
regulate the transportation of food or other products are
necessary (the Secretary could issue regulations based on
this study, which would become effective 90 days after their
transmittal to Congress) ;
-- authorize the Secretary to implement the Act by conducting
investigations, issuing subpoenas, conducting hearings,
requiring the production of documents, and conducting
research and development and training activities;
-- provide for civil penalties of up to $10,000 for violations
of the Act or any implementing regulations, as well as
criminal penalties of up to 5 years imprisonment and fines
in accordance with Title 18 of the U.S. Code; and
-- permit the Secretary to request the Attorney General to
bring actions to enforce the Act.
Administration Position to Date
In November 16, 1989, letters to the House Public Works and
Transportation and Energy and Commerce committees, the Department
of Transportation opposed the enactment of H.R. 3386.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
3/23/89 -- 3:00 p.m.
STRESTIVE UNITED OFFICE * CRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 26, 1989
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3390 Veterans Education Amendments of 1989
(Penny (D) MN and 39 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 3390 because it
would:
-- require the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to prepare a
pamphlet on its education programs and then distribute it to
individuals first applying for such benefits and annually
thereafter. VA already publishes sufficient informational
materials to inform veterans about available education
benefits. For example, VA annually publishes 1.5 million
copies of VA Pamphlet 27-82-2, which describes each of the
current education benefit programs available, identifies VA
sources for obtaining further information, and lists
locations for filing applications.
-- expand work-study program eligibility to Chapter 35 students
(Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance).
Work-study benefits should not be provided to nonveterans
who can avail themselves of other government-wide
educational assistance opportunities.
-- limit to 20 hours a week the amount of time individuals
could participate in a work-study program. There is no
basis for such a limit. Widely varying class schedules may
reasonably allow more hours to be worked during some weeks
without adversely affecting individual student progress.
-- permit individuals attending school on a half-time basis to
be eligible for work-study benefits. The program is
tailored to meet the needs of full-time students.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft of a position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with LVED (Martin/Jacobs/Gates). The Department of
Veterans Affairs (Tony Principi, Deputy Secretary) agrees with
the proposed statement.
2
The House Veterans' Affairs Committee report on H.R. 3390 has not
been filed (the Committee ordered the bill reported on 10/18/89).
The discussion of the bill below is based on information provided
by VA staff (Dean Gallin).
In addition to the provisions cited in the above position,
H.R. 3390 would:
-- require educational institutions to report to VA the
enrollment of Chapter 31 trainees (veterans with
service-connected disabilities). The educational
institution would receive a fee for reporting the
information.
-- make several changes to VA's work-study program (eliminating
work-study advance payments -- an Administration proposal --
and changing the work-study payment scale).
-- amend certain conditions for resumption of work-study
benefits for students who have had their benefits suspended
for unsatisfactory progress or conduct.
-- make several technical and clerical amendments to the
title 38 education benefits programs.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
10/26/89
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STECUTIVE
SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 18, 1989
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3402 - The Polish and Hungarian Democracy
Initiative of 1989
(Fascell (D) FL and 57 others)
Poland and Hungary are experiencing truly historic and rapid
change in which democratic forces for the first time since World
War II are playing the leading role. The United States and the
West as a whole face a unique challenge and opportunity to assist
these countries in what we hope will be a peaceful and successful
transformation from state-controlled economic and political
systems to political pluralism, democracy, and market economies.
From the outset of his Administration, President Bush has taken
the lead in supporting reform in Poland and Hungary and has
worked with Congress to ensure that comprehensive legislation is
enacted on an urgent basis. The President's policy has been
flexible to account for changing circumstances; conditional to
provide incentives for macroeconomic reform; and has provided
U.S. leadership in developing a concerted Western approach since
no one country can provide all that Poland and Hungary need.
H.R. 3402 reflects this cooperation -- incorporating the key
elements of the President's program -- and the wide bipartisan
support for assisting these two countries on their path to
democracy. The Administration has reservations about the
excessive funding levels contained in this legislation, and also
has various constitutional concerns that must be addressed. The
Administration supports House passage of H.R. 3402 and will work
with the Senate to address these problems.
*
*
*
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by State (Hauser) and NSC
(Lampley), in consultation with LRD (Killgore/Rooney/Peterson), IAD
(Smith/Bent/DuSault), LVE (Walsh), ES (Bennethum), GC (Thiele), NRD
(Beard/Fairweather), White House Counsel (Rademaker), Justice
(DeSanctis), AID (Brown), Treasury (Levy), Agriculture (Hovermale),
Labor (Greene), Eximbank (Record), TDP (DeSoto), Peace Corps
(Runkel), Energy (Heindel), DOD (Brick), OPIC (Horanburg), USIA
(Isacco), Commerce (Dalmut), CEA (Collins), and EPA (Hassett). USTR
had this material for review, but did not respond within the
allotted time.
2
Administration Poland-Hungary Proposals
The Administration has proposed a comprehensive package of
assistance measures to support Poland's and Hungary's economic
and political regeneration. Specifically, the Administration has
proposed:
-- Providing Poland with eligibility for the Generalized System
of Preferences (GSP), thereby according duty free entry for
a number of goods from that country.
-- Authorizing the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
(OPIC) to operate its programs for U.S. investors in Poland.
OPIC provides insurance against political risks, loan
guarantees, small business loans, and an array of
preinvestment services.
-- Establishing the Polish-American Enterprise Fund ($100M) and
the Hungarian-American Enterprise Fund ($25M). These funds
would provide loans, grants, and other assistance to private
enterprise activities in each country.
-- Providing technical assistance to Poland ($4M) and Hungary
($1M) for (a) implementing labor market reforms and
(b) facilitating adjustment during the period of economic
transition and reform.
-- Establishing (a) an air quality monitoring network and a
water quality program in Krakow, Poland, and (b) a regional
environmental center in Budapest, Hungary. A total of $10M
was requested for these programs.
-- Demonstrating the use of clean coal technology in Poland
($10M).
-- A total of $200 million for economic stabilization purposes,
which would be the U.S. contribution to the $1 billion in
Western assistance the Poles have requested.
New statutory authority is required to implement the above-noted
provisions. In addition, the Administration has offered
emergency food aid to Poland totalling $100 million.
Provisions of H.R. 3402
As reported by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, H.R. 3402
incorporates the Administration's proposals, generally at higher
appropriation authorization levels covering a three year period,
and adds additional assistance as described below.
Constitutional Concerns
Justice, White House Counsel, and OMB Counsel advise that various
provisions in H.R. 3402 would micromanage the Executive branch
3
and infringe on the President's constitutional authority to
conduct foreign affairs. For example, the bill would:
-- purport to dictate U.S. foreign policy or mandate actions by
U.S. Government agencies overseas (e.g. requiring the U.S.
Government to mobilize international financial institutions
to help Poland and Hungary) ;
-- require the President to consult with Congress before
designating the enterprise funds; and
-- infringe on the President's authority to manage the
Executive branch (e.g. requiring the Secretary of Labor to
delegate authority to carry out labor programs to the head
of the Bureau of International Labor Affairs of the
Department of Labor).
Poland/Hungary Aid Package
(Authorization Levels in millions)
Administration
H.R. 3402
Enterprise Fund
$125
$200
Labor Reform
5
5
Environmental Projects
10
10
Clean Coal
10
30
Economic Stabilization
200
200
Food Aid
100
125
Technical Training
-
10
Peace Corps
-
6
Trade and Development Program
-
6
Educational/Cultural Exchanges
-
12
Scholarships
-
10
Science/Tech Exchanges
-
8
Democratic Institutions
-
12
Medical Program
-
6
AID Admin. Expenses
-
0.5
TOTAL
450
*640.5
4
*In addition, the bill authorizes $200 million in loan
guarantee authority for AID's Trade Credit Insurance Program.
This is also in addition to the Administration's request.
Neither the House or Senate appropriations bills fund this
program.
Title I - Structural Adjustments
Multilateral Support -- requires that, to the degree Poland and
Hungary continue to evolve toward pluralism and democracy and to
develop and implement comprehensive economic reform programs, the
U.S. Government shall;
-- take the leadership in mobilizing international financial
institutions to provide appropriate resources to help Poland
and Hungary:
-- support the implementation of a plan of the Polish
government to carry out comprehensive economic reform and
relieve urgent balance of payment requirements through
merchanisms such as the Exchange Stabilization Fund;
-- urge all members of the "Paris Club" of creditor governments
to adopt generous rescheduling programs for debts owed by
the government of Poland; and
-- make available to Poland, in coordination with the European
Community, U.S. agricultural assistance to alleviate
immediate food shortages and facilitate the transition to a
free market economy and take appropriate steps to encourage
parallel efforts by other agricultural surplus nations.
Stabilization Assistance for Poland -- authorizes $200 million
for FY 1990 to assist in the stabilization of the Polish economy.
Agricultural Assistance -- establishes a minimum level of
agricultural assistance for Poland in FY 1990 of $125 million
under the Agricultural Act of 1949, the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954, and the Food for Programs
Act of 1985.
Title II Private Sector Development
Enterprise Funds for Poland and Hungary -- authorizes enterprise
funds similar to those proposed by the Administration, except for
funding. Whereas the Administration requested $125 million,
H.R. 3402 authorizes $200 million for FYs 1990-1992 ($160 million
for Poland; $40 million for Hungary). The President would be
5
required to consult with Congress before designating each
Enterprise Fund. AID is designated as the administering agency.
Labor Market Transition -- authorizes $5 million for
FYs 1990-1991 labor market reform activities in Poland and
Hungary similar to those proposed by the Administration.
Technical Training for Private Sector Development in Poland and
Hungary -- directs AID to develop a program for extending basic
agribusiness, commercial, entrepreneurial, financial, scientific,
and technical skills to the people of Poland and Hungary.
Authorizes $10 million for FYs 1990-1992 for these activities.
Peace Corps Programs in Poland and Hungary -- authorizes $6
million for FYs 1990-1992 to carry out programs in Poland and
Hungary under the Peace Corps Act.
Use of Polish Currency Generated by Agricultural Assistance --
provides that a portion of agricultural commodities made
available to Poland may be sold or bartered in that country to
generate local currencies to complement other assistance
authorized for Poland. The uses of local currencies so generated
should emphasize agricultural development.
III Trade and Investment
GSP -- authorizes GSP eligibility to Poland.
OPIC Programs for Poland and Hungary -- authorizes OPIC to
operate in Poland and Hungary.
Export-Import Bank Programs -- makes Poland and Hungary eligible
for Eximbank loans and directs Eximbank to work with private
financial intermediaries to facilitate exports to Poland.
Trade Credit Insurance Program -- authorizes the President, for
FYs 1990-1992, to provide guarantees to Eximbank for liabilities
incurred for guarantees or insurance for financing transactions
involving the export of goods and services for use of the private
sector in Poland. Economic Security Funds (ESF), as the
President determines are necessary, may be made available to
discharge liabilities under guarantees. A reserve fund is also
established by the administering agency to discharge liabilities
under guarantees. The aggregate amount of outstanding
commitments may not exceed $200 million of contingent liability
in any fiscal year and commitments to guarantee are authorized
only in the amounts provided in advance by appropriations.
Trade and Development Programs (TDP) -- authorizes the
appropriation of $6 million for FYs 1990-1992 to permit expansion
of TDP into Poland and Hungary.
6
Bilateral Investment Treaties -- a sense of the Congress
provision that urges the President to seek bilateral investment
treaties with Poland and Hungary.
Title IV - Educational, Cultural and Scientific Activities
Educational and Cultural Exchanges -- states that the United
States should expand cultural and educational exchange activities
in Poland and Hungary, including the establishment of "sister
institutions" programs. Authorizes $12 million for FYs 1990-1992
to USIA to support such activities.
Scholarship Partnership -- authorizes AID to establish and
administer a program of scholarship assistance for students from
Poland and Hungary to study in the United States. States could
participate in the program though 50 percent matching grants.
Scholarship recipients who return to Poland or Hungary for a
designated period would have no repayment obligation. Authorizes
$10 million for FYs 1990-1992.
Science and Technology Exchange -- authorizes $8 million over
FYs 1990-1992 for the implementation of the U.S.-Polish and
U.S. -Hungarian science and technology agreements. $5.5 million
is for Poland and $2.5 million is for Hungary.
Assistance in Support of Democratic Institutions -- authorizes
$12 million in ESF funds for FYs 1990-1992 for support of
democratic institutions and activities in Poland and Hungary.
Environmental Initiatives -- authorizes up to $10 million for
FYs 1990-1992 to carry out EPA activities in Poland and Hungary
as proposed by the Administration.
Department of Energy (DOE) Activities -- authorizes $30 million
for FYs 1990-1992 for DOE activities in Poland which would
include cooperation with Polish officials to retrofit a
coal-fired powerplant in Krakow and development of Polish
capability to manufacture equipment for the clean burning of
fossil fuels.
Medical Supplies, Equipment, Training for Poland -- authorizes $6
million in ESF funds for FYs 1990-1992 to provide medical
supplies and hospital equipment to Poland and for training Polish
medical personnel.
AID Administrative Expenses -- authorizes AID to use up to $0.5
million each fiscal year to carry out its administrative
functions.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
10/18/89
FREE PRESIDENT* DEPARTMENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
May 30, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3406 - Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act
(Kastenmeier (D) Wisconsin and Hughes (D) New Jersey)
The Administration supports the enactment of H.R. 3406.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Blum), in consultation with
the Departments of Justice (Dulmage/Beck), Transportation
(Donelan), and Commerce (Dalmut), the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts (Feidler), GC (Damus), White House
Counsel (Hatch), and TCJ (Sloan).
A copy of H.R. 3406 as ordered reported is not yet available for
review. However, based on agencies and OMB staff review of an
advance draft of the bill, it would expand the jurisdiction of
Federal courts to hear cases arising out of mass torts. These
cases (e.g., airplane crashes and hotel fires) typically are
complex and can involve many lawsuits in a myriad of State and
Federal courts. This bill would make it easier to consolidate
proceedings in the Federal courts. The bill's sponsor has stated
that H.R. 3406 is intended to reduce duplicative litigation in
the Federal courts.
Provisions of H.R. 3406
H.R. 3406 would specifically provide jurisdiction to Federal
courts to handle cases involving mass torts if: (1) any of the
defendants come from a different State than do the plaintiffs;
(2) the cause of action arises from a single accident; and (3) at
least 25 persons have died or sustained physical injuries
resulting in damages in excess of $50,000 per person. The bill
would also broaden venue (i.e., where a case may be filed) for
mass tort cases to include any district in which any defendant
resides.
Other provisions of H.R. 3406 would:
-- Expand the authority of courts receiving mass tort cases
transferred via multidistrict litigation procedures. Such
actions could be retained by the receiving court not only
for pretrial proceedings, but for determinations of
liability and, in some cases, damages.
2
-- Make it easier to consolidate in Federal courts those mass
tort actions that were originally filed in State courts, and
allow Federal courts to return cases to the State courts for
damage determinations, when appropriate.
-- Specify factors that Federal district courts may consider
when determining which State's laws should apply to
determine liability and related issues.
Administration Position to Date
The Department of Justice supported H.R. 3406 in testimony before
a House Judiciary subcommittee on November 15, 1989. At the
hearing, the Justice witness stated that H.R. 3406 will "markedly
increase the fair, speedy and efficient resolution of mass tort
cases."
Legislative Reference Division Draft
5/29/90 -- 10:15 a.m.
PROVIDE UNITED and OFFICE FRESWEND
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 25, 1989
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3443 - Air Carriers Securities Acquisition
(Oberstar (D) Minnesota and 28 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 3443, and the
President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto this
bill or any similar legislation.
The Department of Transportation has sufficient authority to
ensure that airline operators are financially fit, and comply
with U.S. citizenship requirements. H.R. 3443, on the other
hand, would require that airline acquisitions be disapproved for
reasons not directly related to safety or competition, and
needlessly signal hostility to foreign investment in the airline
industry.
*
*
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was drafted by the
Legislative Reference Division (Brown), in consultation with the
Departments of Transportation (Herlihy), Commerce (Dalmut),
Justice (Pestal) the Treasury (Levy), and State (Bachrach) ; and
CEA (Stein), TCJ (Pheto), HTF (Ohri), OIRA (Clarke), and EP
(Jacobson).
H.R. 3443
H.R. 3443, as ordered reported by the House Public Works and
Transportation Committee, would require the Secretary of
Transportation to review and approve acquisitions of voting stock
in air carriers where: (1) the carrier has annual revenues of
more than $750,000,000; (2) the stock is being acquired by a
person who owns less than 15 percent of the airline's voting
stock; and (3) the acquisition would result in the ownership by
that person of more than 15 percent of the airline's voting
stock.
All covered acquisitions would be subject to a 30 day waiting
period. The Secretary could shorten this period by approving the
acquisition before the period expires, or lengthen it by up to 20
days if additional information is required to make a
determination.
2
The Secretary would be required to disapprove any covered
acquisition if it is determined that:
-- the acquisition would weaken the carrier financially to
the extent that it would be: (1) less able to comply with
safety procedures; (2) unable to take the steps necessary
to operate with the highest degree of safety; (3) required
to dispose of a substantial portion of its aviation
related assets to meet its financial obligations;
(4) less able to compete in providing air transportation;
-- the acquisition would result in non-U.S. citizen control
of the carrier;
-- the proposed purchaser does not provide all information
required by the Secretary to make a determination; or
-- the proposed purchaser intends to dispose of a substantial
portion of the carrier's aviation-related assets, unless:
(1) the disposal is otherwise necessary to avoid the
financial failure of the airline; (2) involves assets the
airline cannot use profitably; or (3) is otherwise in the
public interest.
Administration Position to Date
In a letter to the House Aviation Subcommittee dated
October 16 1989, the Deputy Secretary of Transportation stated
that the Administration opposes H.R. 3443. In a letter to the
House Public Works and Transportation Committee dated
October 18, 1989, the Secretary of Transportation stated that the
President's senior advisors would recommend that he veto
H.R. 3443 "or any similar legislation."
Legislative Reference Division Draft
10/19/89 - 4:00 p.m.
RIMI PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
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. 3468 - Expansion of the Stewart B. McKinney
National Wildlife Refuge
(Morrison (D) Connecticut and 5 others)
The Administration supports the enactment of H.R. 3468.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Coleman) in consultation
with NRD (Kaplan, Cogswell, and Gibbons) and Interior (Moore).
It is consistent with Interior testimony on the bill at a
March 13, 1990, hearing before the House Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee.
H.R. 3468 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
acquire three parcels of land -- totalling approximately 1,000
acres -- for expansion of the Stewart B. McKinney National
Wildlife Refuge in Connecticut. Such acquisition would cost
approximately $9.1 million.
LEGISLAIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
July 12, 1990 - 1:05 PM
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
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. 3493 - Route 66 Study Act
(Watkins (D) OK)
The Administration has no objection to H.R. 3493.
*****
(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 committee report is not available. Interior staff (Harris)
advises, however, that H.R. 3493 would require the Secretary of
the Interior to undertake a comprehensive study of U.S. Route 66.
The study is to include an evaluation of the significance of
Route 66 and options for preservation of features associated with
the highway. Private sector initiatives are to be fully
evaluated. The study is to include participation by
representatives of associations interested in the preservation of
Route 66 and its features. Within two years of receiving
appropriations for the study, the Secretary is to submit it to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the United
States Senate and the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
of the United States House of Representatives.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
July 26, 1990 - 5:22 PM
ATM OFFICE UNITED D.STANCE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
October 24, 1989
o
(House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3506 - Temporary Protected Status for Nicaraguans,
Salvadorans, Chinese, and Nationals of Other Countries
(Moakley (D) Massachusetts)
The Administration opposes H.R. 3506 because it would:
-- undermine the comprehensive and fair system governing asylum
and deportation established by the Refugee Act of 1980, by
focusing on the nationality of the alien rather than on the
merits of the individual's circumstances;
-- favor aliens of particular nations and encourage additional
nation-specific legislation to provide for similar
preferential treatment;
-- limit the President's foreign policy and other discretionary
prerogatives that are exercised by either the Secretary of
State or the Attorney General with respect to the
deportation of foreign nationals designated by the bill; and
-- direct inappropriately the General Accounting Office to
investigate the treatment of displaced Salvadorans,
Nicaraguans and Chinese nationals. (This provision poses a
significant risk of legislative entanglement in functions
assigned under the Constitution to the Executive branch.)
With respect to nationals of China present in the United States
as of June 6, 1989, the Administration -- in response to the
unique circumstances in China -- has taken steps administratively
to ensure that these aliens may remain in the United States. The
Administration is continuing to monitor developments in China and
intends to provide further immigration relief as circumstances
warrant.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Blum), in consultation with
the Departments of Justice (Wolf), State (Bachrach), Labor
(Taylor), NSC (Dyke), White House Counsel (Rademaker), USIA
(Isacco), TCJ (Fasano), IA (Sasser), and LVE (Rideout).
2
Given the sensitivity of this legislation, LRD recommends that
this SAP be reviewed by White House staff (including the Vice
President's Counsel's office, the Office of Policy Development,
and the Domestic Policy Council staff).
A copy of H.R. 3506 is not yet available for review. The
Department of Justice advises informally -- based on
conversations with House Judiciary Committee staff -- that
H.R. 3506 will contain amended versions of both H.R. 45 and
H.R. 2929 as reported by the House Judiciary Committee. (H.R. 45
concerns protecting Salvadorans and Nicaraguans in the United
States from deportation, and H.R. 2929 would permit Chinese
nationals and other aliens to remain in the United States, as
discussed below.) House Rules Committee staff (Daniel) advises
informally that H.R. 3506 will be offered as an amendment in the
nature of a substitute to H.R. 45.
Provisions of H.R. 45 as Reported by the House Judiciary
Committee
H.R. 45 would prohibit for three years the deportation of many
Salvadorans and Nicaraguans who have been continuously residing
in the United States prior to March 1, 1989, and who have not
been convicted of various criminal offenses.
H.R. 45 would provide that: (1) aliens must register with the INS
within 180 days of the enactment of this legislation, and
annually thereafter, in order to be protected from deportation
proceedings; (2) registered aliens would be provided with
documentation verifying their temporary eligibility to perform
work within the United States; and (3) aliens covered by this
legislation would not be eligible for Federal programs of public
assistance except in the case of emergency medical treatment.
(Note: H.R. 3506 is expected to preclude aliens from
participating in any program of cash assistance except in the
case of emergency medical treatment.)
In addition, the bill would require the GAO to conduct an
investigation on the treatment of displaced Salvadorans and
Nicaraguans in the United States and in various Central American
countries (e.g., Honduras). (Note: The provision contained in
H.R. 3506 is expected to include Chinese nationals outside of
their country.) The GAO report must be completed within two
years and two months after the bill's enactment. After
submission of the GAO report to Congress, the appropriate
congressional committees must report on the need for any
legislation to provide additional relief for displaced nationals
of Nicaragua and El Salvador (and China -- H.R. 3506).
3
-- Administration Position To Date on H.R. 45
On July 31st, the Department of Justice sent a letter to the
House Judiciary Committee opposing H.R. 45. In addition, the
Departments of Justice and State testified in June before the
Senate Judiciary Committee in opposition to similar legislation
(S. 458).
Provisions of H.R. 2929 as Reported by the House Judiciary
Committee
-- Chinese Nationals
H.R. 2929 would prohibit for three years the deportation of
Chinese nationals who have continuously resided in the United
States since July 1, 1989. In addition, H.R. 2929 would provide
that such aliens shall be considered as having continued to
maintain lawful status as a nonimmigrant during the period of the
deferral of the enforcement of departure.
-- Aliens From Other Countries
H.R. 2929 would permit the Attorney General to designate other
groups to receive temporary protection from deportation. This
protected status would be granted to aliens of foreign countries
where the Attorney General finds that: (1) there is an ongoing
armed conflict within the aliens' home country; (2) there has
been an environmental disaster, and the home country would be
unable to handle adequately the return of those aliens, and the
home country has officially asked the United States to not deport
such aliens; or (3) other extraordinary conditions exist in the
aliens' home country. A designation of a country under either
the first or third category would cause all eligible aliens in
the United States who are nationals of that country to receive
protected status. With respect to environmental disasters, the
Attorney General may limit relief to aliens who are residents of
the affected area.
-- Other Provisions
H.R. 2929 provides that protected status may be terminated if the
Attorney General determines that the basis for granting the
status no longer exists (or in cases of fraud or noncompliance
with eligibility standards). In addition, H.R. 2929 would
provide that decisions concerning granting, extending, or
terminating the protected status will not be subject to judicial
review.
H.R. 2929, like H.R. 45, would provide work authorizations to
aliens who have registered for and received protected status.
Similarly, H.R. 2929 contains basic eligibility standards which
aliens seeking to be temporarily protected from deportation must
satisfy. In general, these standards would exclude aliens who
4
have been convicted of various criminal, drug, or national
security offenses. Aliens would not be eligible for any program
of public assistance except for treatment of an emergency medical
condition. (Note: As contained in H.R. 3506, this provision is
expected to preclude eligibility for any program of cash
assistance -- except for treatment of medical emergencies.)
H.R. 2929 also would provide that unless otherwise stated, its
provisions would constitute the exclusive authority of the
Attorney General to permit deportable aliens to remain in the
country. (Currently, the Attorney General, usually with the
recommendation of the Secretary of State, has the discretionary
authority to permit deportable aliens to remain in the United
States in appropriate circumstances. This deferral of
deportation has come to be known as "extended voluntary
departure.") The bill would also require the Attorney General to
report annually to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees the
number of nationals granted temporary protected status from
deportation and related information.
-- Administration Position To Date Concerning Chinese Nationals
(H.R. 2929 and H.R. 2712)
The Administration has not yet taken a position on H.R. 2929.
On July 31st, a SAP was sent to the House opposing H.R. 2712, a
bill which would waive the two-year foreign residence requirement
imposed on certain exchange students who are Chinese nationals.
Without such a waiver, these students would be required to return
to China and live there for two years before being eligible to
apply for an immigrant visa to the United States. The reasons
expressed for opposing H.R. 2712 are consistent with those
contained in this draft SAP. (The relief provided by H.R. 45
complements that provided by H.R. 2712.)
In addition, on July 20th, the Departments of Justice and State
and the USIA testified in opposition to H.R. 2712 before a House
Judiciary subcommittee. The Justice witness opposed the waiver
of the two-year foreign residence requirement because: (1) the
immigration laws already provide for the administrative waiver of
the foreign residence requirement; and (2) the Attorney General
has ordered the INS to take all steps necessary to defer
temporarily enforcing the departure of Chinese nationals who were
in the United States on June 6, 1989.
H.R. 2712 has passed both Houses, and conferees have been
appointed.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
10/24/89 - 12:45 p.m.
wish 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. 3533 - Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act Amendments
(Emerson (R) Missouri and 71 others)
The Administration supports reauthorization of the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) consistent with the President's
budget. However, the Administration opposes enactment of
H.R. 3533 because it would require unnecessary and costly
modifications to the program. Specifically, H.R. 3533 is
objectionable because it would:
--
Authorize appropriations that exceed the President's
budget by $31 million in FY 1991 and $231 million for
FYs 1991-1994 for all four NEHRP agencies.
--
Require minimum levels of funding by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) that would impose unnecessary constraints
on its support for earthquake-related research and adversely
affect other high-priority NSF research programs.
--
Confer unrealistic responsibilities on the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) with respect to the NEHRP's content
and budgetary matters.
--
Outline in statute specific agency responsibilities at
a level of detail that would inappropriately restrict
agency flexibility to effectively administer and
respond to differing needs of earthquake hazard areas.
--
Impose statutory requirements that would dilute levels
of State and local financial support for the State
seismic safety assistance program.
--
Mandate fixed deadlines for the Federal Government to
establish seismic safety standards for existing Federal and
Federally-assisted buildings. These deadlines may be
unrealistic given the need for more research in this area.
Moreover, the bill fails to address the need for any such
standards to be cost-effective.
--
Require the Office of Science and Technology Policy to
report to Congress on how it can play a role in
coordination, planning, and operation of the program.
Such responsibilities would duplicate the lead agency
role and that of the proposed advisory committee.
2
*****
(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 the Interior (West) and Commerce (Sockett),
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Levy/Cowan), the
National Science Foundation (Chester), the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (Maynard), HTF (Tanaka), NR (Kaplan), and ES
(Fellows).
H.R. 3533 has been reported in different versions by the House
Committees on Science and on Interior. House Interior Committee
staff (N. Johnson) has indicated that the version that will come
to the House floor is a compromise developed by majority staff
members from the two committees. That version was used to
prepare this Statement.
Summary of H.R. 3533
H.R. 3533 would reauthorize NEHRP at levels exceeding the Budget
as described above. It would also modify the program in several
ways; the most objectionable modifications are described above
the line. Other provisions, i.e., those that are not
objectionable, generally would place in statute existing agency
policies. For example, the bill would statutorily set specific
cost-sharing requirements for grants to States by FEMA. It would
confer upon FEMA greater responsibility, supplanting the
respective roles of other NEHRP agencies.
Background
The National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Act is
principally administered by four agencies (FEMA as the lead, the
U.S. Geological Survey in Interior, NSF and the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Commerce).
The Adminisitration submitted legislation reauthorizing NEHRP for
two years. It did not propose any modifications to the program.
Administration Position To Date
NSF sent a letter to the House Science Committee opposing H.R.
3533 because of excessive authorization levels, spending floors,
and restrictive language codifying agency responsibilities.
FEMA, Interior, NSF, and Commerce testified before the Committee
in March supporting reauthorization of NEHRP at levels in the
Budget and expressing concerns about H.R. 3533.
3
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/20/90 -- 6:30 P.M.
OFFICE IN RESIDENT* UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 2, 1989
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3544 - Transfer of a Naval Landing Shipdock to Brazil
(Fascell (D) FL and Broomfield (R) MI)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 3544.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Killgore/Rooney), in
consultation with NSD (Greene), DOD (Brick), and State
(Bachrach).
H.R. 3544 is virtually identical to an Administration bill which
was transmitted by Defense to Congress on September 13, 1989.
The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to lease the
USS HERMITAGE, a landing ship dock, to the Government of Brazil.
The HERMITAGE was decommissioned in October 1989, and is
currently kept in reserve status. It is not expected that the
HERMITAGE will be needed for U.S. use during the proposed lease
period. However, should the HERMITAGE be required by the United
States at any time during the lease period, a termination option
would be exercised to return the ship immediately to U.S. Navy
custody.
H.R. 3544 specifies the following conditions for leasing the
HERMITAGE:
-- The requirement for congressional notification under
the Arms Export Control Act is waived as unnecessary.
-- All costs are to be borne by the Government of Brazil.
This includes the costs of maintaining the HERMITAGE in
condition close to fully operational during the period
after decommissioning but before commencement of the
lease term.
2
-- The initial lease of the HERMITAGE under this Act must
be within two years of the date of enactment.
-- Renewal of a lease entered into under this Act is
authorized, subject to the statutory requirement to
report lease terms to Congress prior to renewal.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
11/2/89
OFFICE DE RESIDENT* UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
0
April 19, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3545 Extending the Term of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal National Historical Park Commission
(Byron (D) MD and 8 others)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 3545.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Coleman) in consultation
with NRD (Taylor, Cogswell, and Gibbons) and Interior (West). It
is consistent with Interior testimony on the bill at a March 6,
1990, hearing before the House Interior Committee.
The Committee report on H.R. 3545 is not available. We have been
advised by Interior staff (West), however, that H.R. 3545 would
extend the term of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National
Historical Park Commission for 10 years, from January 8, 1991, to
January 8, 2001. The bill would also allow current members of
the Commission to continue to serve after their terms expire
until a successor has taken office. The Commission was
authorized by P.L. 91-664 in 1971. It advises the Secretary "on
general policies and specific matters related to the
administration and development of the park."
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
4/19/90
OFFICE RESIDEMT # UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
April 19, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.J.Res.
- Technical Corrections in the Ethics
Reform Act of 1989
(
)
The Administration supports enactment of H.J.Res.
.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Schreiber) in
consultation with OGC (Damus). The Office of Government Ethics
(Jane Ley), the Department of Justice (Nick Wise), and the White
House Counsel (Amy Schwartz) concur in this position.
There is no Committee report on this resolution, which has yet to
be introduced.
This resolution, which was initiated by Congress, incorporates
suggestions from the Executive branch. Boyden Gray sent letters
on March 19, 1990, to Senator Dole and others urging adoption of
technical corrections amendments to the Ethics Reform Act of 1989
(P.L. 101-194).
The joint resolution to be considered (which may be amended to
include additional technical corrections) was reviewed and
approved earlier by Justice, OGE, and the White House Counsel's
Office.
The two principal corrections which the resolution would make in
the Ethics Reform Act would:
-- reinstate a requirement for filing of financial disclosure
statements by Executive and Judicial branch employees for
calendar 1990; and
-- restore to the definition of officers and employees of the
U.S. "members of the uniformed services," for purposes of
coverage under the criminal laws.
The resolution would make numerous other technical corrections in
the Ethics Reform Act. For example, there is a change to benefit
Members of Congress by exempting from public disclosure gifts of
food products provided by home-State businesses to a Member's
office for publicity purposes and not for use of the Member. The
2
resolution would also correct and perfect a tax roll-over
provision previously enacted to benefit persons who are required
to divest assets to avoid a conflict-of-interest.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
4/19/90
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 10, 1989
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3550 Drug Forfeiture Amendments
(Hughes (D) New Jersey)
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 3550, which is
consistent with the Administration's proposal to make funds
available to the Special Forfeiture Fund (SFF) periodically
throughout the year rather than only at the end of the year. In
1990, the SFF will be used to help finance additional Federal
prison construction, as proposed in the President's Drug Control
Strategy.
The Administration will seek deletion in conference of:
-- section 2 (c), which makes SFF funds unavailable after
January 31, 1990, if the Director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy has not designated high intensity drug
trafficking areas by that date; and
-- section 2 (d), which inappropriately interferes with
Presidential discretion over the timing and transmittal of
supplemental appropriation requests.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Jukes), in consultation with
the Department of Justice (Jones), the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP) (Kalder), TCJ (Duke, Sloan, Murphy,
Vandenberg, Beebe, Schwartz), and BR (Rea).
H.R. 3550 contains authority to transfer funds to the ONDCP's
Special Forfeiture Fund (SFF) beginning after the first quarter
of FY 1990, rather than at the end of FY 1990, as in current law.
This provision is similar to a proposal in the Administration's
bill to implement the President's 1989 National Drug Control
Strategy.
The SFF, established by the Anti-Drug Act of 1988, is to be used
by the Director of ONDCP to carry out the National Drug Strategy.
ONDCP advises that it intends to transfer these funds to Justice
for Federal prison construction, consistent with the President's
Budget and the conference report on the DOT FY 1990
appropriations bill. The SFF is financed by transfers from
Justice's Assets Forfeiture Fund.
2
The bill also contains the following provisions:
-- A prohibition on expenditures from the SFF after January 31,
1990, if the Director of ONDCP has not, by that date,
designated "High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas" pursuant
to the 1988 Act. The ONDCP Director has discretion to make
such designations. If he does so, he may then, with the
approval of other agencies, direct the temporary assignment
of Federal personnel and take other actions to provide
increased Federal assistance to such areas.
-- A requirement that the President transmit, by
February 28, 1990, a request for such supplemental
appropriation as may be necessary for FY 1990 for deposit in
the SFF; and
-- The text of H.R. 2806, as passed by the House on
October 17th. This bill, to which the Administration raised
no objection in a SAP of October 5th, clarifies current law
regarding the disposition of assets forfeited in connection
with drug violations. (For example, it requires Justice to
assure that the transfer of forfeited property to State or
local law enforcement agencies bears a reasonable
relationship to such agencies' participation in the
operation on which the forfeiture is based.)
Legislative Reference Division Draft
11/10/89
OFFICE WIS PRESIDENT MASSACHUSETTS UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
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. 3562 - Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1989
(Waxman (D) CA and 18 others)
The Administration recognizes that changes in nutrition labeling
are needed. However, the Administration opposes H.R. 3562 as
unnecessary in light of the Food and Drug Administration's
proposed rules for nutrition labeling published in the July 19th
Federal Register. Public comments are currently being accepted
on those proposed rules.
********
OFFICE EDUBTES WTM PRESIDENT 0 STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 15, 1989
(Senate Floor)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3566 - DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND
EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1990
The Administration supports the FY 1990 Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill as passed by the House on November 15, 1989,
and urges its passage without amendment.
PRINTER
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
STATE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 15, 1989
(House Floor)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3566 - DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND
EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1990
(Sponsors: Whitten (D), Mississippi; Natcher (D), Kentucky)
The Administration supports the FY 1990 Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill as reported by the Full Committee on
Appropriations on November 14, 1989, and urges its passage
without amendment.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 15, 1989
(House Floor)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3610 -- DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1990
(Sponsors: Whitten (D), Mississippi; Dixon (D), California)
The Administration continues to object strongly to H.R. 3610,
the FY 1990 District of Columbia Appropriations bill, as reported
by the House Appropriations Committee. The bill, as reported,
still deletes language included in the FY 1989 District of
Columbia Appropriations Act that prohibits the use of all
appropriated funds for abortion except where the life of the
mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.
The Committee did take action to restrict the use of Federal
funds for abortion, consistent with the FY 1989 language.
However, this restriction was not applied to District of Columbia
funds, which may still be used to pay for abortions. The
President vetoed H.R. 3026 on October 27, 1989, because it did
not include the FY 1989 language restrictions on both Federal and
District funds.
The Administration urges the House to restore the FY 1989
language on abortion so that the President is finally presented
with a bill that he can sign.
The absence in H.R. 3610, of the restriction on District of
Columbia funds, would result in the President's senior advisors
recommending that he veto the bill.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 10, 1989
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3611 -- International Narcotics Control Act of 1989
(Fascell (D) - Florida and 36 others)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of H.R. 3611
which authorizes appropriations for the President's Andean drug
initiative.
However, the Administration will seek amendments in conference
to:
-- clarify that the Special Defense Acquisition Fund
(SDAF) should not be used solely for anti-narcotics
purposes. The SDAF may be used to acquire defense
articles for counter-narcotics assistance, but this is
only one of several priority demands upon the Fund's
resources;
-- permit submission of certain reports to Congress on a
classified basis to the extent necessary to protect
ongoing counter-narcotics programs; and
-- eliminate certain earmarking, reporting, and
unnecessary notification provisions, which constitute
objectionable congressional micromanagement of foreign
affairs. Such requirements interfere with the
President's authority to conduct foreign relations on
behalf of the United States.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by State (BorroMeo), in
consultation with LRD (Peterson/Killgore/Rooney) , Justice (Jones),
Office of National Drug Control Policy (Martz), NSC (Beers), IAD
(DuSault/Sasser/Kasten), OFPP (Vallina), and Special Studies (Duke).
Defense, Treasury, and NSD were unable to respond within the
allotted time frame.
2
The House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) report on H.R. 3611 is
not available. However, State (BorroMeo) advises that the bill
includes the authorities the Administration requested to implement
the President's Andean drug initiative.
Provisions of H.R. 3611:
-- Authorizes appropriations of $125 million for FY 1990 for
the President to provide military and law enforcement
assistance to Bolivia, Columbia, and Peru (Administration
request). In addition, HFAC added a requirement for 15-day
advance notice to Congress specifying: the country to which
assistance is to be provided; the type and value of
assistance to be provided; the units or agencies that will
receive the assistance; and an explanation, among other
things, of how the assistance will help Peru, Bolivia,
and/or Columbia combat narcotics trafficking and production.
The 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act included these provisions for
FY 1989.
-- Waives the Brooke-Alexander amendment for major illicit drug
(viz., coca) producing countries (Administration request).
The Brooke-Alexander Amendment prohibits foreign aid for any
country which is delinquent one year or more in debt
repayment to the U.S. Government.
-- Waives Section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act which
prohibits financial support for any training, advice, or
assistance to police, prisons, and law enforcement forces of
any foreign government (Administration request).
-- Generally tracks existing law in authorizing the President
to enter into agreements with other countries to facilitate
narcotics control and authorizes $115 million for FY 1990
(Administration Request). Among other things, the President
would be required to take "all reasonable steps" to assure
that equipment made available to foreign countries is used
in ways that are consistent with the purposes for which the
equipment was made available. Regulations governing these
agreements would have to be submitted to Congress before
they take effect. The State Department would be required to
maintain "detailed records" on the use of aircraft made
available to foreign countries, and these records would have
to be available upon the request of either the HFAC or the
SFAC.
-- Authorizes the President to transfer excess defense articles
to Latin American countries with democratic governments that
respect human rights. Transfers would be limited to no more
than $10 million per country per year. The President must
provide Congress with at least 30 days advance notice of any
3
proposed transfer. Such notice must include: a
certification of need for the transfer; an assessment of the
impact of the transfer on the military readiness of the
United States; and a statement of the value of the articles
to be transferred.
-- Earmarks $1 million in military aid for FY 1990 for
defensive arming of anti-narcotics aircraft. Requires
15-day advance notice to Congress. The 1988 drug bill
contained this same earmark and notice requirement for
FY 1989.
-- Earmarks $500,000 for FY 1990 for testing and use of safe
and effective herbicides for aerial coca eradication. An
identical earmark for FY 1989 was included in the 1988 drug
bill.
-- Limits aid to Mexico to $15 million in FY 1990, unless
15-day advance notification is provided to Congress. A
similar provision was included in the 1988 drug bill.
-- Exempts certain countries during FY 1990 from certification
requirements of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 if
certain conditions are met. The President would be required
to certify to Congress that the conditions (e.g., that the
country is cooperating fully with the United States in
narcotics matters) have been met. The 1988 drug bill
contained an identical provision for FY 1989. (This section
is targeted at Turkey).
-- "Urges" the President to place debt relief for Latin
American countries and drug control efforts in those
countries among the highest national foreign policy
objectives. "Urges" the President to consult with other
hemispheric leaders with an eye toward convening a summit
meeting to consider problems of drugs and debt.
-- Raises the ceiling on rewards for information relating to
acts of international terrorism from $500,000 to $2 million.
-- Establishes the Secretary of State as the coordinator for
overseas anti-narcotics assistance. This provision was
included in the 1988 drug bill.
-- Generally restates certain existing drug law, with some
changes. Key provisions would: prohibit the reimbursement
of persons whose illicit drug crops are eradicated; waive
certain restrictions on assistance for major coca producing
countries; and provide assistance for specified crop
substitution activities. In addition, the President would
be required to take "all reasonable steps" to ensure that
4
assistance is not provided to any person that the President
"knows or has reason to believe:' (1) has been convicted for
violation of a drug law; or (2) is or has been an illicit
trafficker in any controlled substance or is or has been a
knowing assistor, abettor, or conspirator with others in
illicit trafficking. The President would be required to
issue regulations to implement this latter provision; such
regulations would have to be submitted to Congress for
review before taking effect. (No deadline is set for
issuing the regulations.)
-- Generally restates existing law regarding the International
Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) which the
President is required to prepare and submit to Congress each
year. It changes current law by moving the mid-term update
report from August to September and dropping a quarterly
reporting requirement. The bill would: (1) require that
the report incorporate the "specific comments and
recommendations [of] appropriate Federal agencies involved
in law enforcement, including the United States Customs
Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration;"
(2) require that a specified annual report (to be prepared
by the Secretary of State) on assistance provided to foreign
countries include "a section prepared by the Drug
Enforcement Administration, a section prepared by the
Customs Service, and a section prepared by the Coast Guard;"
and (3) require the Secretary of State, "after consultation
with the appropriate committees of the Congress" to
establish guidelines for determining what are major
drug-transit countries.
-- Instructs the Treasury Secretary to direct U.S.
representatives to the various multilateral development
banks to vote against any loan to major drug producing or
drug transiting countries (a restatement of current law).
Foreign assistance must be withheld from a country unless
the President makes certain certifications to Congress
(e.g., that the country is meeting the goals of any
applicable bilateral or multilateral narcotics agreement).
This provision specifies in considerable detail what the
President must take into account in making the required
recertification of countries that have been decertified or
that have not been certified previously.
-- Clarifies the so-called "Mansfield Amendment" to provide
that DEA agents may not arrest foreign nationals overseas.
However, DEA agents may be present and assist at arrests
carried out by their foreign counterparts if the American
Chief of Mission in the country involved approves. Such
agents would, as under current law, be permitted to take
action to protect lives in emergency situations.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
11/10/89
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 13, 1989
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3614 Drug Free Schools and Communities Act Amendments
(Hawkins (D) CA and 14 others)
The Administration will not object to House passage of H.R. 3614,
because it contains two important Presidential proposals. The
first would require local educational agencies and institutions
of higher education to certify that they have established drug
and alcohol abuse prevention programs. The second would
authorize emergency grants to local educational agencies with the
most severe alcohol and drug abuse problems. Another desirable
provision would consolidate duplicative teacher training
authorities under the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act.
The Administration, however, will work in the Senate for deletion
of many objectionable provisions in H.R. 3614. These include
restrictions on the flexibility of Governors to address their
States' drug abuse problems in ways most likely to be successful.
There is no evidence of specific problems to indicate that these
provisions are preferable to providing the Governors with the
flexibility necessary to utilize resources effectively. The bill
also includes unnecessarily burdensome administrative
requirements on State and local educational agencies.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft of a position was developed by LRD (Fairhall) in
consultation with TCJ (Jim Duke) and LVE (Bernie Martin). The
Departments of Education (Jack Kristy, Office of the General
Counsel) and Health and Human Services (Mark Barnes, Counsel to
the Secretary for Drug Policy), and the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (Darryl Kaid, Office of Budget and Legislative
Review) agree with this position.
The House Education and Labor Committee Report on H.R. 3614 is
not available. H.R. 3614 was introduced on November 8, 1989, and
marked up by the House Education and Labor Committee on
November 9th. The following description of the bill as ordered
reported is based on information from Education staff (Kristy).
Description of Bill
Major provisions of H.R. 3614 would:
2
-- incorporate several proposals by the Administration, to:
require local educational agencies and institutions of
higher education to certify that they have adopted drug
and alcohol abuse prevention programs, as a condition of
receipt of any Federal funds;
consolidate certain duplicative teacher training
authorities; and
make emergency grants to local educational agencies with
the most severe alcohol and drug abuse problems.
-- require 33 percent of the Governors' money to be spent in
schools maintaining drug-free zones;
-- require Governors to give priority to funding services for
juveniles in detention facilities;
-- authorize a State "by-pass" program for private schools;
-- require distribution of funds to intermediate educational
agencies when a local educational agency chooses not to
participate in the program;
-- require annual State and local performance reports;
-- expand the National Diffusion Network to provide specific
funding for drug education dissemination and technical
assistance;
-- authorize funding for social and recreational programs, and
for "intervention" services by counselors, nurses, and
psychologists; and
-- add use of "anabolic steroids" to the definition of drug
abuse in the Drug Free Schools and Communities Act.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
11/13/89
OFFICE wish CRESIDENT SERVIS UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
November 14, 1989
(Senate)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3628 Capital Gains Tax Reduction
(Jenkins (D) Georgia and 2 others)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 3628 as it would be
amended by Senator Packwood's proposal, S. 1771.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Jukes), in consultation with
the Department of the Treasury (John Vogt, Legislative Affairs
and Jim Miller, Tax Policy), the Council of Economic Advisers
(Holtz-Eakin), and EP (Al-Samarrie and Dinkelacker). OPD
(Lindsey) did not respond to our request for views.
H.R. 3628
The following description of H.R. 3628 is taken from Chairman
Rostenkowski's remarks in the Record of November 9th:
H.R. 3628 is identical to the "Jenkins-Archer" capital gains
reductions provisions contained in H.R. 3299, the budget
reconciliation bill, as passed by the House on October 4th.
The bill reduces the tax on capital gains by providing a
deduction of 30 percent of the gain from sales or exchanges
occurring from September 14, 1989, to December 31, 1991. Also,
the gain would not be subject to the 5 percent tax known as the
bubble. (The "bubble" refers to the 33 percent tax rate that
applies to certain income levels, although incomes just above and
below these levels are taxed at 28 percent.) This would result
in a maximum tax rate of 19.6 percent on capital gains.
After 1991, long-term capital gains would have a maximum tax rate
of 28 percent and would be indexed.
The bill also provides that passive activities do not include an
interest in certain timber property held by individuals.
Consequently, losses from the timber activity could be used to
shelter other active income.
2
Packwood Substitute (S. 1771)
We understand that the substitute to be offered by Senator
Packwood is identical to the text of S. 1771, as introduced on
October 19th. The following description of S. 1771 is based on
Senator Packwood's remarks in the Record upon introducing the
bill.
-- Capital Gains
Individuals. S. 1771 contains a permanent reduction in the
capital gains rate for all assets (except collectibles) sold
after October 1, 1989. The gain excluded from tax increases by 5
percentage points for each year the asset is held -- from 5
percent for assets held one year to 35 percent for assets held
for seven years. (The intent is to encourage long-term
investment.) The effective top tax rate for assets held for
seven years or more would be 18.2 percent.
Instead of the exclusion described above, individuals would have
the option of reducing their gains by an inflation factor. The
cost of assets owned for more than two years could be indexed for
inflation occurring after 1990.
Corporations. Corporate capital gains rates also would be
reduced, based on a different sliding scale. The top tax rate
would decrease from 33 percent (for assets owned for more than
three years) to 29 percent (for assets held for more than 15
years).
-- IRA Provisions
A new type of Individual Retirement Account (IRA) (referred to by
some as a "back-loaded" IRA) would be established. Unlike
current law IRAs:
-- interest earned would be tax-free when withdrawn upon
retirement; and
-- up to 25 percent of IRA funds could be withdrawn tax-free
to purchase a first home, pay college education expenses of
family members (including grandchildren), and pay
catastrophic medical expenses.
Current-law IRAs could be converted into the proposed new form of
IRAs through December 31, 1991. IRA contributions previously
deducted would be included in income over a four-year period.
Contributions to the new IRA would not be deductible. Workers
would be permitted to contribute up to $2,000 annually
(increasing to $3,000 over five years), and non-working spouses
could contribute up to $2,000.
3
Administration Position to Date
In a September 26, 1989, letter to Members of the House, the
President asked for a vote in favor of the Jenkins-Archer
proposal, which is now embodied in H.R. 3628.
Although OMB has not cleared a formal position statement on
S. 1771, recent statements and testimony of Administration
officials have been supportive of its elements.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
11/14/89
STATE CRESIDENT UNITED 1
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 9, 1989
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R.3629 - Department of Commerce Quarterly Financial Report
Program Extension
(Sawyer (D) OH and Ridge (R) PA)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 3629.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Blum), in consultation with
the Department of Commerce (Bird), and TCJ (Edwards).
H.R. 3629 is similar to a Commerce draft bill recently cleared by
OMB.
H.R. 3629 would extend from January 12, 1990, through
September 30, 1993, a Commerce program which collects and
publishes financial statistics (e.g., sales, profit, and asset
figures) on a quarterly basis. The Commerce program is the
primary source of data used for GNP and national income estimates
and for the Federal Reserve Board's Flow of Funds Accounts.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
11/9/89 - 4:30 p.m.
OFFICE PRESIDENT SIVIS UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 13, 1989
o
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3630 - Emergency Drug Abuse Treatment Expansion Act
(Waxman (D) CA)
The Administration will not object to House passage of H.R. 3630
because it contains the President's proposal that States be
required to develop Statewide Treatment Plans. However, the
Administration is seriously concerned with the bill's provisions
expanding some, and creating other, new categorical programs.
For example, the bill includes a city-specific program which is
objectionable for administrative reasons, and an increase in
set-asides in the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services
(ADMS) Block Grant. The Administration will urge the conferees
to delete these provisions.
The Administration also objects to taking funds from the
State-administered ADMS Block Grant Program to create categorical
programs. Where a State has specific needs, it would be far
preferable for the State to target key areas, assist special
populations, and ensure program accountability through its
Statewide Treatment Plans.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft of a position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with HIMD (Kleinberg/Clendenin/Tibbitts and TCJ
(Duke), HHS (Mark Barnes, Counsel to the Secretary for Drug Abuse
Policy), and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (Bill
Smith, Office of Legislation).
The draft position is consistent with positions sent by HHS to
the House Energy and Commerce Committee on November 8, 1989.
To our knowledge, the House Committee bill is not expected to be
introduced until Monday, November 13, 1989. (Committee action on
the bill occurred on November 9, 1989). The proposed position is
based on information from HHS (Mark Barnes) and ONDCP (Bill
Smith) staff.
Description of the Bill
As reported, H.R. 3630 would:
2
-- provide for separate authorizations of appropriations for
mental health and for substance abuse services within the
ADMS Block Grant;
-- create an Office of Treatment Improvement within HHS. The
Administration supports statutory creation of an Office for
Treatment Improvement. However, it objects to the Office as
established in this bill because its authority would be
limited to substance abuse services. The Administration
believes that the Office should have responsibility for a
broad range of substance abuse treatment programs and
demonstration programs.
-- establish a National Capital Area Drug Abuse Treatment
Program. The Administration supports the D.C. initiative
negotiated between the D.C. Government and the Office of
National Drug Control Policy. However, the Administration
believes the bill's proposal is too broad and would give the
Council of Governments for the District so much discretion
that the President's commitment to D.C. might not be
fulfilled. Moreover, HHS has already planned to expand its
efforts within the District of Columbia as part of its 1990
plans;
-- increase from $100 million to $165 million the authorization
level for the States waiting list reduction program, thus
allowing for the appropriation given to the program in the
FY 1990 Department of Transportation Appropriation Act
($40 million) ;
-- create a model treatment program for pregnant and
post-partum women and their infants. The bill requires HHS
to spend $75 million for this activity. The Administration
believes this amount is excessive, and that funding for this
group is more appropriately done through the ADMS block
grant rather than a categorical program;
-- increase from 10 percent to 25 percent the set-aside for
women under the ADMS Block Grant. The increase from 10 to
25 percent would require at least $100 million more to be
spent than in FY 1989, placing an unrealistic requirement on
the States;
-- take funds from the ADMS block grant to create new
categorical programs for areas of special need and for
special populations. Currently, the States have the
flexibility to focus treatment service dollars for pregnant
and post-partum women and in areas of special need; and
-- implement the President's request for State Drug Abuse
Treatment Plans as a condition for receiving ADMS Block
Grant funds.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
11/10/89 -- 3:31 PM
TOTAL OF PRESIDENT UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 4, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3656 Coordinated Clearance and Settlement Act
(Markey (D) Massachusetts and 5 others)
The Administration supports the enactment of H.R. 3656.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Blum), in consultation with
the Departments of Justice (Pestal) and the Treasury (Dugan), CEA
(Robinson), HTF (Ohri), OIRA (McConnell, Waxman), and TCJ
(Sloan).
A copy of the House Energy and Commerce Committee report for
H.R. 3656 is not yet available for review. However, the bill was
ordered reported without amendment.
Description of H.R. 3656
-- Coordinated Clearance and Settlement of Securities
Transactions
H.R. 3656 would require the SEC to establish a new national
system for clearing and settling securities transactions.
(Clearing and settlement refers to the process of obtaining
payment and transferring ownership for a securities transaction.)
The new system would handle transactions involving securities,
securities options, futures contracts, and commodity options.
The SEC would be required to consult with the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission and the Federal Reserve System when
establishing the new system.
In addition, the SEC, in consultation with the Federal Reserve
System and other relevant regulatory authorities, must report to
Congress within two years concerning implementation of the new
clearance system.
-- Regulations Regarding Transfer of Securities
H.R. 3656 would also authorize the SEC to adopt rules concerning
the transfer of securities and the rights and obligations of
relevant parties (e.g., purchasers, sellers, lenders) in such
securities. The bill specifies that these rules may supersede
State law if the Commission finds that: (1) the rule is
2
necessary to protect investors; (2) clearance and settlement of
securities would be impeded substantially in the absence of a
uniform rule; and (3) any impairment in rights of persons under
State law is outweighed by the benefits of the rule.
H.R. 3656 specifies that the SEC must consult with the Treasury
and the Federal Reserve System regarding these findings. The SEC
must consider all feasible alternatives to a proposed rule if the
Treasury objects in writing to any of the SEC's findings. The
SEC, however, may adopt the rule if it determines that such rule
is the most practicable method for achieving efficient operation
of a national clearance system.
-- Establishment of Advisory Committee
H.R. 3656 also requires that the SEC establish an advisory
committee to assist in identifying State commercial laws and
related Federal laws that do not adequately protect investors.
The advisory committee would consist of 15 members (11 designated
by the SEC and two each by the Federal Reserve System and the
Treasury). The bill specifies that the committee would be
subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Administration Position To Date
On March 12th, the Treasury Department sent a report to the House
Energy and Commerce Committee which stated that it supported the
principal sections of H.R. 3656.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
5/3/90 -- 4:30 p.m.
OFFICE OF
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 4, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3657 - Securities Markets Stabilization Act of 1990
(Markey (D) Massachusetts and 5 others)
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 3657 but will
seek amendments in the Senate to delete section 5. Section 5
would give the Securities and Exchange Commission sweeping powers
to prohibit temporarily any practice that has "previously
contributed to extraordinary levels of volatility" and that is
"reasonably likely to engender" such volatility. In the
Administration's view, these provisions are overly broad and
potentially harmful.
The Administration shares concerns that have been expressed about
problems associated with major market disruptions. However, the
Administration strongly opposes attempts to restrict particular
trading strategies, including computer trading. The
Administration is instead focusing on the mechanisms of the
individual markets and inconsistent intermarket regulation that
may cause major market disruptions.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Blum), in consultation with
the Departments of Justice (Pestal) and the Treasury
(Glauber/Dugan/Sukys), CEA (Stein), HTF (Rhinesmith/Ohri), and
TCJ (Beebe).
This draft position should be reviewed by the White House
Counsel's Office before it is transmitted to the House.
A copy of H.R. 3657 as ordered reported is not yet available for
review. House Energy and Commerce Committee staff (Blumenthal)
advises that the bill would: (1) expand the authority of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to suspend trading in
emergencies; (2) require additional reporting by large traders
about their activities; (3) increase the authority of the SEC to
collect certain types of financial data regarding the financial
health of parents and affiliates of brokers and dealers; and
(4) provide the SEC with authority to restrain program trading
during periods of extraordinary market volatility. The
provisions of H.R. 3657 are described in greater detail below.
2
Description of H.R. 3657
-- Trading Halts
H.R. 3657 would authorize the SEC to suspend trading: (1) in any
security for a period not exceeding 10 days; and (2) on any
national securities exchange for a period not exceeding 90 days.
This authority can only be exercised when the SEC finds such
actions to be in the public interest. In addition, before a
market-wide suspension could become effective, the SEC must be
notified that the President does not disapprove of the action.
(Current law does not permit the SEC to suspend all trading in a
market without first obtaining the President's approval.) The
bill also specifies that the President could at a later date
direct that the SEC's actions be repealed.
In addition, H.R. 3657 would authorize the SEC during an
emergency (i.e., major market disturbance) to take any action it
deems necessary for the protection of investors with respect to
any matter subject to its regulation. Such orders could be in
effect for not more than 10 business days. The bill specifies
that the orders are subject to both repeal by the President and
judicial review. The bill would require courts to find that the
SEC's actions were arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in
accordance with law if judicial relief is provided.
-- Large Trader Reporting
H.R. 3657 would authorize the SEC to establish a two-tiered
information gathering and reporting system for monitoring large
securities transactions. The first tier would require large
traders to report their identity and all the accounts used to
effect such transactions. The second tier would require every
registered broker or dealer to keep records of large trader
transactions and provide such records to the SEC upon request.
The SEC could prescribe rules governing the manner in which
transactions and accounts shall be aggregated for reporting
purposes. In addition, the bill would permit the SEC to exempt
any person or class of transactions from these reporting
requirements.
-- Risk Assessment for Holding Companies
H.R. 3657 would authorize the SEC to obtain information from
registered brokers and dealers to monitor risks resulting from
the activities of any of its "associated persons" (e.g., holding
companies). If the SEC has concerns regarding the financial or
operational condition of a broker or dealer, then further reports
could be required from such broker's or dealer's associated
persons. The bill specifies that these requirements would not
3
apply to those entities which (1) have a net worth of less than
$25 million, and (2) do not derive significant revenues from
activities in U.S. securities markets. In addition, the SEC
could exempt any entity from the reporting requirements.
H.R. 3657 would also provide that the SEC may not be compelled to
disclose publicly any information otherwise required to be
disclosed by statute (e.g., the Freedom of Information Act).
-- Restrictions on Practices Which Result in High Levels
of Volatility
H.R. 3657 would authorize the SEC to issue rules to prohibit
during periods of "extraordinary market volatility" any act or
practice -- e.g., program trading -- that (1) has previously
contributed to extraordinary levels of volatility, and (2) is
reasonably likely to engender such volatility if not prohibited.
The bill would authorize penalties not to exceed the greater of
(1) $100,000 (or $500,000 for "nonnatural" persons) or (2) the
pecuniary gain to the person violating the SEC's rules.
H.R. 3657 would also authorize the SEC to issue "cease and desist
orders" to persons planning to violate such rules.
Administration Position To Date
On March 12th, the Treasury department sent a report to the House
Energy and Commerce Committee on H.R. 3657 objecting to the
provisions that would authorize the SEC to prohibit temporarily
program trading. The report opposed the restrictions on program
trading for reasons consistent with the draft SAP. The report
also stated that (1) other provisions of H.R. 3657 are "too
important" to be jeopardized by the program trading provision,
and (2) the Administration would continue to oppose the
restrictions on program trading as the legislative process moved
forward.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
5/4/90 -- 1:30 p.m.
OFFICE wish CRESIDENT* 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. 3684 National Environmental Education Act
(Miller (D) California and 39 others)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of
H.R. 3684. However, the Administration will seek amendments in
conference to incorporate the President's FY 1991 Budget proposal
for the Council on Environmental Quality to establish awards for
excellence in environmental education. The Administration will
seek additional amendments, including amendments to ensure that
the National Environmental Education Foundation authorized by
this bill is not a governmental entity, and to delete the
requirement that EPA develop model environmental education
curricula.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Fitter) in consultation
with NRD (vanHaagen, Watts), OPD (Toregeson), EPA (Hoff), CEQ
(Curtis), Justice (Cohen), Commerce (Brown), Treasury (Levy),
USDA (Ayers), Interior (Moore), NSF (Chester), Energy
(Hunsicker), Defense (Brick), and OPM (Woodruff).
Education (Feldman) advises that it believes the Administration
position should be no objection rather than support. Education
believes that it does not have a large enough role in the bill,
and that the funds would be better spent on math and science
education.
Position to Date
EPA has previously testified before the House and Senate in
support of environmental education legislation (H.R. 3684/
S. 1076). S. 1076 passed the Senate on July 18, 1990.
Provisions of H.R. 3684
H.R. 3684 would establish an Office of Environmental Education
within EPA to coordinate several new environmental education
programs established by this Act and to develop and disseminate
model environmental curricula. The bill would authorize
appropriations of $10 million for each of FYs 1992 and 1993, and
$12 million for FYs 1994 and 1995. These programs are described
below.
2
Environmental Education and Training Program
The EPA Administrator would be required to make annual grants to
institutions of higher learning or other research institutions to
train educators in the development and delivery of environmental
education and training.
Environmental Education Grants
These grants would support projects to design, demonstrate, and
disseminate practices, methods, or techniques related to
environmental education and training. Grants would be limited to
$250, 000 and Federal funding for these grants is not to exceed
75 percent of the total project cost.
Environmental Internships and Fellowships
This program would allow college level students to work with
Federal environmental professionals at EPA, CEQ, and the
Departments of Defense, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture and the
Interior in order to gain an understanding of the skills needed
for environmental professions. The bill specifies that not less
than one hundred and fifty internships would be awarded each
year. Interns would be hired for periods not to exceed six
months.
Environmental Education Awards
The Administrator is to provide for a series of national awards
recognizing outstanding contributions to environmental education.
Specific awards would be given for outstanding achievements in
education, literature, and film. The Administrator would also be
authorized to make awards to primary and secondary school
students for outstanding projects to promote local environmental
awareness.
Environmental Education Advisory Council and Task Force
The 16-member Council, to be appointed by the Administrator,
would advise the Administrator on the activities, functions, and
policies required by the Act. The Council is also required to
report to Congress on the quality of environmental education in
schools. The Environmental Education Task Force is to advise and
make recommendations to the Administrator on the implementation
of this Act, and to assure coordination with related activities
of other Federal agencies. The Task Force would be chaired by
the Administrator, and would include representatives from CEQ,
NSF, and the Departments of Education, Agriculture, Energy,
Defense, and the Interior.
3
National Environmental Education Foundation
The Foundation is to accept and administer gifts for the benefit
of environmental education and training activities and services
of the EPA. It is also to undertake activities to further the
development of an environmentally conscious public, and to assist
foreign governments, entities, and individuals in activities to
further environmental education and training world-wide. To this
end the Foundation is to support and/or operate programs to
educate and train educational and environmental management
professionals. This would be accomplished through a national and
international network of environmental education and training
centers in various institutions including universities, museums
and libraries. The Foundation's 19-member Board of Directors is
to be appointed by the Administrator from individuals
knowledgeable or experienced in the environment, education or
training. The bill would authorize additional appropriations of
$1.5 million for the Foundation for FYs 1992 through 1995,
inclusive, to remain available until expended.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
September 20, 1990 3:00 PM
UNITED OFFICE OF
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
Q
July 27, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3687 Establish a Memorial to George Mason in the
District of Columbia
(Parris (R) VA)
The Administration has no objection to the enactment of
H.R. 3687.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Apicella) in
consultation with NRD (Cogswell and Reisner), Interior (Harris),
NCPC (Gresham), Commission of Fine Arts (Atherton), and GSA
(Brady).
Background
P.L. 86-86 authorized commemoration of the south-bound span of
the 14th Street Bridge in the District of Columbia as the George
Mason Memorial Bridge. However, the Colonial Dames at Gunston
Hall believe that the bridge is not very recognizable as a
memorial to George Mason. This sponsoring organization would
like to erect a memorial structure on land near the bridge.
Provisions of H.R. 3687
The committee report on H.R. 3687 is not available. We have been
advised by Interior staff (Harris), however, that H.R. 3687 would
authorize the Board of Regents at Gunston Hall to establish a
memorial to George Mason. The memorial would be placed on
Federal land in the District of Columbia adjacent to the George
Mason Memorial Bridge. There would be no cost to the Federal
Government.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
July 27, 1990 - 5:33 PM
OFFICE will PRESIDENT SIVIS GELIC
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 17, 1989
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3694 Minidoka Project
(Stallings (D) Idaho and six others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 3694, because the
bill is technically deficient. The Island Park Dam would have to
be opened during the winter in order to meet the December 1992
deadline imposed by the bill. This requirement is impractical
because of problems encountered with concrete setting in cold,
freezing weather.
The bill also raises questions about project cost allocations and
charges for power, thus bringing existing arrangements into
question.
Finally, the bill would set an undesirable precedent by having
the Federal Government pay for wildlife mitigation costs, which
properly belong to project sponsors.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Fitter), in consultation
with NR (Wolf, Long, Gibbons), and Interior (Harris).
H.R. 3694 was introduced on November 16, 1989, and was reported to
the floor without a hearing.
The bill would authorize the Department of the Interior to reimburse
the Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative, Idaho, for expenditures
incurred to meet environmental protection requirements for a
specified hydroelectric power development project. The project in
question is the Island Park Dam and Reservoir, Upper Snake River
Division, Minidoka Project, Idaho and Wyoming.
The bill would also authorize appropriations of $1 million for this
purpose.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
11/17/89
THE OF PRESIDENT STATE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
July 16, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3719 - Florida Keys Protection Act
(Fascell (D) Florida and 32 others)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of H.R. 3719
but may seek a Senate amendment. The Administration does not
oppose the statutory designation of the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary because preliminary Commerce Department studies
support such a designation. However, the Administration would
oppose any future statutory designation of marine sanctuaries.
The current designation process ensures that adequate
environmental assessments are made and all points of view are
considered.
The Administration may seek a Senate amendment to clarify that
the President can direct the opening of areas within the
Sanctuary for development if national security so requires.
H.R. 3719 prohibits mineral, oil, and gas development within the
boundaries of the Sanctuary. The President recently decided to
limit oil and gas activity in South Florida and begin
cancellation of existing leases off Florida. The President,
however, stated that, "all decisions regarding OCS [Outer
Continental Shelf] development are subject to a national security
exemption."
****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This Statement of Administration Policy was drafted by the
Legislative Reference Division (Bowers), in consultation with the
Departments of Commerce (Brown), the Interior (Moore), Justice
(DeSanctis), State (Rappaport), the Treasury (Levy), and
Transportation (DeCell), the Environmental Protection Agency
(Basseuner), the National Security Council (Deal), the Army Corps
of Engineers (Knickerbocker/Koster), the Council on Environmental
Quality (Curtis), White House Counsel (Holmstead/Layton), OPD
(McBee), TCJ (Tornquist), and NR (Reisner).
Background
The Florida Keys and their surrounding waters are considered to
form an extremely sensitive and valuable marine ecosystem. The
coral reefs in the area are the most well-known and economically
important aspects. Visiting the Keys on Earth Day, 1990,
2
President Bush stated that the reefs are "a unique national
treasure. Protecting the reefs from damage, both from vessel
groundings and pollution, is imperative." The reefs were damaged
in late 1989 when three large commercial vessels were grounded
off the Florida Keys. The 1988 reauthorization of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) -- which
governs marine sanctuary designation, research, and monitoring --
required Commerce to study certain areas in the Florida Keys for
possible designation. Initial results of Commerce's study
support designation.
Summary of H.R. 3719
The purpose of H.R. 3719 is to protect the marine environment of
the Florida Keys by: (1) designating a National marine
sanctuary; (2) restricting commercial vessel traffic within the
area; and (3) requiring international negotiations to designate
the sanctuary as an area to be avoided by commercial vessel
traffic.
-- Sanctuary Designation
The bill designates a specified area as a National marine
sanctuary, to be managed in compliance with the MPRSA. The
boundaries are consistent with recommendations by Commerce in
May 10th testimony before a House Merchant Marine and Fisheries
subcommittee. As is required by existing law, the Secretary of
Commerce and the Governor of Florida are provided discretion to
modify the boundaries. Commerce is also directed to issue
regulations and develop a management plan. Commerce would be
assisted by an advisory council, with representatives from all
levels of government and the user communities.
-- Appropriations Authorizations
H.R. 3719 authorizes appropriations for marine sanctuary
management activities under the MPRSA at $3,750,000 for FY 1991
and $4,000,000 for FY 1992. The FY 1991 Budget provides
$3,629,000.
-- Prohibition of Vessel Traffic
H.R. 3719 prohibits operation of tank vessels in the Sanctuary,
and allows the Secretary of Commerce and the Department in which
prohibition. the Coast Guard is operating to issue regulations to modify this
-- Mineral/Hydrocarbon Leasing, Exploration, Development
The bill as amended by the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee would prohibit leasing, exploration, development, or
production of minerals and hydrocarbons within the sanctuary.
3
On June 26, 1990, the President announced a series of decisions
relating to oil and gas development on the OCS. With respect to
Florida, his decision was to begin cancellation of existing
leases off Florida. The area would be excluded for consideration
for any lease sale for at least 10 years. The decisions were
based on several principles, one of which states that OCS
development decisions are subject to a national security
exemption.
-- Water Quality Management
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee staff (Pittman) has
indicated that the Committee will amend the bill further before
it reaches the floor. The amendment would require Commerce, EPA,
and the Governor of Florida to develop a water quality protection
program for the Sanctuary.
Administration Position to Date
On May 10, 1990, Commerce and Transportation testified before a
House Merchant Marine and Fisheries subcommittee on H.R. 3719.
Commerce stated that the Administration opposes congressional
intervention into the designation process, but recognizes that in
1988 Congress initiated the designation process for the Florida
Keys (The 1988 MPRSA authorization required Commerce to study the
area for possible designation.) Since Commerce's initial
studies, mandated by law, support designation, the Administration
did not oppose the designation in H.R. 3719. Transportation
supported the intent of the bill and proposed modifications,
generally concerning the boundaries. The bill as ordered
reported reflects those changes. The oil and gas development
prohibition was added to the bill when it was ordered reported by
the full Committee.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
7/13/90 -- 12:00 Noon
OFFICE will PRESIDENT STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
November 20, 1989
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3730 Miscellaneous and Technical Social Security
Act Amendments of 1989
(Rostenkowski (D) IL and three others)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3730 because:
-- It extends a $190 million general fund subsidy for the
railroad retirement program. The President, in a message on
the program transmitted to Congress on September 29, 1989,
opposed this subsidy to the rail industry.
-- It includes numerous social security administrative
requirements that would burden further the Social Security
Administration, which has already been underfunded by
Congress.
-- It includes numerous objectionable Medicare provisions
making substantive changes and placing restrictions on the
Secretary's ability to manage the Medicare program
effectively.
In addition, the bill would increase the Federal budget deficit
by up to $110 million in FY 1990 and $630 million over five
years.
There is no urgent need for enactment of H.R. 3730 now. Many
provisions in the bill are minor and are not needed at this time
(minor social security and railroad retirement coverage
provisions, Family Support Act technical amendments,
intergenerational demonstration authority). Some current law
extensions, which are labeled time-sensitive, are not scheduled
to expire until June 1990 (disability demonstration authority) or
are not needed until later in the fiscal year (foster care
transfers), leaving ample time for consideration in the next
session.
Some provisions should be addressed in other legislation. For
example, exempting Medicare maintenance-of-effort payments from
FICA and certain other taxes should be addressed in the
catastrophic insurance bill. Furthermore, the Administration
supports liberalizing benefits for adopted children under social
security, as proposed by the President, in separate legislation.
Continuing disability benefits during appeal also should be
enacted separately.
********
2
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft of a position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with HIMD (Kleinberg/Lieberman/Capretta) . . HHS (per
Frances White, Associate General Counsel for Legislation) agrees
with the position.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
11/20/89
I PRESIDENT MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
July 13, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3774 Aging Aircraft Safety Act of 1990
(Oberstar (D) Minnesota and 2 others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 3774.
*****
(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 Department of Transportation (Herlihy), OIRA (Clarke), and
TCJ (Adkins, Pheto, and McClean).
Provisions of H.R. 3774
H.R. 3774, as ordered reported by the House Public Works and
Transportation Committee, would require the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to issue a rule, within 180 days of
enactment, mandating that:
-- the FAA conduct inspections and reviews sufficient to
assure that aircraft used by air carriers (particularly
those with over 15 years of service) are safe;
-- air carriers demonstrate to the FAA that their maintenance
of age-sensitive aircraft components is sufficient to
assure safety; and
-- air carriers make aircraft and records available to FAA
inspectors to the extent necessary to carry out
inspections and reviews required by the rule.
The bill would also require the FAA to establish, within 180 days
of enactment, programs to:
-- verify that air carriers are complying with FAA maintenance
requirements;
-- train FAA inspectors and engineers to conduct audits of air
carriers' inspections of aircraft for corrosion and metal
fatigue; and
2
-- ensure that air carriers demonstrate to the FAA their
commitment and competence to assure the airworthiness of
their aircraft.
Administration Position To Date
The Department of Transportation testified at a House Public
Works and Transportation subcommittee on May 1, 1990, in
opposition to an earlier version of the bill. That version would
have required the FAA to inspect and certify the airworthiness of
each "aging" aircraft. The bill was subsequently amended to
delete that requirement.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
7/12/90 - 6:00 p.m.
PRESIDENT STATE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
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. 3787 Chehalis River Basin Fishery Resources Study and
Restoration Act
(Unsoeld (D) WA and Swift (D) WA)
The Administration supports the enactment of H.R. 3787.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Coleman), in
consultation with NRD (Kaplan, Cogswell, and Gibbons), Interior
(Moore), Commerce (Brown), Corps of Engineers (Bond), Army
(Rees), EPA (Wood), DOE (Tyson), Justice (DeSanctis), and USDA
(McAndrew). It is consistent with Interior testimony on the bill
at a hearing before the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee on May 8, 1990.
The Committee report on H.R. 3787 is not available. We have been
advised by Interior staff (Moore), however, that H.R. 3787 would
require the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct
a comprehensive study of the fishery resources of the Chehalis
River Basin in the State of Washington. The study would also
include recommendations for actions to restore and conserve those
fishery resources. The Director would be required to transmit
the study to Congress by October 1, 1992. The Director would be
required to invite the State of Washington and two Indian tribes
to participate in the conduct of the study, if such non-Federal
participants pay at least one-third of the study's costs. The
Director would be required to consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, and the Soil Conservation Service in
conducting the study. Finally, H.R. 3787 would authorize
appropriations of $2 million to the Director to conduct the
study.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
July 12, 1990 - 4:10 PM
OFFICE with PRESIDENT UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
April 23, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3811 - Parks Centennial Act
(Pashayan (R) CA and 4 others)
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 3811, which
provides for celebrating the centennials of National Park System
units. The Administration will, however, seek amendments in the
Senate to:
-- Clarify that the roles of the centennial commissions
are purely advisory. This clarification would ensure
that section 2 (b) does not violate the Appointments
Clause of the Constitution.
-- Amend section 7 to authorize, instead of require, the
President to issue commemorative proclamations.
-- Eliminate the earmarking and automatic appropriation
of excess receipts from the sale of the centennial
histories of park units (section 6).
-- Modify section 5 to authorize, rather than require,
the Secretary of the Interior to contract for the
preparation of centennial histories. It is not clear
that each of the 355 units of the National Park
System will warrant the preparation of such a
history.
*
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Coleman) in consultation
with NRD (Taylor, Cogswell, and Gibbons), Interior (West),
Justice (DeSanctis), and White House Counsel (Nelson).
The Committee report on H.R. 3811 is not available. We have been
advised by Interior staff (West), however, that H.R. 3811 would:
-- Require the establishment of a centennial commission
for each unit of the National Park System to plan for
events to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the
2
establishment of the park. Affected Governors and
local governments would each make recommendations to
the Secretary of the Interior, from which at least
two members of each such commission would be chosen.
Justice believes that, given this involvement of
non-Federal officials in selecting commission
members, the role of such commissions must explicitly
be limited to an advisory capacity to avoid
Appointments Clause problems.
-- Authorize the Director of the National Park Service
(NPS) to accept donations for events recommended by
such commissions.
-- Require the Secretary to contract for the preparation
of a centennial history of each park for public sale,
and earmark the profits for park purposes. We do not
object to earmarking receipts as user fees to pay for
producing the histories. We do object, however, to
earmarking without appropriation any "excess"
receipts to park purposes.
-- Require the President to issue a proclamation
acknowledging the centennial of each park. As a
matter of legal policy, Justice believes the
President should be "authorized and requested" to
issue such proclamations, instead of being required
to do so.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
4/20/90
STATE OFFICE RESIDENT STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
March 26, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3847 - Department of Environmental Protection Act
(Conyers (D) Michigan and 22 others)
The Administration strongly supports House passage of the Hastert
Substitute to H.R. 3847. The Substitute would provide for the
straight-forward elevation of EPA to cabinet status.
The Admini I stration is strongly opposed to certain provisions of
H.R. 3847 because they would interfere unacceptably with the
President's authority to manage the Executive branch and with the
functioning of the proposed new Department of Environmental
Protection. As stated in the Statement of Administration Policy
(attached) sent to the House Rules Committee, the President's
senior advisers, including the EPA Administrator and the Attorney
General, would recommend a veto of H.R. 3847 in its current form.
The following is a summary of the objectionable provisions in
H.R. 3847:
-- Mandatory delegation of all information collection,
analysis, and dissemination from the Secretary to the
Bureau of Environmental Statistics.
-- Prohibitions on (1) departmental review and approval of
Bureau data collection, analysis, or dissemination
activities, and (2) any Executive branch official review
and approval of the substance of any Bureau reports.
-- A limitation on the removal of the Bureau Director from
office -- i.e., only for malfeasance in office,
maladministration, or neglect of duty.
-- A limitation on the number of Deputy Assistant Secretaries
and Senior Executive Service positions to be filled by
political appointees.
-- Miscellaneous provisions concerning the confidentiality of
statistical data, advisory panel disclosure and membership
requirements, restrictions on the hiring of contractors,
and conflict-of-interest requirements.
A further explanation of the basis for the veto recommendation on
H.R. 3847, as well as the Administration's objections to other
provisions in the bill, are summarized in the Attachment.
2
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Fitter), in consultation
with NR (Cameron, Fairweather), OIRA (Coffy), OFPP (Baker), GC
(Damus), WH Counsel (Holmstead), EPA (Perry), State (Strachan), CEQ
(Curtis), Commerce (Brown), Treasury (Sukys), Interior (Wade), USDA
(Madson), Justice (Cohen), Energy (Tyson), NASA (Maguire), HHS
(Spiegel), Defense (Brick), CEA (Grunspecht), Transportation
(DeCell), OSTP (Diering), and OGE (Ley).
Hastert Substitute
The Hastert Substitute would redesignate EPA as the Department of
Environmental Protection; provide for a Department seal; and
continue the effect of existing EPA legal proceedings.
It would also allow for the appointment by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate, of a Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, no more than 10 Assistant Secretaries, and a General
Counsel. The Secretary would be authorized to appoint 20 Deputy
Assistant Secretaries (DAS) or such number as he determines is
appropriate.
-- Limitation on Political Appointees
One-half of the DAS positions, however, would have to be filled by
career Senior Executive Service (SES) employees.
Also, in any fiscal year, the number of non-DAS SES positions filled
by noncareer appointees could not exceed 12 percent of the total
number of employees in SES positions in the Department at the end of
the preceding fiscal year. These personnel provisions are identical
to provisions in S. 2006 both as introduced and reported.
The SAP on H.R. 3847, which was sent to the Rules Committee on
March 22nd, opposed similar, but not identical, limitations on the
number of political appointees because they would impose
"unacceptable Congressional micromanagement. " H.R. 3847 specifies
that (1) at least two-thirds of the DAS positions must be filled by
individuals with at least five years of Federal civil service
experience; and (2) no more than 10 percent of SES positions be
filled by non-career appointees.
-- Reconfirmation Requirement
EPA advises that the Hastert Substitute is silent on whether or not
its political officers would be subject to reconfirmation.
3
OPM Opposition to Hastert Substitute
OPM advises informally that Director Newman opposes the Hastert
Substitute because it limits the number of political appointments
that could be made.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
3/26/90
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
EDUCATION SERVIS UNITED
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
April 20, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3848 - Depository Institution Money Laundering
Amendments of 1990
(Annunzio (D) Illinois and 33 others)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 3848, as reported
by the House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs.
*****
(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 (Kaufman) and Justice (Webber),
the Federal Reserve Board (Werneke), HTF (Rhinesmith/Long), and
GC (Damus).
Description of H.R. 3848
H.R. 3848 would require Federal regulatory agencies to place into
conservatorship or revoke the charter of Federal depository
institutions found guilty of money laundering or monetary
transaction report offenses. For State-chartered institutions,
Federal deposit insurance agencies would be authorized to appoint
a conservator if the State regulator did not appoint one under
State law after 10 days notice. H.R. 3848 would also require the
termination of Federal deposit insurance to State depository
institutions found guilty of money laundering. There would be
limited exceptions to these requirements (e.g., when ownership of
an institution had changed after the commission of an offense).
The Federal Housing Finance Board, the Attorney General, and the
regulatory agencies would be required in their annual reports to
Congress to identify financial institutions found guilty of money
laundering and the actions taken against them. Also, individuals
convicted of money laundering offenses would be removed from
office and barred from any further participation in the affairs
of any financial institution.
H.R. 3848 would authorize Treasury to assess fines of up to
$5,000 against institutions that repeatedly and negligently fail
to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and reporting regulations.
Under current law, the Treasury Secretary may impose fines up to
$500 for each negligent violation.
2
The bill would also require Treasury to adopt final regulations
on recordkeeping requirements for international fund transfers
before January 1, 1991. The bill directs Treasury to balance the
usefulness of such requirements for criminal and other
investigations against their costs and effects on the efficiency
of the funds transfer system.
Additional provisions of H.R. 3848 would:
-- Exempt from civil liability any institution which, in good
faith, files a suspicious transaction report or refuses to
do business with a customer that it has in good faith
reported.
-- Require financial institutions to prepare detailed written
statements on the basis for granting exemptions from Cash
Transaction Reporting (CTR) requirements. The person
seeking the exemption would be required to certify, under
penalty for perjury, the truth of the financial
institution's written statement.
-- Require institutions to conduct an annual review of CTR
exemptions and to submit to Treasury annually a list of
persons granted exemptions.
-- Authorize State supervisory agencies to obtain CTRs and
customs monetary instruments reports from Treasury.
Administration Position to Date
In March 8th testimony before the House Banking Subcommittee on
Financial Institutions, Justice and Treasury opposed the
introduced version of H.R. 3848. As introduced, H.R. 3848 would
have mandated charter revocation (the "death penalty") for a bank
convicted of a money laundering offense. As reported, the bill
gives regulators the option of revoking the charter or placing
the institution into conservatorship. This compromise was
proposed by the Administration because the so-called "death
penalty" could be inappropriate in cases involving the
unauthorized actions of a low-level employee.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
4/16/90 -- 4:00 p.m.
PTM PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
June 15, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3859 Financial Assistance for the
Washington Center for Internships
and Academic Seminars
(Ford (D) MI and 10 others)
The Administration opposes H.R. 3859. If H.R. 3859 were
presented to the President, the Secretary of Education would
recommend that it be vetoed.
H.R. 3859 would authorize the Secretary of Education to grant up
to $12 million to the Washington Center for Internships and
Academic Seminars. The funds would be for construction and
related costs of a student residence and classroom building in
Washington, D.C. Financing for construction of these private
facilities is not an appropriate role for the Federal Government.
Furthermore, it is inequitable to earmark funds for the
Washington Center on a non-competitive basis.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft of a position was developed by LRD (Jeffrey
Weinberg/Suzanne Duval) in consultation with LVE (Bernie Martin,
Barry White, and Lisa Fairhall). The Department of Education
(per Jack Kristy, Office of the General Counsel) concurs.
We have not seen the Committee report on H.R. 3859. Department
of Education staff advise that the bill was reported as
introduced.
Administration Position to Date
The draft position is the same as the one taken in a letter of
March 8, 1990, from Secretary Cavazos to Chairman Hawkins of the
House Education and Labor Committee.
Description of H.R. 3859
H.R. 3859 would authorize appropriations for FYs 1991 through
1993 totaling $12 million for construction of facilities for the
Washington Center. During each of those years a grant could be
made by the Secretary of Education to match the amount of private
contributions for the project received in cash or in kind.
2
The Center arranges congressional, agency, and public service
internships for college students for credit. It is a private
non-profit organization that receives funding from the colleges
of participating students or from the students themselves and
from private contributions.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
6/14/90
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
STATE UNITED OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 24, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3897 - Administrative Conference Appropriations
Authorization
(Rep. Brooks (D) Texas)
The Administration supports the enactment of H.R. 3897.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Blum), in consultation with
the Administrative Conference (Edles), GC (Damus), and TCJ
(Sloan).
H.R. 3897 is similar to an Administrative Conference bill cleared
by OMB in August 1989. H.R. 3897 would authorize appropriations
of not more than $2.0 million for FY 1990, $2.15 million for
FY 1991, $2.3 million for FY 1992, $2.5 million for FY 1993, and
$2.7 million for FY 1994. The draft cleared by OMB authorized
"such sums as may be necessary" for FYs 1991-1994. The enacted
FY 1990 appropriation for the Administrative Conference is
$1.8 million. The President's Budget requested $2.08 million for
FY 1991.
H.R. 3897 contains other provisions similar to those contained in
the OMB-cleared draft bill. These provisions would:
-- Increase from $1,000 to $1,500 the amount of appropriated
funds that the Conference may expend annually for official
representation and entertainment expenses for foreign
dignitaries.
-- Authorize the Conference to conduct certain studies for
Federal agencies concerning the efficiency of administrative
procedures. The bill would also provide that funds obtained
from such agencies to conduct the studies may be expended in
years following the one in which the funds were received.
-- Clarify the authority of the Chairman of the Conference to
request that Federal agencies provide notice before entering
into contracts to study the efficiency or fairness of agency
proceedings.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
5/24/90 -- 5:30 p.m.
FREE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
February 22, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3910 National Assessment of Compensatory
Education Programs for the Disadvantaged
(Hawkins (D) CA and Goodling (R) PA)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 3910.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
The above draft position was developed by LRD (Fairhall) in
consultation with LVE (Bayla White/Barry White/Bernie Martin) and
OIRA (Jim Houser). The Department of Education (Paul Riddle,
Office of the General Counsel) concurs in this position.
Administration Position
To date the Administration has not taken a position on H.R. 3910.
H.R. 3910 was reported by the House Education and Labor Committee
on February 20, 1990. The committee report is not available.
Description of H.R. 3910
According to Education, H.R. 3910 as reported by the committee
reflects extensive drafting assistance provided by the
Department. The following description is based on information
from Education staff.
Major provisions of H.R. 3910 would:
-- require the Secretary of Education to conduct a
comprehensive national assessment of Chapter 1 of title 1
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. (Chapter 1
provides financial assistance to: (1) local school
districts for disadvantaged children and (2) State
educational agencies for special educational services to
children with special needs, including children of migrant
workers, certain handicapped children, and certain
neglected or delinquent children.)
-- specify an agenda for the assessment including evaluations
of: (1) the progress made by State and local educational
agencies in implementing the Program Improvement provisions
and school-wide projects; (2) the overall effectiveness of
the Chapter 1 Basic Grant program; (3) the operation and
2
effectiveness of Even Start; and (4) the operation and
effectiveness of the program for migrant children.
-- require the assessment to be planned, reviewed, and
conducted in consultation with an independent panel of
researchers, State and local practitioners, and other
appropriate individuals.
-- require the Secretary of Education to consult with the
House Education and Labor and Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committees in designing and implementing the
assessment.
-- reserve up to a total of $6 million from amounts
appropriated for Chapter 1 for FYs 1990 through 1993, for
the purpose of conducting the assessment. The reserved
amounts must be expended before January 1, 1993.
-- require the Secretary to submit to Congress a preliminary
report by June 30, 1992, and a final report by December 1,
1992.
This assessment will be the third mandated by Congress in the
past 15 years.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
2/22/90
OFFICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 23, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3950 - Food and Agricultural Resources Act of 1990
(de la Garza (D) Texas and Madigan (R) Illinois)
If H.R. 3950 were sent to the President prior to the conclusion
of the budget summit and does not achieve substantial, multi-year
savings from the current (Mid-Session) estimate of program costs;
and if price and income supports are not made more
market-oriented than the Committee version, which is a
retrogression from the 1985 Act; then the Secretary of
Agriculture and the President's other senior advisers would
recommend that he veto the bill.
From a budget perspective, the bill is both premature and
inadequate. The Administration expects the budget summit to
achieve substantial, multi-year savings from our Mid-Session
Review baseline. Thus, it would be a mistake for Congress to
complete action on a bill that gives producers the wrong
impression by sending them inaccurate signals about likely
program parameters.
From a policy perspective, H.R. 3950 includes provisions for
commodity subsidies that would reverse the strides toward market
orientation made in the 1985 Food Security Act.
O Raising loan rates (which act as price floors)
threatens to undermine U.S. farmers' hard-won
gains in recapturing a competitive position in
world markets. Congress raised loan rates in the
1981 Farm bill, and the results were devastating.
Our exports collapsed and so did U.S. farm
income. We must not risk a repeat of that
experience.
Freezing most program crop target prices at 1990
levels and effectively raising others fails to
achieve savings. Additional costs of $1 billion
will be incurred by the bill's requirement that
target prices be raised if the portion of land to
be idled by acreage reduction programs (ARPs) is
increased above the levels projected by the
Mid-Session Review.
2
A new marketing loan subsidy is established for
soybeans and at least six other oilseeds. The
program would do little to increase U.S.
production and world market share and would
likely cost the taxpayers about $2 billion over
the next five years. Increased competitiveness
could be accomplished more effectively and at
less cost by the Administration's planting
flexibility proposal. The creation of a
substantial new subsidy for an entire category of
crops is indefensible in a time of serious fiscal
constraints.
The provisions for dairy support establish a
program that is much less market-oriented and
more onerous to the consumer and taxpayer than
the existing one. The bill prohibits the
Secretary from reducing the support price below
its current level, regardless of the stocks which
accumulate in Federal inventories. Inflexible
price supports encourage farmers to continue to
generate surplus milk, which must then be
purchased and stored at Federal expense, at
absolutely no risk to the producers.
Discriminatory two-price schemes envisioned by
the bill necessitate production quotas that
further insulate the dairy sector from market
forces.
Failure to enact true planting flexibility for
program participants would perpetuate the market
distortions that arise when government
incentives, not the market, dictate production
decisions. In addition, the substantial
cost-effective environmental benefits of
increased crop rotation would be largely foregone
under the partial base protection provisions.
The bill fails to reform the wool and mohair,
peanut, and honey programs. These programs are
all archaic constructions, no longer suited to
modern market and budget realities.
By maintaining the sugar price support at its
current level, the bill perpetuates the inequity
between the treatment of sugar and other program
commodities. As a result of the current sugar
program, American consumers have paid close to
double the world market price for sugar for the
last five years, at an annual cost of over $1.5
billion. In order to begin to relieve this
3
burden, the Administration recommends an
immediate ten percent reduction in the sugar
price support. Moreover, it is doubtful that the
sugar program envisioned in the bill could comply
with the no-net cost provision of existing
legislation. We estimate that the program would
result in outlays of close to $200 million over
five years. In addition, the bill necessitates a
marketing control program for domestic sugar and
crystalline fructose. A new sugar re-export
program is a preferential program that could
violate our international obligations and would
induce additional production thereby depressing
raw sugar prices.
The commodity provisions of H.R. 3950 would cost $55 billion over
the next five years, $1 billion over current law baseline, and
$19 billion over the Administration's budget proposal. Equally
important is the fact that the bill would greatly increase the
likelihood of budget outlays beyond $55 billion.
This enormous potential for costs far above the
current forecast arises mainly from the lack of
adequate Secretarial discretion to adjust loan
rates and set-asides when market conditions
warrant.
The bill is also written so that only slight, and
quite plausible, changes in market prices could
trigger substantial outlays. This is
particularly true for the oilseed marketing loan
provision. Only a slight drop in prices would
trigger major Federal expenditures.
The Administration strongly opposes the nutrition title of
H.R. 3950 as currently drafted. The program expansions are
estimated to exceed the current law baseline by $543 million in
FY 1991 and almost $5.4 billion over five years. These costs are
in addition to the current law baseline growth of 16 percent or
$2.5 billion, from FY 1990 to FY 1991.
Such an expansion is totally inconsistent with the deficit
reduction being sought in the ongoing budget summit and is an
example of the type of mandatory cost expansion that has fostered
the current crisis. The bill should reauthorize nutrition
programs consistent with the Administration's proposals and any
subsequent bipartisan budget agreement.
The bill authorizes another $25 billion for programs in foreign
food assistance, science and education, conservation, forestry,
and marketing and inspection. Spending at this level would
exceed the five-year current law baseline by $3 billion.
4
Considering these authorizations along with direct spending on
commodity and food assistance programs, the bill would add $9.4
billion to the current law baseline over the next five years.
While we generally support the Agriculture Committee's actions
with respect to foreign food aid programs, the Administration has
concerns with a number of provisions of the trade title proposed
by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The Administration objects to the attempt to
bypass Presidential authority by dictating the
Executive branch structure for implementing the
program. The P.L. 480 program serves multiple
legislative objectives and affects a wide
variety of domestic and international interests.
Therefore, it is imperative that the President
maintain the authority to direct and delegate
responsibilities for the program.
The Administration strongly objects to the
15-day advance congressional notification
requirement before signing agreements. This is
inconsistent with efforts to expedite the food
aid decision-making process, and could cause
unnecessary and potentially harmful delays in
providing food assistance to needy countries.
Although the intent of the Latin America
debt-for-nature swap language parallels part of
the President's "Enterprise for the Americas"
initiative, we believe debt reduction and the
environment need to be considered in the context
of a comprehensive strategy for trade,
investment, and economic growth.
With respect to the export assistance program provisions of the
Foreign Affairs Committee version, the Administration believes
funding for the newly established Market Promotion Program should
be reduced from $325 million annually to $200 million annually,
the level contained in the Agriculture Committee version. The
Administration also opposes reporting requirements under the
Long-Term Trade Strategy Report which duplicate existing reports.
Finally, the Administration opposes the Market Development Task
Force because it duplicates the activities of the recently
established Trade Promotion Coordination Committee (TPCC). The
TPCC is an interagency working group which will coordinate and
streamline trade promotion assistance for all types of goods and
services, including agriculture.
The Administration also has serious objections to provisions in
H.R. 3950 apart from the commodity, food assistance, and trade
titles.
5
In the conservation and research titles, the
water quality incentive programs and integrated
farm management program are not likely to achieve
sufficient environmental benefits while adding at
least $500 million to costs. Moreover, pollution
prevention should not be financed by the
taxpayer. Such costs should be spread equitably
across society instead of through special
treatment for one sector of the economy. This
policy, endorsed by the Administration, was
recently reinforced in the Senate-passed Clean
Air bill.
In the research title, the Administration objects
to the provision to establish an institute
providing the private sector with financial
incentives for commercialization of
agricultural products. As with other
technologies, the appropriate Federal role is
support of research and development and rapid
transfer of new technology through such
mechanisms as cooperative research and licensing
arrangements.
* * * * *
6
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by NRD (Offutt) and
LRD (Coleman), in consultation with NRD (Gibbons), OIRA (Grove),
HIMD (Brentlinger), IAD (Speckhard and Dorsey), USDA (Campbell),
EPA (Coronado), CEQ (Bear), CEA (Ballenger), USTR (Early), AID
(Honnold), Treasury (Levy), State (Rappaport), Commerce (Van
Hanswyck), and Interior (Hill).
Administration Position to Date
In testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, Secretary
Yeutter and his sub-cabinet officers have emphasized the
Administration's commitment to maintaining the course toward
reliance on market forces that was set by the Food Security Act
of 1985. Opposition to practically every action of the Committee
has been registered by the Department of Agriculture during
hearings and markups since February. The Secretary also sent a
lengthy letter to Chairman de la Garza on May 11, 1990,
before full committee action detailing these objections.
Summary of H.R. 3950
In summary, H.R. 3950 would:
-- Reauthorize the food stamp program for five years with
major expansions such as raising basic benefits from the
current 103% of the Thrifty Food Plan to 105% by 1995,
eliminating the cap on the "excess shelter" deduction and
allowing food stamp recipients to own more expensive cars.
Additionally, the bill would forgive some $480 million in
quality control liabilities owed by States with excessive
error rates in their food stamp programs. The bill also
reauthorizes expiring nutrition programs.
-- Set subsidy provisions for wheat, feedgrains, cotton, and
rice. Loan rates, which act as price floors, are
effectively set at levels above those that currently
prevail, and the Secretary's ability to reduce them as
needed to avoid surplus accumulation is severely
circumscribed. Legislatively-set target prices (intended
to supplement farm income by guaranteeing payments to
farmers on a portion of historical production) are frozen
at 1990 levels, stopping the two-percent rate of annual
decline established by the 1985 Act. Acreage reduction
programs (ARPs) require participating farmers to set aside
a portion of their acreage in return for price and income
supports. In the bill, the Administration's selection of
ARP levels must conform to triggers based on stocks-to-use
ratios by commodity. Limited flexibility to plant any
program crop or oilseeds on 25 percent of base acreage is
provided, with the condition that supplemental income
7
payments on program crops planted on these acres must be
foregone.
-- Establish a sugar program that maintains the current 18
cent minimum loan rate, provides for triggered mandatory
domestic marketing controls and a re-export program if
imports fall below certain levels. Moreover, the no net
Treasury cost condition of the sugar title could well be
violated if excess domestic supply is taken under storage
and defaulted to the government.
-- Revise the dairy program to establish the current support
price ($10.10 per hundredweight) as the minimum over the
five years of the bill. This provision restricts
Secretary's ability to manage supply by reducing the
support price, as current law allows and would increase
outlays by $2.5 billion over five years, more than double
the projected cost of a current law extension.
-- Extend the current wool and mohair program without the
reform requested by the Administration to convert it to a
target price-deficiency payment scheme comparable to those
for other commodities. The peanut program is extended and
the quota loan rate and quota are increased, further
raising costs to consumers. The honey support price is
increased, and the Administration proposal for reform
along the lines of wool and mohair is rejected.
-- Reauthorize the P.L. 480 food aid program with a number of
objectionable modifications. These include a 15-day
congressional notification requirement before signing
agreements, and delegation of program authority to AID and
USDA. This delegation provision appears to be an attempt
to bypass the President and reduce the role of other
agencies in decision-making. Finally, the P.L. 480
provisions include broad authority for allowing debt
forgiveness for Latin America which goes beyond the
Administration's proposal.
-- Reauthorize the export assistance programs. The bill
continues the Export Enhancement Program at roughly
current levels and adds $225 million in guarantee
authority for emerging democracies. The bill also adds
$125 million to the Targeted Export Assistance program,
which provides grants to trade organizations to promote
products in oversees markets.
-- Include portions of the President's tree initiative,
including the Tree Foundation and Community Trees
components and authorizes $80 million for miscellaneous
items not requested (rural fire fighting, forestry
research, timber bridges, private stewardship incentives,
8
and insect control). The Administration has and continues
to support separate legislation for the President's
initiative to help ensure timely action. With the
necessary flexibility that has been agreed to, however,
various components within the Forestry title provide the
basis for a successful tree planting program that would
meet the goal of planting one billion trees per year.
-- Authorize a maximum enrollment of 45 million acres for the
Conservation Reserve Program, but unlike the 1985 farm
bill does not mandate a minimum level. Without a minimum,
this could be viewed as consistent with Administration
policy). The bill also retargets the program toward
environmentally sensitive lands.
-- Authorize a voluntary, paid easement for wetlands and
loans to landowners to aid in implementing farm
conservation practices. The proposal would also establish
two new programs in water quality and integrated farm
management, providing voluntary participants with
financial assistance, including some subsidy yield and
base acreage protection.
-- Authorize USDA to finance businesses that intend to
develop new technologies that utilize agricultural
commodities, requiring an independent institute and
regional centers for administration. The bill creates
numerous new centers and management organizations that
will harm the Department's ability to plan and manage its
research and extension programs. In addition to these
provisions, the research title also provides for, and
greatly exceeds, the President's funding request for the
National Research Initiative.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
July 18, 1990 - 1:00 PM
wish
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
August 2, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4000 - Civil Rights Act of 1990
(Hawkins (D) California and 183 others)
If H.R. 4000 were presented to the President in its current form,
or with only the amendments under the rule relating to quotas and
damages, the President's senior advisers would recommend a veto.
If H.R. 4000 were presented to the President in the form of the
LaFalce substitute, the President's senior advisers would
recommend approval.
The remainder of this Statement is divided into two parts: (1)
the reasons for the Administration's opposition to H.R. 4000; and
(2) the reasons for the Administration's positions on the
amendments.
H.R. 4000
On May 17, 1990, the President stated three principles that must
guide any new civil rights legislation. The committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4000 meets none of them.
First, civil rights legislation must operate to obliterate
consideration of factors such as race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin from employment decisions. However, Section 4 as
drafted would inevitably lead employers to adopt hiring and
promotion quotas. This would result from the bill's unfair
alteration of longstanding rules of civil litigation as they
apply to "disparate impact" cases under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act. Unless an employer's bottom-line numbers are
"correct," he or she will face the almost certain prospect of
lawsuits in which a successful defense will be virtually
impossible. Similarly, Section 6 would in certain circumstances
insulate unlawful quotas from challenge in court.
Section 4 also violates the second principle stated by the
President: any bill must reflect the fundamental principles of
fairness that apply throughout our legal system. In addition,
Section 6 would encourage the settlement of certain cases at the
expense of innocent non-parties; close the courts to some
individuals whose civil rights have been violated; and insulate
some consent decrees that impose quotas from appropriate judicial
review. Similarly, Section 13 would shield "affirmative action,"
"court-ordered remedies," and "conciliation agreements" from the
neutral application of the bill's other provisions.
2
Third, a civil rights bill should contain a deterrent against
workplace harassment, but it must do so in a manner that is
reasonable and does not produce a windfall for lawyers.
Section 8 would provide for jury trials and the award of
compensatory and punitive damages in Title VII cases. This would
radically transform the Civil Rights Act by undermining its
carefully balanced system of mediation and conciliation.
The Administration also believes that the protections of any
civil rights bill should be extended to employees of Congress in
a meaningful way, which necessarily includes redress in the
courts. It is fundamentally unfair to allow potential defendants
to decide how complainants may present claims and to pass on
their merits.
Other provisions are also objectionable, including: ill-advised
rules on attorneys fees; an unclear provision affecting "mixed
motive" discrimination cases; unconstitutional retroactivity
provisions; unnecessarily open-ended and excessive "limitations
periods;" and an improper rule of construction.
Amendments
The rule on H.R. 4000 makes three amendments in order.
Quotas. The first amendment would amend Section 4 of the bill in
two respects. It would specify that the "mere existence of a
statistical imbalance in the employer's workforce is
not
alone sufficient to establish a disparate impact violation," and
it would specify that nothing in the bill would "require an
employer to adopt hiring or promotion quotas
These
provisions are purportedly intended to address the
Administration's stated objection that H.R. 4000 will coerce
employers into adopting quotas. In fact, these provisions do
nothing of substance.
As to the first provision, it is never the "mere existence of a
statistical imbalance" that is alleged in a disparate impact
case, but rather an imbalance caused, albeit unintentionally, by
a challenged practice. Thus, the "exception" created by the
first provision is really no exception at all. As to the second
provision, it is the Administration's view that H.R. 4000 will
result in quotas, not by requiring them directly, but by inducing
employers to adopt surreptitious quotas in order to avoid the
cost and trouble of disparate impact lawsuits -- which H.R. 4000
makes extremely difficult for employers to win. Finally, neither
provision addresses those features of Section 6 of the bill which
would insulate many illegal quota agreements from challenge.
Damages. The second amendment provides a limited "cap" to the
compensatory and punitive damages provision in Section 8 of
H.R. 4000. As the Administration has noted before, however,
Section 8 discards the carefully balanced remedial framework of
3
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and replaces it with a
radically different tort-style approach. In our view, Title VII
has worked quite well for the last 26 years. Putting a cap only
on punitive damages that is available only for companies of less
than 100 employees -- and putting no cap at all on the award of
compensatory damages, including payments for pain and suffering
and emotional distress awarded by a jury -- is a minor change at
best.
LaFalce Substitute. The third amendment -- the LaFalce
substitute bill -- is not perfect, but it goes a long way toward
correcting the objectionable provisions of H.R. 4000. If
Congress passed the LaFalce substitute, the President's senior
advisors would recommend that he sign it.
*****
(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 Department of Justice (Wise) and White House Counsel (Lund).
An eariler version of this SAP -- which did not address the
amendments -- was also reviewed by the Departments of Labor
(Rooney) and Education (Heindel), EEOC (Sayer), the Office of
Policy Development (McGettigan), Office of Cabinet Affairs
(Williamson), GC (Damus), and TCJ (Beebe).
A language of the committee amendment to H.R. 4000 that will be
considered on the House floor is not available for review.
Justice (Wise) advises that it is the version reported by the
House Judiciary Committee, which is very similar to S. 2104 as
passed by the Senate on July 18th by a vote of 65-34. The
version of H.R. 4000 ordered reported by the House Education and
Labor Committee on May 8th differs from the Judiciary version.
The following description of the bill is based on our
understanding of the text that will go to the floor. (Time did
not permit detailed description of the amendments "below the
line. ")
Recent Supreme Court Decisions and Related Provisions
of H.R. 4000
H.R. 4000 is designed to reverse six recent Supreme Court
decisions. These decisions and the related provisions of
H.R. 4000, as ordered reported by the House Judiciary Committee,
are described below.
4
-- Wards Cove
Supreme Court Decision. In "disparate impact" cases under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the burden is on
plaintiffs to identify a particular employment practice and
show that the employment practice does not serve "in a
significant way, the legitimate employment goals of the
employer. (A "disparate impact" case is one in which no
intentional discrimination is alleged but an employment
practice is alleged to have an unjustified, though
inadvertent, disparate impact based on race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.)
H.R. 4000 (Section 4) overrides the Supreme Court in three
ways. First, it places the burden on the defendant to
demonstrate that an employment practice is "required by
business necessity" if significant numerical disparities are
found. Second, Section 4 contains a lengthy definition of
the term "business necessity" which states that it is
intended to codify the definition of "business necessity" in
the Griggs case and to overrule Wards Cove. The language is
different from any proposed by Governor Sununu or accepted
by him. (See "Administration Position to Date," below.)
Third, Section 4 would relieve plaintiffs of the obligation
to identify specific practices and to prove causation.
-- Price Waterhouse
Supreme Court Decision. Where an employment decision is
proven to have been based in part on race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin, Title VII has not been violated if
a defendant can show that the same decision would have been
reached if such factors had not been considered.
H.R. 4000 (Section 5) provides that a violation of Title VII
is proven if a contributing factor in an employment decision
is shown to have been a complainant's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin. The term "contributing factor" is
not defined, and it may not mean "causal factor." However,
a court could not order a hire, promotion, or reinstatement
if the defendant showed that the complainant would not have
been hired, promoted, or retained even if discrimination had
not been a factor.
-- Wilks
Supreme Court Decision. Persons not party to, but adversely
affected by, consent decrees mandating unlawful racial
preferences can challenge them in court.
5
H.R. 4000 (Section 6) bars challenges to such consent
decrees by non-parties if: (1) they had notice of the
proposed judgment; (2) their interests were "adequately
represented" by another person who challenged the decree; or
(3) a court determines that "reasonable efforts" were made
to provide notice to them.
-- Lorance
Supreme Court Decision. The statute of limitations with
respect to a discriminatory seniority system begins to run
on the date it is adopted by the employer, not the date the
complainant is adversely affected by it.
H.R. 4000 (Section 7) specifies that where a seniority
system has been adopted "with the intent to discriminate,"
the "application" of the system constitutes an unlawful
practice throughout the period that it is in effect.
-- Patterson
Supreme Court Decision. The statutory guaranty of the right
to "make and enforce contracts" regardless of race ("Section
1981") applies only during the formation of a contract.
H.R. 4000 (Section 12) specifies that the right to "make and
enforce contracts" regardless of race extends beyond the
formation of the contract to "the enjoyment of all benefits,
privileges, terms and conditions of the contractual
relationship." H.R. 4000 would further specify that the
prohibition applies to private as well as governmental
discrimination.
-- Shaw
Supreme Court Decision. Prevailing plaintiffs in job
discrimination cases against the Federal Government may not
recover interest to compensate for delays in obtaining
relief.
H.R. 4000 (Section 10) permits plaintiffs prevailing in
Title VII discrimination cases against the Federal
Government to recover "the same interest to compensate for
delay in payment" as would be available in cases involving
non-public parties, "except that prejudgment interest may
not be awarded on compensatory damages. "
6
Other Provisions of H.R. 4000
In addition, H.R. 4000 would:
-- Amend the current requirement that an employment
discrimination complaint be filed within 180 days after "the
alleged unlawful employment practice occurred" to permit
complaints to be filed within two years after the practice
"occurred or has been applied to affect adversely the person
aggrieved, whichever is later." (Section 7)
-- Authorize jury trials and compensatory damages for
intentional violations of Title VII and punitive damages
when violations are committed with malice or callous
indifference to the rights of others. (Section 8)
-- Authorize awards of expert witness fees to prevailing
parties in Title VII cases. (Section 9)
-- Authorize prevailing parties to recover attorneys fees in
addition to other costs, even for work performed after they
have rejected a settlement offer more favorable than the
final judgment. H.R. 4000 would also guarantee plaintiffs'
lawyers a fee unless the parties or their counsel attest
that waivers of attorney fees were not "compelled as a
condition of settlement." (Section 9)
-- Authorize prevailing parties, where judgments or orders
granting relief are subsequently challenged, to recover from
the original defendants the costs of defending (as a party,
intervenor, or otherwise) the judgment or order. If the
party attacking the judgment prevails, then the defendant
must pay those costs. (Section 9)
-- Lengthen the statute of limitations from 30 to 90 days for
filing suits against the Federal Government following final
agency actions. (Section 10)
-- Specify, with respect to Federal laws protecting the civil
rights of persons, that: (1) all such laws shall be
"broadly construed to effectuate the purpose of such laws to
provide equal opportunity and provide effective remedies;"
(2) that no such laws shall "be construed to repeal or amend
by implication any other Federal law protecting such
rights;' and (3) agencies and courts, in interpreting such
laws, shall not use this bill as "a basis for limiting the
theories of liabilities, rights, and remedies available"
under such laws unless the law has been specifically amended
by this bill. (Section 11)
7
-- Specify that the bill shall not be construed to "require an
employer to adopt hiring or promotion quotas, " provided that
the bill "shall not be construed to affect court-ordered
remedies, affirmative action, or conciliation agreements
that are otherwise in accordance with the law. The bill
does not forbid quotas. (Section 13)
-- Provide that H.R. 4000 shall apply to Congress, but that the
means for its enforcement shall be determined by each House.
(Section 16)
Presidential Statement
On May 17th, the President stated that he would support civil
rights legislation which met three stated principles. The first
principle was that legislation must operate to obliterate
considerations of factors such as race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin from employment decisions. In this regard, the
President said, "I will not sign a quota bill," and expressed
concern that quotas could be an unintended consequence of
legislation.
Second, the legislation must reflect fundamental principles of
fairness. Specifically, individuals who believe their rights
have been violated are entitled to their day in court, and an
accused is innocent until proved guilty.
Third, the civil rights laws should provide an adequate deterrent
against workplace harassment. They should not, however benefit
lawyers by encouraging litigation at the expense of conciliation
or settlement.
The President also stated that Congress "should live by the same
requirements it prescribes for others."
Administration Bill
On February 21, 1990, the Justice Department transmitted an
Administration bill that was subsequently introduced as
H.R. 4081/S. 2166. The Administration bill would reverse Lorance
and Patterson, consistent with H.R. 4000.
Administration Position to Date
The President's May 17th statement is summarized above.
On July 17th, Governor Sununu stated that S. 2104 "as crafted
right now is a quota bill and the President has said he will veto
that quota bill." Governor Sununu also said that a tentative
agreement with Senate negotiators that subsequently fell apart
was still the basis for an acceptable bill.
8
In a July 10, 1990, letter to Senator Kennedy, Governor Sununu
proposed compromise language intended to minimize the likelihood
that H.R. 4000 would result in quotas. Specifically, the term
"justified by business necessity" would have been defined to mean
that:
"the challenged practice or group of
practices has a manifest relationship to the
employment in question or that the
respondent's legitimate employment goals are
significantly served by -- even if they do
not require -- the challenged practice or
group of practices."
Governor Sununu's letter also sought substantial changes in the
bill's treatment of "groups of practices" and causation.
Justice Department reports of April 3, 1990, and May 8, 1990, on
S. 2104 and H.R. 4000, respectively, stated that the Attorney
General "and other senior advisers" would recommend a veto of the
bills in their then-current form.
A SAP on H.R. 4000 sent to the House Rules Committee on
July 31, 1990, was essentially identical to this one, but was
silent on the amendments. The position on the amendments is
derived from a draft letter on H.R. 4000 that is expected to be
signed by the Attorney General on August 2, 1990.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
8/2/90 -- 11;30 a.m.
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. 4009 - Federal Maritime Commission Authorization
(Jones (D) North Carolina and 3 others)
The Administration has no objection to the enactment of H.R. 4009
as amended by the Senate.
The Administration would, however, oppose the enactment of any
amendments which would:
--
Permit vessels of the Soviet Union to enter
U.S. ports in addition to those currently
covered by the U.S.-Soviet Maritime Agreement
signed on June 1, 1990. Such an amendment
would constrain the President's exercise of
his constitutional responsibilities to
conduct foreign relations and protect the
national security.
-- Impose costs and paperwork for which no need
has been established by mandating new bonding
requirements for certain ocean common
carriers.
These two provisions were included in H.R. 4205 as passed by the
House.
(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 (Bronner), Justice (Dulmage and
Colborn), and State (Davis), the Federal Maritime Commission
(FMC) (Miles), IA (Sasser), and TCJ (Adkins and Wimmer). The FMC
advises that it disagrees with the statement's objection to any
amendment incorporating the bonding requirements of H.R. 4205 as
passed by the House, but does not object to the transmission of
this statement to the House.
Potential Objectionable Amendments
According to House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
minority staff (Robinson), it is possible that the House will be
asked to vote on a version of H.R. 4009 which includes the
objectionable provisions described above.
2
The referenced agreement with the Soviet Union permits vessels of
that nation to enter specific U.S. ports without completing the
normal, lengthy procedures for obtaining permission to enter.
According to Transportation, inclusion of the amendment cited
"above the line" could inspire similar moves to add other ports
to the list, including ports not included in the treaty due to
national security concerns.
The other objectionable potential amendment would impose a
$50,000 bonding requirement on so-called non-vessel operating
common carriers (firms which own no vessels, but consolidate
cargo for shipment overseas by vessel operators). The FMC
believes that this requirement is necessary to prevent defaults
by these carriers. Transportation, on the other hand, objects
that a bonding requirement is unjustified because there have, in
fact, been few defaults by these carriers.
Provisions of H.R. 4009
The principal provisions of H.R. 4009, as passed by the Senate,
would:
-- Authorize FY 1991 appropriations for the
Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) of
$15,894,000 (the amount requested in the
President's Budget).
-- Clarify (1) the scope of FMC's existing
authority to address and correct unfair
foreign trade practices, (2) which persons
and entities are eligible to petition the FMC
for correction of unfair foreign trade
practices, (3) the FMC's authority to compel
the provision of documents or testimony, and
(4) the sanctions the FMC may impose where
unfair foreign trade practices are found.
-- Authorize the imposition of a $5,000 fine for
failure to comply with FMC subpoenas or
information production orders.
-- Provide that a report of the Advisory
Commission on Conferences in Ocean Shipping
to the President and Congress shall be due
one year from the date all Commission members
have been duly appointed (rather than one
year from the date the Commission was
established, as provided in current law).
-- Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to
extend coastwise trading privileges to 24
named vessels not currently eligible for such
privileges.
3
Administration Position to Date
In a Statement of Administration Policy provided to the House on
March 19, 1990, the Administration stated that it had no
objection to H.R. 4009. In a letter to the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee dated October 4, the
Department of Transportation stated that it opposed the bonding
requirement in H.R. 4205 as passed by the House.
10/12/90 -- 4:00 P.M.
OFFICE PRESIDENT SEAVIS UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
February 22, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4010 Screwworm Eradication
(de la Garza (D) Texas and 23 others)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 4010.
* * * * *
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Coleman), in
consultation with NRD (Jenkins, Beard, and Gibbons), USDA
(Henstridge), and AID (Hunnold).
The Committee report is unavailable. We have been advised by
USDA staff (Henstridge), however, that H.R. 4010 is an
Administration proposal to allow USDA to sell sterile screwworms,
as part of a United Nations effort to control an outbreak of this
pest in Libya.
The screwworm is a flesh-eating parasite that poses a serious
threat to livestock. It has been eradicated from the United
States. The Secretary of Agriculture participates in
international efforts to eradicate the screwworm in Mexico and
Central America. The pest has recently been discovered in Libya.
To prevent spread of the screwworm throughout Africa, the Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations wishes to
purchase sterile screwworms from a production facility in Mexico
that is jointly owned and operated by Mexico and the United
States. H.R. 4010 would provide the necessary authority for such
sales. It would also earmark the receipts from such sales --
estimated at approximately $1 million -- to the operation of the
program. This would enable the facility to expand its production
to meet the new demand.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
2/22/89
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
June 14, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4039 - Disabilities Prevention Act of 1990
(Conte (R) MA and three others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 4039.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with HIMD (Turman). HHS (per Fran White, Associate
General Counsel for Legislation) concurs in the proposed
position.
The proposed position is consistent with HHS testimony before the
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the
Environment on March 19, 1990.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee report is not yet
available for review (the bill was ordered reported on May 15,
1990). The description of the bill is based upon discussions
with HHS staff.
Provisions of H.R. 4039
H.R. 4039 would continue the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC)
Disabilities Prevention Program, currently operating under
general Public Health Service Act authorities. The bill would
authorize $10 million in FY 1991, $15 million in FY 1992, and
$20 million in FY 1993. The goal of CDC's program is to reduce
the incidence and severity of disabilities, including those
caused by accidents. In addition, the program focuses on the
development and maintenance of systems that enable those with a
disability to live independently and to generate their own
incomes. In large measure, these activities are carried out
through cooperative agreements and ongoing technical assistance
to nine established State-based projects. The President's
FY 1991 Budget requests $4.4 million for this activity.
S. 2631, the Senate companion bill, would authorize $40 million
in FY 1991 and "such sums as necessary" for each of FYs 1992-95
for activities aimed at preventing accidental injuries. The
Senate bill also would authorize $45 million over three years for
a disability prevention program.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
6/14/90
EWV
OFFICE will PRESIDENT SERVIÇO UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
March 30, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4073 Labor Management Relations Act Amendments
(Clay (D) MO and 42 others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 4073.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft of a position was developed by LRD (Fairhall) in
consultation with LVE (Martin/Walsh) and HTF (Peroff). The
Departments of HUD (Sonia Fuentes, Office of the General
Counsel), Labor (Dick Schmidt, Office of the Solicitor), and the
CEA (Bill Wascher) concur.
The Administration has not taken a position on H.R. 4073 to date.
The House Education and Labor Committee report on H.R. 4073 is
not available. According to the Congressional Record (March 28,
1990), the Committee ordered the bill reported as introduced
without amendment.
H.R. 4073 would amend section 302 (c) (7) of the Labor Management
Relations Act (LMRA) (the Taft-Hartley Act) to allow employers
and unions in multi-employer bargaining situations to set up
trust funds to provide housing assistance to employees. Current
law permits joint employer-employee trust funds for certain
employee benefits, including education and child care.
Background
H.R. 4073 is identical to its Senate companion, S. 1949 (Kennedy
(D) MA and Hatch (R) UT), which was passed by the Senate on
November 21, 1989. (S. 1949 was introduced and passed on the
same day so the Administration did not have an opportunity to
take a position on the bill.)
According to Senator Kennedy, the legislation would make housing
trusts a "permissive" subject for collective bargaining under the
LMRA. Neither party could be required to bargain over including
housing trusts, and refusal to bargain about it would not give
rise to an unfair labor practice charge.
Education and child care trusts were added as permissive subjects
for bargaining in 1969. The housing trusts would be subject to
2
the same requirements imposed by the LMRA for other such trusts:
there would have to be 1) written agreements governing payments,
representation in fund administration, and resolution of
deadlocks; and 2) annual audits of the funds.
According to Kennedy, the housing trust funds could be used as
collateral for mortgage assistance, closing costs and bank fees,
favorable interest rates, down payment assistance, or rental
security deposits.
Kennedy introduced the legislation in response to a contract
negotiated between the Boston Hotels and Local 26 of the Hotel
Employees and Restaurant Employees Union which would provide for
housing assistance to employees. The contract also provided that
if Congress did not amend the law before May 31, 1990, to allow
for such a trust, the sums would be transferred into an existing
employer-employee health and welfare fund.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
3/30/90