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
285790793
label
OSTP Report [2]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285790793
contentType
document
title
OSTP Report [2]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
06820-004
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
285790793
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
38e8c44b14a9851e
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:
06820-004
Folder Title:
OSTP Report [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
15
10
2
2
OFFICE ONLY THE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
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. 4111 Strategic and Critical Minerals Act of 1990
(Craig (R) Idaho and two others)
The Administration has no objection to the enactment of
H.R. 4111.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Coleman) in consultation
with NRD (Reisner, Cogswell, and Gibbons) and Interior (Harris).
It is consistent with Interior testimony on the bill at a 3/27/90
hearing before the House Interior Committee.
H.R. 4111 would require the Secretary of the Interior to
establish a Strategic Resources Generic Mineral Technology
Center. The Center would develop new -- and improve existing --
mining and mineral resource conservation technologies.
The Center's goal would be to reduce the dependence of the United
States on foreign supplies of strategic and critical materials.
The Center would conduct research, identify new mineral deposits,
and "facilitate the transfer of information, studies, and
technologies to the private sector." H.R. 4111 would authorize
appropriations of such sums as may be necessary to establish and
operate the Center. (The committee report on H.R. 4111
recommends that the Center be funded at $1.5 million annually.)
The University of Idaho has already submitted a proposal to the
Department of the Interior providing for establishment of the
Center at the University.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
5/24/90
PM PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
June 4, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4148 Harquahala Valley Irrigation District Water Rights
(Udall (D) Arizona and four others)
The Administration has no position on H.R. 4148 at this time.
The bill leaves unanswered many questions concerning its scope
and costs and how it relates to several pending Arizona Indian
water rights settlements. The Administration will seek to
address these concerns during Senate consideration of H.R. 4148
and other legislation to settle related Indian water rights
claims for the Ft. McDowell Indian Community.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Fitter), in consultation
with NR (Wolf, Long, Tuccillo, Cogswell, and Gibbons), and
Interior (Somers).
The United States is currently negotiating Indian water rights to
Arizona's Gila River system, which includes the Salt and Verde
Rivers. In this regard, H.R. 4148 would authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to negotiate with the Harquahala Valley
Irrigation District (HVID) for its right to approximately 46,000
acre feet of irrigation water from the Central Arizona Project
(CAP). (CAP water comes from the Colorado River.) The bill
specifies that this CAP water is to be used to settle the water
rights claims of the Fort McDowell Indian Community and other
tribes having a claim to Salt and Verde River water. The
potential Federal liability related to the Fort McDowell Indian
settlement has not been determined.
The HVID is one of many subcontractors of the Central Arizona
Water Conservancy District (CAWCD). CAWCD holds the master
contract for CAP water with the Federal Government. H.R. 4148
would authorize certain benefits to both HVID and CAWCD in return
for the rights to the HVID water. Specifically, HVID's
2
$26 million repayment obligation to the Federal Government for a
water distribution system would be extinguished. In addition,
CAWCD would receive a Federal credit, for the remaining balance
of the "fair value" of the water, which it could use against its
$2 billion repayment obligation to the Federal Government for the
main distribution features of the CAP. CAWCD is scheduled to
begin repaying approximately $15 million annually in 1992.
H.R. 4148 would allow CAWCD to use credits to offset
approximately two years of debt. This process would finance
Indian water rights settlements outside the appropriations
process, setting an adverse precedent for future settlements.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION
6/4/90
OFFICE PRESIDENT SERVICE UNITED,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
September 21, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4131 Foreign Contracting Audit Equity Act
(Conyers (D) Michigan and 15 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 4131 because it
would place significant burdens on the acquisition process,
discriminate against foreign firms, and invite foreign
retaliation, which would adversely affect U.S. companies.
In particular, the Administration objects to provisions of
H.R. 4131 that would:
--
Require Executive agencies to obtain greater inspection and
audit rights from a foreign contractor than from a U.S.
contractor. This discrimination would weaken U.S.
negotiating positions with foreign contractors and hinder
competition between foreign and domestic firms.
--
Require foreign auditors, when performing audits for the
U.S. Government pursuant to international agreements, to
use U.S. auditing standards. Foreign auditors currently
apply U.S. cost principles to determine the allowability of
costs on U.S. contracts. To require the use of U.S.
auditing standards would be contrary to the primary
rationale for reciprocal audit agreements.
--
Permit examination by the Comptroller General of any
records of any foreign contractor. This provision
discriminates against foreign firms because it would place
a greater burden on foreign contractors than currently
exists on U.S. contractors. This is inconsistent with
current law, which provides access to records of both U.S.
and foreign contractors that "directly pertains to, and
involves transactions relating to the contract or
subcontract."
*****
(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 Defense (Cipiccho), State (Davis), General
Services Administration (Troilo), Council of Economic Advisers
(Monaco), National Security Council (Deal), White House Counsel
2
(Rademaker), GO (Kelly), NS (McCelland), OFPP (Coleman), TCJ
(Silas), FM (Stack/Brown), Cabinet Affairs (Williamson), and OPD
(Lindsey). (Justice Department failed to provide views on this
legislative referral.)
Description of H.R. 4131
H.R. 4131 would require that:
--
Solicitations for negotiated procurements and contracts
include a provision that would entitle the procuring agency
and its authorized representative to inspect the plant and
audit the books and records of a foreign contractor.
--
Before award of a covered contract (in excess of $500,000)
using procedures other than competitive procedures, the
proposal be:
(1) audited in accordance with contract auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States; and
(2) determined to contain a reasonable price by the head of
the agency, an authorized representative, a foreign
audit entity, or the Defense Contract Audit Agency.
--
The head of an agency not waive any requirement for a
foreign contractor or subcontractor to submit cost or
pricing data, unless the agency head makes a written
determination that the price is reasonable.
--
The head of an agency awarding a covered contract, or
authorized agency representative, verify any certification
or statement made by the contractor by examining records of
the foreign contractor, until three years after final
payment under the covered contract, related to:
(1) the proposal for the contract;
(2) discussions conducted on the proposal;
(3) pricing of the contract;
(4) performance of the contract; or
(5) pricing of any change or modification of the contract.
--
A clause be included in covered contracts which would
entitle the Comptroller General of the United States, or an
authorized representative, to examine any records of any
foreign contractor until three years after final payment
under a covered contract.
3
Other provisions of H.R. 4131 would:
--
Permit the head of an Executive agency to require the
production of information and records by a foreign
contractor through the use of a subpoena, enforceable by
order of any appropriate U.S. District Court.
-- Permit a procuring agency to suspend payment on a covered
contract for failure to comply with provisions of the bill.
Administration Position To Date
The Administration has not previously taken a position on
H.R. 4131.
OMB cleared on September 17, 1990, a Defense report to Congress
strongly opposing H.R. 4131 for the reasons cited above the line.
However, Defense has not yet transmitted this report to Congress.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/21/90 -- 1:00 P.M.
PRESIDENT STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 15, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4151 - Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1990
(Kildee (D) MI and 104 others)
The Administration supports reauthorization of the Head Start
program and has requested a $500 million increase in funding for
the program to $1.9 billion for FY 1991. The requested
36 percent increase would represent the largest single-year
increase in the 25-year history of the program and would enable
Head Start to enroll up to 180,000 additional children.
Although H.R. 4151 authorizes appropriations for Head Start, the
bill is objectionable in a number of respects. The
Administration strongly opposes H.R. 4151 because:
-- The authorization levels for the Head Start program are
excessive: $2.4 billion for FY 1991, $4.3 billion for
FY 1992, increasing to $7.7 billion for FY 1994.
-- Amendments to the Head Start program would reduce the
percentage of funding for discretionary grants, and a
substantial amount of funds would be earmarked for
staffing, insurance, facility improvements, and
transportation.
-- The bill would also extend the authorizations for the
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) and Follow
Through programs. Both of these programs have achieved
their objectives and should not continue to be
federally funded. Community action agencies can
compete successfully for funds from sources other than
the CSBG, and those agencies should not receive special
administrative funding. After more than 20 years as a
small demonstration program, Follow Through has long
since been replaced by new research and demonstration
authorities and the $5 billion Chapter 1 compensatory
education program.
Head Start program reauthorization must also be addressed
when the House and Senate Conferees meet to resolve
differences on the child care bills, H.R. 3 and S. 5. The
House-passed H.R. 3 includes major changes and
appropriations authorization increases for Head Start. The
provisions in H.R. 4151 would be in addition to the Head
Start provisions of H.R. 3. If the House were to approve a
freestanding Head Start program authorization bill, any
separate program expansion should be dropped in the child
care conference.
2
Any expansion of Head Start should focus on increasing the
number of children enrolled in the existing program, and
funding levels should be considered within the fiscal
constraints developed through the bipartisan budget
negotiations.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Jeffrey Weinberg) in
consultation with HIM (Barry Clendenin and Peter Nakahata). The
Departments of Health and Human Services (per Sondra Wallace,
Office of the General Counsel) and Education (per Paul Riddle,
Office of the General Counsel) concur. OPD (Hanns Kuttner)
agrees with the draft position.
OMB staff has not reviewed the report on H.R. 4151, which was
just filed by the House Education and Labor Committee on May 9th.
The description of H.R. 4151 is based on information from HHS
staff.
H.R. 4151
Major provisions of H.R. 4151 would:
-- authorize for Head Start: $2.4 billion for FY 1991;
$4.3 billion for FY 1992; $5.9 billion for FY 1993; and
$7.7 billion for FY 1994. (The Administration requested
$1.9 billion for FY 1991.)
-- authorize for the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG):
$452 million for FY 1991; $460 million for FY 1992;
$480 million for FY 1993; and $500 million for FY 1994.
(The Administration did not request any CSBG funds for
FY 1991.)
-- authorize for the Follow Through program $20 million for
FY 1991; $30 million for FY 1992; $40 million for FY 1993;
and $50 million for FY 1994. (The Administration did not
request any funds for Follow Through for FY 1991.)
-- authorize for the State Dependent Care Development Grants
Act "such sums" for each of FYs 1991 through 1994. (The
Administration requested $13.2 million for FY 1991.)
-- authorize the Child Development Associate Scholarship
Assistance program through FY 1994 at $3 million for FY 1991
and "such sums" for each of the outyears. (The
Administration requested $1.4 million for FY 1991.)
-- amend the Head Start program in the following objectionable
ways:
0 reduce from 13 to 12 percent the amount of funds
available for discretionary grants, which fund activities
including Indian and migrant programs and services for
handicapped children;
3
earmark funds (based on appropriations levels) for
hiring, compensation, and training of staff, insurance,
facility improvements, and transportation; and
require HHS to determine whether Head Start services are
provided effectively nationwide in family day care
settings.
Administration Position to Date
The draft position is consistent with reports by HHS and
Education to the House Education and Labor Committee opposing
H.R. 4151. On April 30, 1990, Secretary Sullivan wrote Chairman
Hawkins opposing the excessive authorization levels in H.R. 4151
and objecting to certain of the program amendments contained in
the bill. Secretary Cavazos also sent a letter to the Chairman
objecting to extension of the Follow Through program.
During the markup of H.R. 4151 on May 1, 1990, by the Education
and Labor Committee, the bill's provisions reauthorizing the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) were dropped.
Those provisions were referred to the Energy and Commerce
Committee. H.R. 4151 would have authorized LIHEAP at
$2.15 billion for FY 1991, compared to the Administration's
request of $1.05 billion.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
5/10/90
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SAVIS
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. 4238 - Vaccine and Immunization Amendments of 1990
(Waxman (D) CA and seven others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 4238.
********
(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 7, 1990.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee report on H.R. 4238 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. 4238
H.R. 4238 would reauthorize through FY 1995 the Centers for
Disease Control's (CDC) Immunization Grant Program. The bill
authorizes $185 million in FY 1991 and "such sums as necessary"
for each of FYs 1992-95. Approximately half of our Nation's
children receive their immunizations through State, local, and
public sector immunization programs partially supported with
these grant funds. The President's FY 1991 Budget requests
$130.9 million for FY 1991.
H.R. 4238 would also:
-- Authorize $5 million for FY 1991 and "such sums as
necessary" for each of FYs 1992-95 to acquire and maintain a
six-month supply of vaccines. The FY 1991 Budget did not
request funds for the vaccine stockpile.
2
-- Reauthorize through FY 1995 the Public Health Service's
(PHS) National Vaccine Program. The bill authorizes
$34 million for FY 1991 and "such sums as necessary" for
each of FYs 1992-95. The President's FY 1991 Budget
contains $6.9 million for this activity. PHS' National
Vaccine Program Office coordinates vaccine-related
activities of the various PHS agencies.
The Senate companion legislation (S. 2629) would authorize
$200 million for FY 1991 and "such sums as necessary" for each of
FYs 1992-95 for CDC's Immunization Grant Program. S. 2629, like
H.R. 4238, would authorize the acquisition of vaccines and PHS'
National Vaccine Program (at the same levels as the House bill).
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
6/14/90
OFFICE STATES what STATE UNITED.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 21, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4279 Intergovernmental Cash Management Improvement Act
(Conyers (D) Michigan and Horton (R) New York)
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 4279. The bill
provides procedures and incentives for better cash management at
the Federal and State levels. Implementation of H.R. 4279 would
assure the States that Federal funds would arrive on time and
that States would prudently manage their drawdowns of Federal
funds.
The Administration will work with the Senate or in conference to
address the following concerns:
-- Payment of interest to States should only be made when the
Federal Government is obligated to pay by a certain date,
but has not provided the funds by that date. Payment of
interest to States should not be made when States have made
disbursements in anticipation of an appropriation.
-- Administrative costs incurred by States in complying with
provisions of H.R. 4279 are indirect costs of a Federal
program, and should be reimbursed as overhead, not as
direct costs. The direct funding method would not
encourage efficient administrative practices in calculating
interest due.
-- Calculation of interest rates should be determined at
equivalent rates to auctions of 13-week Treasury bills,
specifically during the preceding calendar quarter.
Stating that interest rates are to be calculated at the
equivalent rates of 13-week Treasury bills auctioned
"during the period for which interest is calculated" is
ambiguous. This could create substantial burdens on the
Treasury Department.
*****
(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 (Carro), Justice (Burton),
2
Education (Heindel), Health and Human Services (Burnett), Housing
and Urban Development (Kamark), and Labor (Morin), FM (Stidman),
LVE (Matlack), HTF (Peroff), Cabinet Affairs (Williamson), and
OPD (Lindsey).
Description of H.R. 4279
H.R. 4279 would generally require the Federal Government and the
States to accord each other equal treatment in the transfer and
management of Federal assistance funds. Its major provisions are
summarized below.
H.R. 4279 requires States to pay interest to the United States on
funds from the time funds are deposited by the United States to
the State's account until the time that funds are paid out by the
State. The amounts received by the United States as payment of
interest from the States would be deposited in the Treasury and
credited as miscellaneous receipts. Calculation of the interest
rate would be equivalent to the average of the bond rates of 13-
week Treasury bills auctioned "during the period for which
interest is calculated." [The Treasury Department prefers that
this period be specified as during the preceding calendar quarter
for greater clarity and administrative efficiency.]
When a State disburses its own funds for Federal program
purposes, H.R. 4279 requires that the United States pay interest
to the State from the time the State's funds are paid out until
the Federal funds are deposited to the State's bank account.
This interest is to be paid out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated and is to be calculated as described
above. Administrative costs incurred by States in complying with
provisions of H.R. 4279 are to be indirect costs of a Federal
program for which the costs are incurred.
H.R. 4279 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to collect
from any Executive agency, which does not disburse Federal funds
in a timely manner, the cost to the Treasury caused by the
untimely disbursement. These charges are to be paid out of
appropriations available for agency operations.
Other provision of H.R. 4279 would:
-- Provide for Federal/State agreements setting out the terms
of financing arrangements for Federal assistance programs
administered by State governments.
3
-- Call for Federal agencies to execute grant awards to the
States in a timely manner to ensure that States have
sufficient funds to administer Federal programs.
Administration Position To Date
In a May 3, 1990, hearing before the House Government Operations
Subcommittee on Legislation, the Department of the Treasury
(Murphy) and OMB (Diefenderfer) testified in support of H.R. 4279
and S. 926, a related bill which passed the Senate on August 4,
1989.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/20/90 -- 6:00 P.M.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED OFFICE
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. 4238 - Vaccine and Immunization Amendments of 1990
(Waxman (D) CA and seven others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 4238.
********
(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 7, 1990.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee report on H.R. 4238 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. 4238
H.R. 4238 would reauthorize through FY 1995 the Centers for
Disease Control's (CDC) Immunization Grant Program. The bill
authorizes $185 million in FY 1991 and "such sums as necessary"
for each of FYs 1992-95. Approximately half of our Nation's
children receive their immunizations through State, local, and
public sector immunization programs partially supported with
these grant funds. The President's FY 1991 Budget requests
$130.9 million for FY 1991.
H.R. 4238 would also:
-- Authorize $5 million for FY 1991 and "such sums as
necessary" for each of FYs 1992-95 to acquire and maintain a
six-month supply of vaccines. The FY 1991 Budget did not
request funds for the vaccine stockpile.
2
-- Reauthorize through FY 1995 the Public Health Service's
(PHS) National Vaccine Program. The bill authorizes
$34 million for FY 1991 and "such sums as necessary" for
each of FYs 1992-95. The President's FY 1991 Budget
contains $6.9 million for this activity. PHS' National
Vaccine Program Office coordinates vaccine-related
activities of the various PHS agencies.
The Senate companion legislation (S. 2629) would authorize
$200 million for FY 1991 and "such sums as necessary" for each of
FYs 1992-95 for CDC's Immunization Grant Program. S. 2629, like
H.R. 4238, would authorize the acquisition of vaccines and PHS'
National Vaccine Program (at the same levels as the House bill).
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
6/14/90
IN 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. 4257 District of Columbia Judicial
Reorganization Act of 1990
(Dymally (D) California and
Fauntroy (D) District of Columbia)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 4257 because it
superimposes a new and unnecessary Supreme Court on the District
of Columbia court system, resulting in a wasteful proliferation
of appeals and an unwarranted burden on litigants.
*****
(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 (Dulmage) and HTF (Dickey). The
District of Columbia (Pinkston) was provided an opportunity to
comment on this draft but did not respond.
Provisions of H.R. 4257
The principal provisions of H.R. 4257, as ordered reported by the
House District Committee, would:
-- Establish a Supreme Court for the District of
Columbia composed of a chief justice and 6
associate justices appointed by the
President.
-- Provide that, beginning on the Act's
effective date, the current chief judge and 8
associate judges of the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals shall serve out their
current terms as justices of the new Supreme
Court. (The total number of Supreme Court
judges would subsequently be reduced from 9
to 7 by attrition. Justices who did not
desire to be elevated to the Supreme Court
could remain on the Court of Appeals. Any
resulting vacancies in the Court of Appeals
would be filled through the existing
statutory mechanism.)
2
-- Make numerous changes of a conforming nature
to the D.C. Code.
-- Authorize appropriations of $.5 million in FY
1991, $5 million in FY 1992, $4 million in FY
1993, $3 million in FY 1994, $2 million in FY
1995, and $1 million in FY 1996 to implement
these changes.
Administration Position To Date
In an October 1, 1990, letter to the House District Committee,
the Department of Justice stated that it opposed H.R. 4257.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
10/12/90 -- 12:00 P.M.
LOTER DEL THE
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. 4273 - Tuberculosis Prevention Amendments of 1990
(Waxman (D) CA)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 4273.
********
(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
Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee on April 26, 1990.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee report on H.R. 4273 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.
H.R. 4273 would reauthorize through FY 1995 the Centers for
Disease Control's Tuberculosis Prevention and Control Program.
The bill extends the current $36 million authorization through
FY 1991, and authorizes "such sums as necessary" for each of
FYs 1992-95. The President's FY 1991 Budget requested
$8.3 million for this program.
In April 1989, HHS Secretary Sullivan endorsed the goal of
eliminating tuberculosis from the United States by the year 2010.
Identical legislation (S. 2630) has been introduced in the Senate
by Sen. Kennedy (D-MA).
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
6/14/90
AGENT BEL RESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 17, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4283 - Panama Canal Commission Authorization Act
(Dyson (D) Maryland and 2 others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 4283.
*****
(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 Panama Canal Commission (Saunders) and TCJ (Adkins).
Provisions of H.R. 4283
H.R. 4283, as ordered reported by the House Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee, would:
-- Authorize the Commission to make expenditures within the
limits of the funds and borrowing authority available to it
during FY 1991;
-- set specific limits on the amounts which may be expended
during FY 1991 for official reception and representation
expenses and expenses of the Commission's Supervisory Board,
Secretary, and Administrator; and
-- authorize pay increases for Commission officials and
employees when increases are granted by statute to Federal
employees in equivalent positions (such pay raises could not
exceed the raises granted Federal employees).
Administration Position To Date
In an April 25, 1990, letter to the House Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee, the Chairman of the Panama Canal Commission
stated that the Commission "strongly supports" enactment of
H.R. 4283.
Legislative Reference Division
5/17/90 -- 3:15 p.m.
STATE UNITED E
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
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. 4314 - To Implement the Inter-American Convention on
International Commercial Arbitration
(Brooks (D) Texas and four others)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 4314.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Rooney) in consultation
with IAD (DuSault/Sasser), NSC (Deal), State (Rappaport), Justice
(Wolf), and Commerce (Dalmut).
H.R. 4314 is virtually identical to an Administration bill which
would implement the Inter-American Convention on International
Commercial Arbitration. The Senate ratified the Convention on
October 9, 1986. However, the instrument of ratification cannot
be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Organization of
American States until implementing legislation such as H.R. 4314
is enacted.
This Convention would facilitate the use of arbitration to
resolve international commercial disputes among a number of
countries in this hemisphere. The Convention is modeled after
the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which the United States became a
party in 1970. H.R. 4314 is modeled after, and incorporates in
large part, the legislation which implements the New York
Convention with several additional provisions to clarify the
application of this Convention. In part, the bill:
-- requires that the Convention be enforced in United
States courts;
-- authorizes a court having jurisdiction to direct where
an arbitration be held and to appoint arbitrators, in
accordance with the provisions of a commercial
agreement;
2
--
authorizes a court to require the rules of the
Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission to
govern when the parties fail to agree on rules of
procedure;
--
requires arbitral decisions or awards made in a foreign
country to be recognized in the United States only if
such country has ratified or acceded to the Convention;
and
--
clarifies the relationship between this Convention and
the New York Convention when both could apply in a
particular case.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
5/24/90
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
SERVICE OFFICE
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. 4323 - Great Lakes Water Quality Improvement
Act of 1990
(Nowak (D) New York and 26 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 4323 because the
bill would impose unreasonable deadlines on the Environmental
Protection Agency and certain States, and is inconsistent with
the President's FY 1991 Budget.
The requirements for the development and adoption of specific
numeric water quality criteria for the Great Lakes within strict
timeframes is unrealistic. The lack of necessary flexibility
could actually impede the ongoing efforts to develop and adopt
water quality standards as required by the Clean Water Act.
Further, the bill's FY 1991 authorization level of $30 million
exceeds the President's recommendation by $18 million and creates
an unwarranted new State grant program. Finally, the bill
contains numerous provisions which would duplicate existing Clean
Water Act authorities.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position has been developed by LRD (Fitter) in
consultation with NRD (Cameron, Fairweather, Long, and Gibbons),
OIRA (Hunt), EPA (Dickerson), Commerce (Brown), DOI (Lyder), Army
(Rees), State (Davis), and Justice (DeSanctis).
H.R. 4323 would amend provisions of the Clean Water Act designed
to prevent and mitigate water pollution in the Great Lakes.
Specifically, the bill would modify U.S. implementation of the
1978 Great Lakes Agreement (the Agreement) between the United
States and Canada. It would do so by accelerating the
Agreement's implementation, and clarifing U.S. monitoring
responsibilities and accountability. The Agreement committed the
two nations to coordinate actions to restore and maintain water
quality in the Great Lakes, especially with respect to the
control of toxics and better wastewater treatment. The major
provisions of the bill would:
-- authorize EPA within 30 months of enactment, to issue
final guidance on numerical limits on pollutants in the
2
Great Lakes. The guidance is to be consistent with the
Agreement, and necessary to protect human health and
the biological integrity of the Lakes. EPA would be
required to develop complementary biological criteria
to assess Great Lakes water quality within the same
timeframe;
-- require the Great Lakes States (Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania),
within three years after EPA publishes its guidance, to
adopt water quality standards which are consistent with
the EPA guidance and the Agreement. EPA would be
required to promulgate standards for any State unable
to comply within the specified deadline;
-- amend the existing requirements for the development of
remedial action plans by (1) establishing deadlines for
the development of such plans for areas designated
after enactment of this Act; (2) allowing States to
petition EPA for deadline extensions; and
(3) clarifying EPA's authority to review and approve
such plans;
-- clarify EPA's sole authority to review and approve
lakewide management plans for the United States;
-- require EPA to report to Congress on the implementation
of remedial action plans and lakewide management plans;
-- add Duluth/Superior Harbor located in Minnesota and
Wisconsin as a priority area for toxics removal
demonstration projects;
-- authorize a Federal grant program, with 50 percent
State cost-sharing, to implement the Agreement and to
carry out activities required by this Act; and
-- authorize appropriations for the Great Lakes program of
$11 million in each of FYs 1987 through 1991 and $30
million in each of FYs 1992 through 1997. The
President's FY 1991 budget included $12 million for
this program. The bill further specifies that $12.6
million (42 percent) of the annual FY 1992 - 1997
amounts are to be used for the Federal grant program
authorized by this Act.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
09/20/90 5:30 PM
EDUCATION OFFICE WIN PRESIDENT MASSACHUSETTS UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 13, 1990
(House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4328 Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Trade Act of 1990
(Hollings (D) South Carolina and 54 others)
The President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto
H.R. 4328 if it is presented to him.
H.R. 4328 would provide permanent, rigid protection from imports
to domestic producers of textiles, apparel, and footwear. The
quotas set by the bill would cause harm to consumers and the
economy, violate our international obligations, and virtually
destroy any chance of a successful conclusion of the Uruguay
Round of multilateral trade negotiations.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Rooney) in consultation
with IAD (DuSault/Bent/Kizer), State (Davis), USTR (Miller),
Commerce (Van Hanswyk), Treasury (Levy), Labor (Taylor),
Agriculture (Hovermale), Justice (Pestal), Office of Cabinet
Affairs (Williamson), and CEA (Baldwin).
H.R. 4328 passed the Senate on July 17, 1990, by a vote of 68 to
32. On July 25, 1990, the House Ways and Means Committee
reported H.R. 4328, as passed by the Senate, without
recommendation.
Administration Position to Date
On July 11, 1990, a Statement of Administration Policy was issued
to the Senate prior to its consideration of H.R. 4328. This SAP
is identical to the Senate SAP. Ambassador Hills has sent
letters to every member of the Senate (July 9, 1990) and House of
Representatives (July 18, 1990) stating the Administration's
objections and expressing a senior advisers veto threat.
2
Provisions of H.R. 4328, as passed by the Senate
In addition to establishing quotas for certain imports, as
described below, H.R. 4328 would permit the Secretary of Commerce
to establish quotas, within the overall quota limits, for
specific countries.
Other principal features of H.R. 4328 are:
-- a congressional finding and determination that
increased imports of textiles, textile products, and
nonrubber footwear are causing or threatening serious
injury to domestic industries;
-- an import quota for CY 1990 for each textile and
textile products category as well as for man-made
fibers, set at 101 percent of CY 1989 imports, with one
percent annual growth thereafter;
-- an import quota on each category of nonrubber footwear
set at CY 1989 import levels (with no growth allowed)
for each year beginning with CY 1990. An exception
from these limits is provided for products produced in
Canada and Israel. Imports of nonrubber footwear
valued at more than $2.50 within each category must
also be frozen at CY 1989 import levels;
-- exemptions from textile and textile products quotas for
(1) imports from insular possessions under certain
conditions; (2) sweaters assembled in Guam which are
limited to 168, 162 dozen for CY 1990 with a one percent
increase each year thereafter; and (3) imports produced
in Canada, Israel, or Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI)
countries;
-- preference for countries, proportional to their annual
increase in commercial purchases of U.S. agricultural
products, when the Secretary of Commerce allocates
textile and apparel quotas; and
-- a pilot program to be established by the Secretary of
the Treasury for CY 1991 to auction textile and textile
products import licenses to U.S. companies. (This
program is to raise money to offset the reduction in
tariffs paid to the United States that would result
from the import quotas.)
H.R. 4328 also would authorize the President to enter into
negotiations with foreign countries to grant new concessions or
reductions in U.S. tariffs for countries that are adversely
affected by the quotas of H.R. 4328. Compensation would be
limited to a ten percent reduction in existing textile, textile
3
products, and footwear duties, and any such reductions must be
phased in over five years. (This compensation authority would
provide for only a very small fraction of the damages incurred by
other countries from the trade restrictions in the bill.)
H.R. 4328 would prohibit any reduction in textile or footwear
duties except as provided therein.
In addition, H.R. 4328 would require a review by the Secretary of
Commerce "of the operations of this Act" ten years after its
enactment. The Secretary of Commerce is to submit a report to
Congress within six months after the review is commenced.
A sense of the Senate provision regarding the U.S. -Mexico free
trade agreement (FTA) was added to H.R. 4328 during Senate
consideration. This provision: (1) commends both President Bush
and President Salinas of Mexico for beginning the FTA process;
(2) encourages close cooperation with Congress in preparing and
negotiating the FTA; and (3) encourages each country to take
interim steps to improve current trade relationships.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
September 12, 1990 11:30 AM
OF
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
June 18, 1990
(House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4329 - American Technology Preeminence Act
(Roe (D) New Jersey and 45 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 4329, as reported by
the House Science and Technology Committee on May 10, 1990, and
as ordered reported by the House Judiciary Committee on
June 12, 1990, unless it is amended to:
-- Reduce the appropriations authorizations for the Advanced
Technology Program to levels in the 1991 Budget (i.e.,
from $100,000,000 to $10,000,000) and authorize "such
sums" for FY 1992.
-- Amend the "foreign participation" provisions to ensure
that foreign-owned or -controlled companies established in
the United States will not be discriminated against with
respect to participation in the Advanced Technology
Program. The provisions in H.R. 4329 appear inconsistent
with U.S. obligations under bilateral investment
agreements and other accords. If enacted, they would
seriously compromise our bargaining position in urging
other nations to adopt similar policies of free and open
trade and investment.
-- Delete the provision elevating the Director of the Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) from Executive
Level II to Level I. This provision would be inconsistent
with the current Executive Schedule for the Executive
branch. Also, the President recently elevated the
position of the Director of OSTP to an Assistant to the
President for Science and Technology, making further
action unnecessary.
H.R. 4329 contains miscellaneous objectionable provisions which
impose inappropriate new requirements on Executive Branch
agencies, restrict agency flexibility in managing programs, or
are duplicative of existing programs.
*****
2
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 (Clark), Justice (Filippini), State
(Rappaport), Energy (Hunsieker), Council of Economic Advisors
(Holtz-Eaken), the National Aeronautics and Atmospheric
Administration (Stehmer), the National Science Foundation
(Chester), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Wells),
the Small Business Administration (Broadbent), the U.S. Trade
Representative (Richards), TCJ (Beebe and Schwartz), and ES
(Noonan and Schwartz).
Time did not permit responses from the following agencies:
Departments of Defense and the Treasury, the General Services
Administration and the Office of Personnel Management.
This position statement addresses the latest printed version of
H.R. 4329, as reported by the House Science Committee on
May 10, 1990, and as reportedly amended on June 12, 1990, by the
House Judiciary Committee. However, we understand that the bill
is still under review by various committees and further
amendments are possible.
OSTP (Wells) does not object to the third bullet above concerning
the Director of OSTP. (Generally, with the exception of certain
Executive Office of the President officials, only Cabinet
officers occupy Level I positions.)
H.R. 4329 would authorize appropriations for and modify Commerce
Department and other technology-related programs as described
below.
Appropriations Authorizations
H.R. 4329 would authorize the core programs of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology at the 1990 appropriated
level ($145,301,000), which is $1 million over the President's
1991 Budget request. This additional $1,000,000 would be used to
fund three earmarkings for programs not requested by the
Administration. For FY 1992, the bill authorizes appropriations
which are $17 million over the level in the 1991 Budget.
Commerce's Technology Administration (TA) would be authorized at
$6 million in 1991 and $7.5 million in 1991, or $1.4 million and
$2.9 million, respectively, over the 1991 President's Budget
level of $4.6 million.
3
The bill would authorize appropriations for the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP) at $50 million in 1990, $100 million in
1991, and $250 million in 1992. The President's 1991 Budget
requests $10 million (equal to the 1990 appropriated level for
this program.) The appropriations authorization levels are
displayed below.
1991 Budget
H.R. 4329
H.R.4329
Request
1991
1992
(in thousands of dollars)
NIST Core Programs*
183,408
184,408
210,000
ATP Program
10,000
100,000
250,000
Other TA
4,583
6,500
9,000
TOTAL
197,991
290,908
469,000
*This includes funding for Manufacturing Technology Centers.
Substantive Provisions
In addition to the objectionable features already described,
H.R. 4329 would:
-- Expand the authority of the ATP to cover additional
technical and service areas. (The ATP, established by the
1988 Trade Act, is designed to foster development of
precompetitive generic technologies which have broad
application across industries.)
-- Require the Secretary of Commerce to give preference, when
selecting among Advanced Technology proposals of
relatively equal merit, to those requiring the lowest
percentage of Federal funds.
-- Require development of a five-year National High
Performance Computing Technology Plan, as contemplated by
the Administration, to develop supercomputer hardware and
software, and establish a network to coordinate related
federally supported research.
-- Establish a number of Presidential commissions and boards,
including: (1) a Presidential commission on reducing
capital costs for emerging technology chaired by the
Director of OSTP; (2) a Presidential commission on
procurement and technology, chaired by the Director of
OSTP, to study how Federal procurement practices could
4
improve U.S. competitiveness; and (3) an OSTP-sponsored
board to foster and monitor the development of U.S. -based
high resolution information systems industries, like
advanced television.
-- Make permanent the current arrangement whereby Federal
agencies involved in R&D contribute a small percentage of
their budgets to support the activities of the Federal
Laboratory Consortium for technology transfer.
-- Authorize matching Federal funds for a two-year pilot
project to assist other countries in the development
industrial standards.
-- Require the Secretary of Commerce to give preference, when
selecting among Advanced Technology proposals of
relatively equal merit, to those requiring the lowest
percentage of Federal funds.
-- Direct the National Science Foundation to enter into a
contract to develop a methodology to establish
international product standards, a clear responsibility of
NIST.
-- Require numerous reports (e.g., require (1) the Director
of OSTP to report annually to Congress on all major
Science and Technology proposals involving more than one
country and costing over $1 billion; (2) the Secretary of
Commerce to report to Congress on the possibility of
establishing a Federal on-line information product
catalog; (3) the biennial national critical technologies
report to include a list of emerging technologies and
potential markets for related products; (4) the Secretary
of Commerce to report on the feasibility of establishing a
privately-funded Quality Institute; (5) the High
Resolution Information Systems Board to report to the
President annually; and (6) the Director of OSTP to report
to Congress on States that historically receive a small
share of the Federal R&D dollars).
-- Require minimum expenditure levels for steel technology
and NIST's Centers for Building Technology and Fire
Research; and bar any merger of the Building Technology
and Fire Research centers.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
6/14/90 -- 11:30 a.m.
DEPARTMENT B OFFECE UNITED STATE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 13, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4330 National Service Act of 1990
(Hawkins (D) CA and 26 others)
The President strongly supports the concept of community service.
He has challenged all individuals and institutions to make
service central to their lives and work.
The Administration, however, strongly opposes H.R. 4330 because
it is incompatible with the President's concept of voluntary
service. If H.R. 4330 were presented to the President in its
current form, his senior advisers would recommend a veto.
H.R. 4330 would:
-- Provide unnecessary financial incentives for service. It
includes unjustified deferment and cancellation of certain
student loan payments for full-time professional staff in
drug counseling, prevention and treatment programs and full-
time volunteers. These costly provisions extend the concept
of "volunteer" far beyond reasonable bounds.
-- Attempt to direct community service efforts from the Federal
level rather than from the community.
-- Emphasize short-term volunteer participation and financial
rewards, concepts inconsistent with a sustained commitment
to volunteerism. The reward for voluntary service should
never be seen as financial.
-- Authorize $212 million for FY 1991 for unwarranted new
Federal programs and expansion of existing programs
(excluding the costs of the loan deferment and cancellation
provisions and the costs of administering the new programs).
-- Establish an American Conservation Corps that would
substantially recreate outdated programs previously offered
through the Youth Conservation Corps and Youth Adult
Conservation Corps. Such programs are costly and based on
the discredited approach to youth employment that relies on
temporary public sector employment rather than preparing
youth for long-term, private sector employment.
********
2
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Jeffrey Weinberg) in
consultation with LVE (Barry White, Larry Matlack, and Terri
Williams) and the White House Office of Policy Development
(Marianne McGettigan). The Departments of Education (per Randy
Hanson, Office of the Legislative Counsel), Justice (per Mark
Pestal, Legislative Affairs) and the Interior (per Don Harris,
Office of the Legislative Counsel) and ACTION (per Stephanie
Van dervander, Office of the Director) concur.
H.R. 4330 was reported by the House Education and Labor Committee
on September 5, 1990 (H. Rept. 101-677, Part I). The bill was
jointly referred to the Committees on Banking, Foreign Affairs,
and Interior. Those Committees did not consider H.R. 4330.
Administration Position to Date
On June 26, 1990, Secretary Cavazos and the Director of ACTION
sent a joint letter to the House Education and Labor Committee
strongly opposing H.R. 4330. The letter did not include a veto
threat.
A February 6, 1990, SAP on the Senate volunteer service bill,
S. 1430, contained a senior advisers veto threat. Prior to
Senate passage, S. 1430 was amended to reduce its authorization
level from $300 million for FY 1991 to $50 million for FY 1990
and $75 million for FY 1991.
H.R. 4330 includes provisions similar to those in H.R. 717
establishing an American Conservation Corps (ACC). When H.R. 717
was pending before the House Interior Committee, the Departments
of Interior and Agriculture sent letters to the Committee
strongly opposing the ACC.
Description of Major Provisions of H.R. 4330
Title I would:
-- Authorize the Department of Education (ED) to make formula
grants to States through their State educational
agencies for statewide, school-based, service-learning
programs. ($35 million would be authorized for
FY 1991.)
-- Authorize ED to make planning grants for model programs
for educational institutions and community-based
organizations to administer service-learning programs for
school dropouts and out-of-school youth. ($10 million would
be authorized for FY 1991.)
3
-- Amend the Higher Education Act to authorize $15 million to
give priority to providing tutoring services to illiterate
parents of disadvantaged elementary school students.
--
Authorize ED to make grants to colleges and universities for
students to provide community services. ($10 million
would be authorized for FY 1991.)
Increase by $19 million the FY 1991 authorization for the
work study student aid program under the Higher Education
Act.
Provide for deferment and cancellation of certain student
loans for certain volunteer service or employment in
drug counseling and prevention.
-- Authorize the President to make annual Presidential Awards
for School-Based Service to individuals in each State
in six specified categories.
-- Authorize the President to create an interagency task force
chaired by the President or Vice President to create
and monitor measures for coordinating this Act and
designing a Federal service strategy.
Authorize ACTION to make grants for "Youthbuild" projects
for construction and rehabilitation of housing and
other facilities by youth ages 16 to 24. The youths
must be economically disadvantaged and have dropped out
of high school. ($10 million would be authorized for
FY 1991.)
Title II would:
-- Establish an American Conservation Corps to be administered
by the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior.
The Departments would make grants to States for a
variety of conservation and rehabilitation projects and
would directly carry out such projects on Federal
lands. ($38 million would be authorized for FY 1991.)
Establish a Youth Service Corps in ACTION for project grants
to help meet human, social, or environmental needs,
including service in State or local government agencies
and medical facilities. ($28 million would be authorized
for FY 1991.)
-- Require generally that enrollees in the two Corps be 16 to
25 years old, with a special effort made to enroll
economically disadvantaged individuals.
4
-- Provide subsistence allowances and other benefits, including
education and training, to each enrollee. The
subsistence allowance and benefits would equal between
100 percent and 160 percent of the amount the individual
would have earned if paid at the minimum wage during the
period of service.
-- Require in-service and post-service training and educational
services to be provided to enrollees in the two Corps.
($13 million would be authorized in FY 1991.)
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
9/13/90
RESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
April 18, 1990
(House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4380 - Superconducting Super Collider Project
Authorization Act of 1990
(Roe (D) New Jersey)
The Administration supports the authorization of the
Superconducting Super Collider Project and is committed to its
construction. Specifically, the Administration supports
provisions that would establish a cap of $5 billion on Federal
costs and require a minimum of 20% foreign cost sharing. The
Administration would support H.R. 4380 if it were amended to
include several technical changes needed to make the bill
consistent with Administration policy on the SSC. In addition,
the Administration would support changes that would:
-- Require the successful completion of an above-ground
magnet assembly test, involving 10 prototype magnets
produced by industry in their own facilities, before
allowing funds to be spent on tunnel construction.
Premature tunnel construction could result in
unnecessary costs and project delays.
-- make it clear that while the United States is desirous
of receiving foreign assistance for the construction of
the SSC, and is concerned that American industry
receive the technological advantages that may accrue
during construction, the bill should not include
language (i.e. Section 9) that is contrary to current
U.S. policy and law that seeks to achieve
non-discriminatory trade and investment;
-- delete the provision providing the State of Texas with
a refund of its contribution if the project is
terminated. This provision would establish a dangerous
precedent for other Federal projects.
The Administration supports H.R. 4380 with the recommended
modifications outlined above.
2
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Fitter) in consultation
with ES (Milton, Palmieri), OSTP (Erb), State (Rappaport), USTR
(Vaughn), Treasury (Levy), Commerce (Sockett), NSF (Chester),
and Justice (Pestal).
Energy Disagreement with SAP
Energy (Henson Moore) disagrees with the first two bullets of
the SAP. Energy does not want the bill to require an
above-ground test or the use of 25 to 50 industrially produced
magnets. Energy would agree to a requirement for 10 magnets
that have been "assembled by industry." OMB staff and OSTP
strongly disagree, because Energy's change would result in a
much lower level of certainty that the magnets could be
reproduced.
Energy also recommends the deletion of the bullet concerning
foreign trade. Energy advises that the foreign trade
limitations are more symbolic than actual, and opposing them
would send the wrong message to U.S. industry. Commerce, USTR,
and Justice strongly disagree.
Energy will be contacting Bob Grady to discuss its concerns.
Major Provisions of H.R. 4380
The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) will be the world's
largest accelerator for elementary particle physics. The
project, which will consist of 54 miles of underground tunnels
located outside of Dallas, Texas, is intended to provide
scientific information on the forces that exist between
subatomic particles. The cost of the project is currently
estimated at $7.8 billion. Approximately $748 million has been
authorized through FY 1991.
-- Federal Share of Project and Cost-Sharing Requirements
H.R. 4380 would cap Federal expenditures for the project at $5
billion, and authorize appropriations for the Federal share.
The Secretary of Energy would be required to secure commitments
from international sources sufficient to fund between 20 and
33.3 percent of the project. The State of Texas would be
required to contribute $1 billion. The Texas contribution,
which the State has already committed, would be refunded to the
State if the project is terminated prior to October 1, 1995.
-- Availability of Funds for Project
The bill would also establish an SSC Fund in the Treasury into
which Federal and non-federal project funds would be deposited.
A schedule for making expenditures out of the SSC Fund, subject
3
to appropriations, is also provided. Specifically, up to $220
million would be available immediately for research and
development activities. An additional $1.2 billion would be
available after the Secretary of Energy provides specified
information to congressional committees describing the status of
the project. These funds could be spent on both magnet
development and on the construction of the first 8 miles of the
tunnel. The balance of the funds, approximately $6 billion,
would be available only after the Secretary has certified to the
committees that the project is viable and that the required
non-federal financial commitments have been secured.
-- "Buy American" Requirements
The bill would limit the award of SSC contracts to domestic
firms and to foreign firms that are either based in countries
contributing to the project or that agree to perform a majority
of their contractual activities in the United States. Further,
no more than 50 percent of project components or major systems
may be manufactured outside the United States.
-- Department of Energy Role
Finally, the bill would: (1) establish an SSC office within the
Department of Energy to oversee the project (such an office has
already been established administratively) ; (2) authorize the
Secretary of Energy to enter into contracts and agreements
necessary for project construction; and (3) require the
Secretary to submit an annual SSC status report to Congress.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
4/16/90
OF
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
March 29, 1990
(House Floor)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4404 - DIRE EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
(Whitten (D) Mississippi)
In order to promote democracy in our hemisphere, the
President sent to Congress a request for $300 million for
economic assistance to Nicaragua on March 13th. This was the
third essential element of a supplemental package that the
President asked Congress to approve by April 5th. The two other
elements are $500 million for economic assistance to Panama and
$70 million for refugee assistance. The President requested that
the additional spending from the supplementals be fully offset by
savings from the Department of Defense budget. In addition, the
President requested several supplementals in the FY 1991 Budget,
all of which were fully offset.
The Appropriations Committee bill fully funds the request for
assistance to Nicaragua, but provides only $420 million of the
$500 million requested for Panama. The Committee reallocates the
$80 million reduction from Panama for assistance to Africa ($30
million), for assistance to the Caribbean ($15 million), for
disaster relief related to Hurricane Hugo damage in the Eastern
Caribbean ($5 million), and for additional funding for refugees
($30 million). The Committee fully offsets this funding by
savings from the Department of Defense.
While the foreign aid provisions in the Committee bill are
not in full agreement with the President's proposals, the
Administration finds these provisions acceptable at this stage.
The Defense budget reductions that the Committee includes to
offset the costs of the aid to Panama and Nicaragua and refugee
assistance are also acceptable.
The Committee's bill would provide increases for several
mandatory programs, including $510 million for Food Stamps and
$340 million for veteran's programs. These appropriations are
necessary and, because they are mandatory, do not require offsets
from savings in other areas.
The Committee bill contains several unrequested provisions
that increase domestic discretionary spending. Although the
Committee's proposed offsets for the increased funding for
international programs are acceptable, the Administration is very
concerned that some of the additional domestic discretionary
spending is unneccessary, and most of the associated outlays are
not offset.
2
The Administration is particularly concerned about provisions
to fund firefighting activity. Per what is understood to be an
agreement between the Budget Committees and cBo, all firefighting
activities in the Departments of Agriculture and Interior --
whether planned in advance or not -- were classified as mandatory
during the FY 1990 appropriation process. For the FY 1991
appropriation process, the Budget Committees and CBO are to
classify all firefighting costs as discretionary -- both planned
costs, such as those for planned suppression, presuppression, and
management activities, and unplanned costs that result from
unanticipated emergency fire suppression activities. The issue
is how to classify provisions that provide $433 million to pay to
fight fires that may occur later in the year and to "reimburse"
certain accounts (some of which have unobligated balances).
Because of the Budget Committee's/CBO agreement to classify all
firefighting costs as mandatory in FY 1990, the Administration
can understand Congress' decision not to offset these funds
despite the fact that the provisions provide advanced funding for
fires that may never occur. The Administration would argue that
the advanced nature of the funding, in anticipation of an
emergency situation, clearly indicates that these provisions are,
in fact, discretionary.
The Administration believes the firefighting provisions
(above and beyond $77 million of mandated reimbursement) should
either be dropped or offset. However, given the Budget
Committees decision to classify these provisions as mandatory, if
the provisions are not dropped, the Administration would urge the
House to make clear that only $77 million is for reimbursement,
and to limit the availability of the remaining $356 million to FY
1990 only. Such a change would ensure that any funds not spent
on emergency fire suppression activities in FY 1990 would not be
available to fund discretionary programs in FY 1991.
The bill contains a general provision that permits funding
that had been apportioned for use in the fourth quarter of the
fiscal year to be used in the third quarter where necessary. The
Administration believes that the provision would appropriately be
implemented through the regular apportionment process as
specified in Section 1513 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code. However,
explicit reference should be made to this section to assure that
there is no ambiguity about the intent that the existing process
for the orderly control of spending will continue to apply.
The Administration appreciates the expeditious action by the
House Appropriations Committee. While reserving the right to
seek to improve the bill in the Senate and in conference, the
Administration urges the House to complete action on the
Appropriations Committee's bill promptly so that the Congress can
present the President with an acceptable bill by April 5th.
OFFICE 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. 4450 Coastal Zone Management Act
Reauthorization Amendments
(Hertel (D) Michigan and 2 others)
The Administration supports reauthorization of the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) and amendments to encourage States to
improve management of the coastal zone. The Administration has
submitted legislation (H.R. 4438) to reauthorize and amend the
CZMA. H.R. 4438 would encourage States to meet specific
high-priority national objectives to address more efficiently
coastal and ocean environmental problems.
However, if H.R. 4450 is presented to the President in the form
of the subtitute to be considered by the House, the Secretaries
of the Interior, Defense, Agriculture, and Energy, and the
Attorney General, would recommend a veto because it would be
likely to be interpreted to:
-- subject Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sales to
review for consistency with State coastal zone management
programs; and
-- broadly expand the application of the CZMA's
"consistency" provisions to encompass a wide range of
Federal activities undertaken beyond the traditionally
defined area of the coastal zone and impose new
restrictive standards on Federal agencies in conducting
those authorized activities.
The Administration would also oppose enactment of H.R. 4450
unless it is amended consistent with H.R. 4438 to authorize
appropriations at levels requested in the 1991 Budget, and to
delete provisions that would:
-- Shift the focus of the CZMA from balanced management
to coastal protection (amendments to sections
302(5)). The language proposed by the Administration
reflects the proper balance in that it gives priority
to environmental protection while also allowing for
economic development.
-- Imply in its findings a new larger, but undefined,
role for States "outside the coastal zone" (proposed
new CZMA section 302 (9) ) This should be amended to
conform with section 303 (e) (7) of H.R. 4438. The
2
Administration's proposal would allow the Secretary
of Commerce to respond to changing circumstances and
emerging issues that affect the coastal zone.
-- Reestablish the Coastal Energy Impact Program.
The Administration prefers the approach contained in H.R. 4438,
which offers incentives and technical assistance to States to
encourage voluntary compliance with the CZMA program. The
Administration's proposal, with its competitive grant proposal,
would encourage States to assume a greater role than the formula
grant approach in H.R. 4450.
*****
(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 (Levitt), Interior (Somers), Justice
(Pestal), Energy (Pulliam), Agriculture (McAndrew), State
(Davis), Transportation (DeCell), and Defense (Potuk), the
Council on Environmental Quality (O'Malley), EPA (Dickerson), and
TCJ (Tornquist). NR defers to Grady.
The proposed rule for House consideration of H.R. 4450 makes in
order as original text the text of H.R. 5665, which was
introduced on September 19th.
Basis for Veto Threat and Commerce Objection
H.R. 4450 would amend the current "consistency" provision of the
CZMA as follows (additions to current law underlined, deletions
bracketed)
Each Federal agency activity, in or outside of the
coastal zone, affecting any natural resources, land
uses, or water uses in the coastal zone, shall be
carried out [conducting or supporting activities
directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or
support those activities] in a manner which is, to the
maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved
State management programs.
The CZMA prescribes a detailed process for Federal notification
to States and certification that its activities are consistent
with State plans.
H.R. 4450 contains language that would reverse a Supreme Court
holding that OCS activities are not subject to CZMA "consistency"
review. Several agencies have supplied examples of other Federal
activities that they believe would be effectively subject to
3
State veto if H.R. 4450 were enacted. These include: Navy port
visits and test-fires of missiles; Corps of Engineers dredging
activities; and USDA's timber sale program.
Commerce objects to the veto threat and disagrees with the other
agencies' predictions about the likely interpretation of the
bill's consistency provisions.
Background/Administration Proposal
The CZMA generally authorizes Federal assistance to coastal
States for managing the use and development of coastal areas. It
provides technical assistance and grants for redevelopment of
deteriorating urban waterfronts and ports and for acquiring and
operating estuarine sanctuaries.
-- Appropriations Authorizations
In March, the Administration submitted legislation to reauthorize
the CZMA, which expires on September 30, 1990, consistent with
the FY 1991 Budget. The Reagan Administration had consistently
proposed termination of CZMA grants to States. The
Administration proposal (H.R. 4438) would authorize
appropriations of $36.3 million for FY 1991, and totaling
$145.2 million for FYs 1992-1995. H.R. 4450 would authorize
appropriations of $63.8 million for FY 1991, and totaling
$365.6 million for FYs 1992-1995.
-- Amendments to the CZMA
The Administration bill would also amend the CZMA to improve
coastal zone management, in light of increasing population growth
along the coasts. Such growth has given rise to competing
concerns about environmental quality and pressure for
development. H.R. 4438 is designed to encourage States to
concentrate better on meeting high-priority national objectives.
It does this by earmarking special funds to States meeting the
objectives specified in the bill (e.g., enhancing wetlands
protection, preventing or mitigating non-point sources of
pollution, and managing the handling and disposal of beach and
marine debris).
H.R. 4438 would also: (1) expand Commerce's ability to undertake
cooperative or joint research and education activities, and
(2) provide for improved Federal oversight of States' performance
in administration of approved coastal management programs.
Other Provisions in H.R. 4450
The principal objectionable features of H.R. 4450 are described
above the line. Other differences from the Administration's
proposal, most of which are not objectionable, would:
4
--
Conform the definition of the coastal zone to
that contained in the Submerged Lands Act. This
would eliminate confusion created by the
President's extension of the territorial sea from
three to twelve miles.
-- Create a National Interests Improvement program
to encourage States to make continued
improvements in their management programs in
specified national interest areas. (This is
similar to the National Priority Program Elements
contained in the Administration's bill.)
-- Make various improvements to the management of
the program which are supported by the
Administration.
-- Authorize Commerce to make discretionary grants to
coastal States for developing coastal management
programs.
-- Require a State to submit to Commerce for approval a
Coastal Waters Protection Program, to develop and
implement coastal land use management measures to assist
in controlling nonpoint source pollution of coastal
waters.
Administration Position to Date
The Administration has not previously taken a position on
H.R. 4450.
On March 22nd, the Departments of Commerce and the Interior and
the Environmental Protection Agency testified before a House
Merchant Marine and Fisheries subcommittee urging amendment of
H.R. 4030 to conform with the Administration's bill. Commerce
and Interior reiterated this position in reports to the full
committee.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/20/90 -- 6:30 P.M.
OFFICE OF
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 30, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4487 - National Health Service Corps
(Richardson (D) NM and 27 others)
The Administration supports continuation of the National Health
Services Corps (NHSC). However, the Administration objects to
certain provisions in H.R. 4487 and will seek amendments in the
Senate to delete the following:
The requirement that the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (HHS) reimburse NHSC loan recipients for the
additional amount of tax liabilities they incur. Currently,
the Secretary may make such payments when justified by
special circumstances. Extending the policy to all loan
recipients is unwarranted.
The earmarking of a specified percentage of funds for new
NHSC scholarships and scholarships in selected health care
fields. This earmarking inappropriately restricts HHS'
flexibility to allocate resources in accordance with
changing needs and priorities.
The restriction on States that they cannot provide more
favorable loan repayment arrangements than the NHSC. This
provision inappropriately restricts the States' flexibility
to determine the allocation of their resources in addressing
health manpower shortages within their State.
The increase of the loan repayment ceiling to $35,000 per
year of obligated service from the current level of $20,000
per year. Raising the ceiling would increase the annual
cost per NHSC placement and reduce the total number of
placements that could be supported.
********
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
WINE STATE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 30, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4498 - Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1990
(Miller (D) California and 29 others)
The Administration supports the goal of H.R. 4498, which is to
protect the environmental resources downstream of the Glen Canyon
Dam. The bill would do this by imposing power operating criteria
on the Dam, including interim operating criteria for water flows
within 90 days of the bill's enactment.
As currently drafted the bill could not be implemented, because
the research necessary to determine interim operating criteria
will not be completed before July 1991. The Administration will
work in the Senate to seek amendments to allow sufficient time
for the completion of the research so that the criteria would be
based on sound scientific evidence.
The Secretary of the Interior currently has sufficient authority
to administratively establish power operating criteria including
interim operating criteria for water flows from the Dam. In
fact, the Administration supports the imposition of short-term
operating criteria within 90 days after the current research on
water flow rates is concluded. The Administration is also in the
process of preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will provide the basis for long-term operating criteria for the
Dam. The EIS is expected to be completed in 1993. The
Administration's operating procedures will be designed to protect
the environment and ecological resources of the Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area and the Grand Canyon National Park,
while allowing continued power generation from the Glen Canyon
Dam.
* *
(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), ES (Palmer, Hezir), Interior (West),
EPA (Wood), and CEQ (Curtis).
The Department of Energy (Tyson) recommends that the Administration
state opposition to H.R. 4498 because the bill is unnecessary and
premature.
2
Provisions of the Bill
The Glen Canyon Dam is located in Arizona, just upstream of the Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area and the Grand Canyon National Park.
The Dam generates 4.4 billion kilowatt hours of electricity
annually, valued at $80 million. The water releases which generate
this power can vary from 5,000 to 30,000 cubic feet per second,
depending on power demand. These releases affect downstream river
levels, which impact fisheries, white water rafting, beaches,
vegetation, and wildlife in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
and the Grand Canyon National Park.
H.R. 4498 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to operate the
Dam so as to minimize fluctuating water releases and to undertake
other reasonable mitigation measures to protect and improve
downstream environmental, recreational, and cultural resources.
Within 90 days of enactment, the Secretary would be required to
promulgate and implement interim operating procedures to minimize
adverse environmental impacts on the Glen Canyon National Recreation
Area and the Grand Canyon National Park. These procedures may be
deviated from, however, upon a finding that such a deviation is
necessary and in the public interest. Within three years after
enactment, the Secretary would be required to complete a final Glen
Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accord with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Secretary is to
implement long-term operating procedures for the Dam based on the
EIS. Studies completed pursuant to the EIS, and a report describing
the long-term operating procedures are to be provided to Congress.
Finally, H.R. 4498 would (1) require the Secretary to monitor the
implementation of the Act and (2) authorize such sums as necessary
to carry out the Act.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
July 30, 1990 12:30 PM
OFFICE
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. 4491 Coast Guard Omnibus Act of 1990
(Jones (D) North Carolina)
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 4491, but will
seek amendments in the Senate to delete:
-- section 3, which would authorize Federal expenditures
for a bridge which should be maintained and improved
with local funds;
-- section 7, which would cast doubt on the Coast Guard's
ability to impose adequate bonding requirements on its
contractors;
-- sections 9, 10, 11, and 14, which would inappropriately
provide for the transfer of Federal property without
following established procedures for disposal of
Federal real property;
-- section 12, which would delay improvements in the Coast
Guard's automated information system; and
-- section 15, which would authorize appropriations of $6
million for transfer to the University of Alaska to
establish a cold water survival school. This
inappropriate earmarking would detract from other,
higher priority, Coast Guard programs.
*****
(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 (DeCell) and Commerce (Brown),
GSA (Robinson), GM (Haun), and TCJ (Tornquist, Hurdle, and
Adkins).
Provisions of H.R. 4491
A copy of H.R. 4491, as ordered reported by the House Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Committee on September 13th, is not
available for review. This SAP is based on amendments and
summaries supplied by Transportation (DeCell).
2
H.R. 4491 as introduced was an Administration bill to require all
power driven vessels of twenty or more meters in length to be
equipped with bridge-to-bridge radio telephones. This provision
is now section 2 of a 15-section bill. The following describes
provisions opposed by the Administration (i.e., those mentioned
above the line):
-- Section 3 would designate the Sidney Lanier Bridge on
the Brunswick River in Georgia as an obstruction to
navigation, thereby qualifying it for certain Federal
assistance.
-- Section 7 would provide that the Coast Guard may impose
only "reasonable" bonding requirements on its
contractors.
-- Sections 9, 10, and 11 would provide for the transfer
of Coast Guard property in Hempstead, New York, South
Haven, Michigan, and Dare County, North Carolina,
without consideration, to specified local governments.
-- Section 12 would require the Coast Guard to develop,
and submit to Congress, a "strategic information
resources plan" before using any FY 1992 funds to
acquire additional information resources.
-- Section 14 would provide for the transfer of Coast
Guard property in Muskegon, Michigan, to the Department
of Commerce.
-- Section 15 would authorize $6 million for FY 1991 for a
Coast Guard Cold Water Survival Training Center to be
located at the University of Alaska in Kenai, Alaska.
Other, unobjectionable, provisions of H.R. 4491 would:
-- Modify the application of certain regulations for
specified vessels, barges, and dredges.
-- Provide for members of the Coast Guard Academy Board of
Visitors to be designated biennially, rather than
annually as is currently the case.
-- Modify certain requirements related to the Boating
Safety Program.
-- Declare an additional two miles of the Bayou Lafourche
in Louisiana to be a navigable waterway.
3
Administration Position To Date
In a September 12, 1990, report to the House Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee, the Department of Transportation proposed
several amendments to H.R. 4491.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/21/90 -- 10:00 A.M.
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. 4515 - High Speed Rail Transportation Policy
and Development Act
(Walgren (D) Pennsylvania and 11 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 4515 unless it is
amended to delete the provision that would inappropriately
authorize the Federal Government to guarantee up to $1 billion in
loans for development of high speed rail technologies.
The Federal Government is already funding basic research in high
speed rail technologies. This research will help States,
localities, and the private sector to determine whether proposed
projects are technologically and economically feasible.
Financing from conventional sources will be available for
projects meeting these criteria.
*****
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
Transportation (Herlihy), Commerce (Sockett), Energy (Tyson),
Defense (Belton), EPA (Hoff), State (Davis), NR (Starler), and
TCJ (Schwartz, Adkins, and Socolof).
Provisions of H.R. 4515
H.R. 4515 as ordered reported by the House Energy and Commerce
Committee would:
-- Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to guarantee
up to $1 billion in loans for the construction of high
speed rail systems and the purchase of related
equipment. These guarantees would be made under an
existing program which is currently limited to
guaranteeing loans to assist failing freight railroads.
H.R. 5229, the FY 1991 Transportation Appropriations
bill, as passed by Senate, would provide $100 million
in new loan guarantee authority for this program during
FY 1991. This provision was included among "Major
Provisions Opposed By the Administration" in the
Director's October 10, 1990, letter to the conferees on
this bill.
-- Require the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
Administrator to submit to the House Energy and
Commerce and Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committees, within 18 months of
enactment, a comprehensive report on the means of
bill would authorize the appropriation of $12 million, (The
commercializing high speed rail technology.
to remain available until expended, to finance this
report.)
-- Require the FRA Administrator to issue a National High
Speed Rail Transportation Policy within 18 months of
submitting the above report.
Administration Position To Date
In July 26, 1990, testimony before a House Energy and Commerce
subcommittee, the Department of Transportation and the Corps of
Engineers stated that they opposed the loan guarantee provisions
of H.R. 4515.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
10/12/90 -- 6:10 P.M.
STERE PRESIDENT MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 3, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4522 Firefighters' Safety Study Act
(Meyers (R) Kansas and 26 others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 4522.
*****
(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
Federal Emergency Management Agency (Hirsch), the Department of
Justice (Pestal), and HTF (Tanaka).
The purpose of H.R. 4522 is to improve the information available
to emergency response personnel when dealing with medical, fire,
or hazardous material emergencies or natural disasters. The
intent is to ensure that such information clearly communicates
the probable hazards that these individuals must contend with in
emergency situations involving hazardous materials.
The bill would require the Administrator of FEMA's U.S. Fire
Administration to convene a working group. It would consist of
representatives from other Federal agencies, such as EPA and DOT,
State and local regulatory agencies, and chemical companies. The
panel is to review and report to the Fire Administrator and
congressional committees on the adequacy of existing information
for response personnel in emergency situations.
On November 14, 1989, FEMA testified before a House Science
subcommittee in support of H.R. 2813, a similar bill. H.R. 4522
differs by: (1) requiring the working group to report to
congressional committees in addition to the Fire Administration,
and (2) placing private industry representatives on the working
group. The report would be due to Congress one year after the
bill's date of enactment, and the working group would meet at
least annually to consider revisions to the report.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
5/3/90 -- 2:15 p.m.
TREE 1 RECIDENT STATE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 25, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4525 Office of Government Ethics Authorization
(Frank (D) MA and two others)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 4525 as reported by
the House Judiciary Committee.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Schreiber) in
consultation with the GO Division (McCormick). The Office of
Government Ethics (Jane Ley) concurs with this position.
Description of H.R. 4525
H.R. 4525 would increase the Office of Government Ethics (OGE)
authorization for appropriations from the current $3.5 million to
$5 million for each of FYs 1990-94. This increase recognizes the
added responsibilities imposed on OGE by the Ethics Reform Act of
1989.
H.R. 4525 is an Administration-sponsored bill, which was cleared
by OMB on April 6, 1990. OGE testified in support of the bill on
April 19, 1990, before the Subcommittee on Administrative Law and
Intergovernmental Affairs of the House Judiciary Committee.
The House Judiciary and Post Office and Civil Service (PO/CS)
Committees have concurrent jurisdiction over H.R. 4525. The
House Judiciary Committee favorably reported H.R. 4525 on May 22,
1990, and plans to file its report on May 24th. The House PO/CS
Committee has not yet taken action on the bill.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
5/25/90
OFFICE OF RESIDENTERY URITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 21, 1990
o
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4559 Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area
(Bilbray (D) Nevada)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of
H.R. 4559, but will work in the Senate to amend section 8 which
reserves water rights for the proposed Red Rock Canyon National
Conservation Area in Nevada. Section 8 should stipulate that any
reservation of water rights needed for the conservation area
should be done under State law.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Peterson) in
consultation with NRD (VanHouten, Cogswell, and Gibbons),
Interior (Hill), and Justice (DeSanctis).
The Committee report on H.R. 4559 is not available. Interior
staff (Hill) advises, however, that H.R. 4559 would:
-- Designate approximately 83,100 acres, which are
principally public lands managed by the Bureau of
Land Management, as the Red Rock Canyon National
Conservation Area in Nevada. The conservation
area is to conserve, protect and enhance the
area's important geologic, archeological,
ecological, cultural, scenic, scientific and
recreation resources.
-- Direct the Secretary of the Interior, through the
Bureau of Land Management, to manage the area in
accordance with the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 and other laws including
those relating to management of wild free roaming
horses and burros on public lands. The bill
provides for hunting and prohibits collecting
wood for sale or other commercial purposes.
Nothing in the Act would preclude measures to
prevent fire or infestations of insects and
diseases.
-- Require that management plans for the area be
completed and submitted to the Congress within
three fiscal years following the fiscal year of
enactment.
-- Withdraw, subject to valid and existing rights,
all Federal lands from the operation of the
public land laws, the mining laws, and the
mineral and geothermal leasing laws.
-- Expressly reserve to the United States the amount
of water reasonably required to carry out the
purposes for which the area is established. The
priority date of this right would be the date of
enactment of this bill. Valid or existing water
rights, or applications, would not be disturbed.
-- Require the Secretary to review and recommend the
suitability or nonsuitability of preserving
46,500 acres of the area as wilderness. Pending
submission of a recommendation and until
otherwise directed by the Congress, these lands
would be managed so as to maintain their
potential for inclusion in the National
Wilderness Preservation System.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
September 21, 1990 - 11:40 a.m.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THIS
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. 4609 - Coast Guard Authorization Act Amendments
(Tauzin (D) Louisiana and 3 others)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of
H.R. 4609.
*****
(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 (Bronner) and TCJ (Adkins and
Kelly).
Provisions of H.R. 4609
H.R. 4609 would amend the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1989
(P.L. 101-225) to:
-- increase the FY 1991 Coast Guard Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) authorization from $2,381,500,000 to $2,391,500,000
(compared with the Administration's request of
$2,361,351,000) i and
-- add a new authorization of $15,000,000 for the Coast
Guard's Environmental Compliance and Restoration (E,C&R)
activities. (This category does not cover the Coast
Guard's efforts to enforce environmental laws and
regulations. Rather, it covers the cost of the Coast
Guard's efforts to bring its own facilities into
compliance with environmental requirements.)
The Department of Transportation plans to seek amendments in the
Senate to:
-- increase the proposed FY 1991 EC&R authorization from
$15,000,000 to $22,000,000. The latter figure includes
the $7,000,000 the Administration originally proposed for
EC&R activities plus $15,000,000 which the Administration
proposes to shift from O&M to EC&R activities; and
2
-- decrease the proposed FY 1991 O&M authorization from
$2,391,500,000 to $2,346,500,000 to reflect the shift of
$15,000,000 to EC&R activities and to eliminate
$30,000,000 authorized in excess of the President's
request.
Administration Position To Date
The Administration has not previously taken a position on
H.R. 4609.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
6/14/90 - 5:00 p.m.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OF DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 31, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4611 National Cooperative Production Amendments
(Brooks (D) Texas and 10 others)
The Administration supports extending the coverage of the
National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 (NCRA) to joint
production ventures. The Administration supports House passage
of H.R. 4611 and will seek changes in the Senate to make this
legislation consistent with an Administration proposal recently
transmitted to Congress.
H.R. 4611 contains a provision which would afford less favorable
treatment under the antitrust laws to firms with significant
foreign ownership than to domestic companies. This
discrimination appears inconsistent with principles embodied in
bilateral investment agreements and other accords. It would also
undermine efforts to obtain nondiscriminatory treatment of U.S.
firms in foreign-based consortia. In addition, the provision is
contrary to U.S. objectives in the Uruguay Round negotiations
concerning trade-related investment measures. Accordingly, the
Administration strongly urges the deletion of this provision from
H.R. 4611.
The Administration also urges deletion of the provision in
H.R. 4611 requiring all joint venture facilities to be located in
the United States. Like the foreign ownership restriction, this
provision would impair the efficiency-enhancing objectives of the
legislation. It is also contrary to U.S. investment policy
because it would limit and distort investment options --
including those available to U.S. companies.
The Administration will also propose a technical amendment in the
Senate to ensure that foreign competition is properly considered
in the review of the legality of joint ventures.
*****
(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/Roberts), Commerce (Clark),
State (Rappaport), and the Treasury (Levy), the National Science
Foundation (Chester), USTR (Seriver), EPC (Buchholz), OFPP
2
(Brown), TCJ (Sloan), and NS (Henry). Earlier versions of this
SAP were reviewed and signed-off on by CEA (Robinson), OSTP
(Phillips), White House OPD (Lindsey), and IA (Smith). The
Department of Defense did not respond to our request for
comments.
A copy of the House Judiciary Committee report on H.R. 4611 is
not yet available for review. Judiciary Committee staff
(Coffey), however, advises that the bill would amend the National
Cooperative Research Act (NCRA) to extend its provisions to
production techniques involving two or more firms.
Background
The NCRA currently provides that courts must use a "rule of
reason" analysis (instead of a "per se" test) in antitrust
actions involving joint research and development ventures. This
means that courts must consider any procompetitive benefits of
cooperative research activities when determining if the antitrust
laws have been violated.
Major Provisions of H.R. 4611
H.R. 4611 would extend the "rule of reason" analysis requirement
to antitrust actions brought against joint production ventures.
In addition, H.R. 4611 would:
-- Limit antitrust liability to actual damages (instead of
treble damages) for those joint production ventures filing a
disclosure notice as provided for by the NCRA.
-- Require courts to consider "the worldwide capacity of
suppliers to provide a product" when determining if a joint
production venture violates the antitrust laws. (The NCRA
specifies that courts must take into account all relevant
factors affecting competition when applying the "rule of
reason" standard. H.R. 4611 would, in effect, define the
worldwide capacity of suppliers as one such factor for
consideration.)
-- Exclude from the scope of the NCRA joint production ventures
for which foreign entities control more than 30 percent of
the voting securities. H.R. 4611 would also define foreign
entity (e.g., a corporation in which more than 50 percent of
the voting securities are controlled by non-U.S. citizens).
-- Require any facility operated by a joint production venture
seeking coverage under the NCRA to be located within the
United States or its territories.
3
Administration Position To Date
Pursuant to an Economic Policy Council recommendation endorsed by
the President, Justice and Commerce jointly transmitted a draft
bill on May 7th to amend the NCRA. That bill, like H.R. 4611,
would require courts to: (1) analyze antitrust challenges to
joint production ventures under the "rule of reason;" and
(2) limit antitrust liability to actual damages for production
ventures filing a disclosure notice.
The Administration has not previously taken a position on
H.R. 4611.
Legislative Reference Division
5/31/90 -- 3:30 p.m.
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
NECOTIVE OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 11, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4612 Bankruptcy Amendments Regarding Swap Agreements
and Forward Contracts
(Brooks (D) Texas and 8 others)
The Administration has no objection to House passage of
H.R. 4612.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Fotias), in consultation with
the Departments of the Treasury (Levy) and Justice (Dulmage), the
Council of Economic Advisers (Stein), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (Berman), White House Counsel (Bybee), and HTF
(Long/Rhinesmith) The CFTC did not respond to our request for
views.
Background
H.R. 4612 concerns the bankruptcy treatment of two complex, high
volume agreements traded in the capital markets.
A "swap agreement" is a complex transaction whereby two parties
share the risk of interest rate and currency fluctuations.
(H.R. 4612 contains an 11-line definition of the term.) A
"forward contract," which provides for the purchase or sale of a
commodity at a future date, is also a means of hedging price
fluctuations. According to House Judiciary Committee staff
(Slover), H.R. 4612 would generally conform the bankruptcy
treatment of swap agreements and forward contracts with the
treatment accorded to other complex financial instruments (i.e.,
securities contracts and repurchase agreements).
Description of H.R. 4612
H.R. 4612 would amend the bankruptcy code to allow swap
agreements and forward contracts to be settled even after a
petition for bankruptcy has been filed. In effect, the bill
would remove these transactions from the bankruptcy estate of the
debtor.
2
H.R. 4612 also provides that a bankruptcy trustee generally could
not avoid paying the debtor's obligations to the other party to a
swap agreement if the agreement occurs immediately prior to the
filing of a bankruptcy petition. Under current law, trustees may
be able to avoid such payments, even though the other party
cannot avoid payment to the trustee when a contract is "netted
out." ("Netting out" refers to the calculation of the net sum
owing from one party to the other at the end of an agreement's
term or upon default. Swap agreements often contain packages of
individual contracts, each of which represents a net gain or loss
to one party.)
Administration Position to Date
The Administration has not previously taken a position on
H.R 4612.
In an uncleared letter, dated July 26, 1989, to Senator
Metzenbaum on S. 396 (a related bill), Treasury took no position
on the bill, but presented the pros and cons of the proposal.
Treasury cited the view of proponents of the legislation that it
would further development of the swap market, thereby helping
corporations reduce their exposure to the risk of market
fluctuations. Treasury noted that the market value of swap
agreements can change significantly in a short time, which might
argue for protecting the non-bankrupt party to a swap agreement.
Treasury also cited the view of opponents to this legislation
that swap market participants should be treated the same as other
creditors in a bankruptcy situation. Opponents argue that
denying special treatment for swaps would have the beneficial
effect of forcing swap market participants to consider more
carefully the credit risk before entering into swap transactions.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
5/11/90 -- 3:00 p.m.
STUDENTS OFFICE RESIDENT >> SERVICE UNITED 1
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 7, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4632 - Penalties for False Maritime Distress Signals
(Studds (D) Massachusetts)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 4632.
*****
(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) and Justice
(Dulmage), the Federal Communications Commission (Solheim), and
TCJ (Hurdle).
Provisions of H.R. 4632
H.R. 4632, as ordered reported by the House Merchant Marine and
Fisheries Committee, would make knowing and willful false
distress messages to the Coast Guard a felony. Such violations
would be punishable by a civil penalty of up to $5,000.
Violators would be liable for all costs the Coast Guard incurs as
a result of the false message.
In addition, H.R. 4632 would authorize the appropriation of
$2,000,000 in each of FYs 1991 and 1992 to the Coast Guard for
the acquisition of direction finding and transmitter
identification equipment.
Administration Position To Date
In a July 23, 1990, hearing before a House Merchant Marine and
Fisheries subcommittee, the Department of Transportation
testified in favor of H.R. 4632.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/7/90 - 2:30 P.M.
THE PTM UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
May 21, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4636 - Supplemental Assistance for Emerging
Democracies Act of 1990
(Fascell (D) Florida)
The Administration supports enactment of legislation to promote
democracy in Nicaragua and Panama. Although H.R. 4636 authorizes
programs and activities requested by the Administration, it also
includes objectionable provisions that raise serious policy
concerns and impinge significantly on the ability of the
President to conduct foreign policy.
Without modifications to take into account the Administration's
concerns regarding the bill's restrictions on military aid to El
Salvador, the President's senior advisers would recommend that
H.R. 4636 be vetoed. The Moakley amendment is very similar to
the restrictions on El Salvador currently in H.R. 4636, and would
also cause the President's senior advisers to recommend veto.
Such restrictions would greatly hinder the Administration's
ability to work towards peace in El Salvador. The Administration
supports, as a substitute, the Broomfield-Byron amendment, which
provides sufficient flexibility for providing assistance to El
Salvador. Under the Broomfield-Byron amendment, the President
shall withhold a portion of military assistance funds for El
Salvador if he determines that the Government has not made
demonstrated progress in the area of human rights, Jesuit murder
investigation, administration of justice, and civilian control
over the police.
H.R. 4636 also contains provisions that limit the President's
flexibility to respond to changing conditions and to provide for
an effective foreign assistance program. Accordingly, the
Administration will seek to delete or modify those provisions
that:
-- Impose numerous conditions, restrictions, and earmarks
on regional assistance programs -- i.e., particularly
the separate policy and program requirements for the
Caribbean. These requirements would limit the
flexibility needed by the Administration to implement
development assistance programs, and are contrary to
2
the recommendations in the House Foreign Affairs
Committee Task Force Report on Foreign Assistance.
-- Require the President to negotiate certain agreements
with the government of Panama or otherwise prescribe
the conduct of foreign negotiations.
-- Require prior notification or certification to Congress
before certain foreign assistance funds could be
obligated or expended for specified purposes.
-- Earmark funds for the establishment of an Agency for
International Development (AID) mission in Namibia,
thereby encroaching on the President's authority to
conduct diplomatic relations with foreign governments.
-- Earmark the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
Fund, especially the earmarks for domestic
refugee/migrant assistance, thereby precluding the
flexibility required to administer such emergency
assistance effectively.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Rooney) in consultation
with IAD (DuSault), GC (Rettman), NSC (National Security Advisor
Scowcroft), State (Secretary Baker), AID (Lester), USIA
(Johnston), Justice (DeSanctis), Treasury (Levy), Commerce (Van
Hanswyk), ONDCP (Ketter), HHS (White), DOD (Brick), Trade and
Development Program (Desoto), and White House Counsel
(Rademaker). Changes to this position to address the
Broomfield-Byron and Moakley amendments were approved by IAD
(DuSault), State (Madigan), NSC (Coulson), AID (Lester), DOD
(Brick), Justice (Pestal), and White House Counsel (Rademaker).
Major Provisions of H.R. 4636
H.R. 4636 authorizes FY 1990 appropriations for assistance to
Panama and Nicaragua, similar to the Administration's proposal.
The bill also increases the FY 1990 appropriations authorization
for refugees (but by $20 million more than requested) and
repeals, as requested, section 614 of P.L. 101-162, which would
release $188 million of State and USIA 1990 appropriations.
However, it also includes restrictions on obligating authorized
funds to Panama, Nicaragua, and El Salvador; an appropriation
authorization for sub-saharan Africa, as well as policy language
for the Development Fund for Africa; and development assistance
policy language for the Caribbean. These and other provisions
are discussed below.
3
El Salvador Restrictions
-- Requires that half of FY 1990 unexpended military
assistance funds be withheld until the President makes
a determination that: (1) the Farabundo Marti National
Liberation Front (FMLN) is not negotiating in good
faith or is not supporting the UN role in the
negotiations; (2) the FMLN is still acquiring or
receiving significant lethal equipment; or (3) that the
military actions of the FMLN jeopardize the survival of
the government of El Salvador. If such a determination
is not made by the end of the fiscal year, withheld
funds would be transferred to development assistance
for El Salvador for use without fiscal year limitation.
-- Stipulates a maximum level of $85 million for FY 1991
military assistance and requires one-half of these
funds to be withheld until the above Presidential
determination is made. Only 25 percent of the $85
million could be obligated prior to March 1, 1991.
This would allow for congressional review of a required
Presidential report on the situation in El Salvador.
-- Requires that all FYs 1990 and 1991 military assistance
be terminated if the President determines that:
(1) the duly-elected head of government is deposed;
(2) the government is not negotiating in good faith for
a cease-fire and permanent settlement; or (3) the
government is failing to conduct a "thorough and
professional investigation into, and prosecution of
those responsible" for the November 1989 slayings of
six Jesuit priests in El Salvador. If terminated,
military assistance could be resumed if the President
subsequently determines that the above conditions no
longer exists.
Panama and Nicaragua FY 1990 Authorizations and Limitations
-- Authorizes appropriations of $470 million for Panama
($30 million less than requested) to support Panama's
efforts to restructure its economy, restore relations
with international financial institutions, address
specific development problems, and strengthen
democratic institutions. The kinds of activities that
may be undertaken and the funding levels for such
activities are specified. The activities and funding
levels are generally consistent with the
Administration's proposal.
-- Authorizes appropriations of $340 million for Nicaragua
($40 million more than requested to cover increased
funding for displaced persons) to support democracy,
long-term development, and economic growth in
Nicaragua. The kinds of activities that may be
4
undertaken and the funding levels for such activities
are specified and generally consistent with the
Administration's proposal.
-- Waives the Brooke-Alexander amendment which prohibits
foreign aid for any country which is delinquent one
year or more in debt repayment to the U.S. Government.
This would permit the provision of assistance to Panama
and Nicaragua authorized by this bill.
-- Authorizes reallocation of the Panama and Nicaragua
funds between authorized activities if Congress is
notified by the President 15 days prior to the
reallocation.
Limits expenditure of appropriations for Panama, as
authorized by this bill, to 50 percent pending the
Secretary of the Treasury reporting that: (1) the
United States and Panama have reached agreement for
exchanging records on international currency
transactions; or (2) Panama is negotiating in good
faith to do so.
-- Requires the President, as a condition of providing
bilateral and multilateral assistance to Panama in
FY 1991, to certify that Panama is cooperating fully
with the United States, or taking adequate steps on its
own, to control narcotics production, trafficking, and
money laundering. H.R. 4636 further stipulates that
the President's certification for FY 1991 may be made
only if the United States and Panama have signed an
agreement that provides for mutual access to financial
transaction records (relating to drug investigations).
-- Imposes a 15-day congressional report and wait
requirement before each obligation of funds for Panama
or Nicaragua.
Regional Assistance
-- Authorizes a Development Fund for Africa, which has
been included in Appropriation Acts for fiscal years
1988, 1989, and 1990. Although the Administration has
supported special treatment for Africa, the bill
reduces flexibility in designing assistance programs
for African countries. The bill mandates 10 percent
funding targets for each of three priority sectors:
health; family planning; and the environment. It also
requires detailed programming and accountability for
local currency proceeds, thereby reducing the
effectiveness of U.S. assistance in supporting economic
policy reforms. Five percent of the program funds may
be transferred to supplement AID operating expenses.
5
-- Specifies U.S. policies, priorities, and prohibitions
for providing economic assistance to the Caribbean.
Generally, these provisions constitute intrusive and overly
prescriptive policy guidance for implementing economic
assistance programs, particularly for the Caribbean.
Other Authorizations
-- Authorizes supplemental FY 1990 appropriations of $20
million each for assistance to: (1) Haiti, of which $5
million is for election assistance; and (2) the
Caribbean, of which $5 million is for only the Eastern
Caribbean.
-- Authorizes supplemental FY 1990 appropriations of
$30 million for sub-saharan Africa, including $10
million for Namibia and $20 million for other
sub-saharan Africa developmental assistance activities.
This "repays" the earlier shift of Africa
appropriations to Panama under the "Urgent Assistance
for Democracy in Panama Act of 1990" (P.L. 101-243).
-- Amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 1990 and 1991, to authorize a total of $458.4
million for Migration and Refugee Assistance for
FY 1990. This authorizes $20 million more than the
President's $70 million supplemental request.
H.R. 4636 also increases the FY 1990 authorization for
the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund
from $50 million to $125 million, with a specified
distribution of the increase, including a one-third
minimum for State and local migrant impact assistance.
-- Authorizes the President to issue guarantees for
Israeli housing project loans made for newly arrived
immigrants. The total principal amount of guarantees
outstanding at any one time would be limited to $400
million and an initial servicing fee of one-quarter of
one percent of the principal amount of the loan may be
charged. This loan guarantee authority was not
requested by the Administration, but AID and State have
no objection to providing these guarantees (so long as
adequate assurances can be agreed upon by the United
States and Israel). The agencies are concerned about
the fee limitation and its $150,000 annual cap.
-- Authorizes $200,000 for travel to Washington, D.C., by
foreign students in the United States to study the
workings of democratic government -- the Claude and
Mildred Pepper Scholarship program.
-- Authorizes continuation of USIA-designated au pair
programs, until another agency is authorized to
6
implement such programs. This pilot program would
otherwise expire on September 30, 1990.
-- Authorizes appropriations of $3.5 million for each of
FYs 1991, 1992, and 1993 for a U.S. voluntary
contribution to the Pan American Health Organization to
provide continued support for the Gorgas Memorial
Institute of Tropical and Preventive Medicine. This
Institute was established to conduct research and
related activities in tropical medicine. However, due
to the lack of necessary personnel, the Institute has
been ineffective.
El Salvador Amendments
H.Res. 395, which provides for the consideration of H.R. 4636,
includes two amendments relating to El Salvador. One, the
Moakley amendment, contains the virtually identical restrictions
on FYs 1990 and 1991 assistance to El Salvador that are in
H.R. 4636. Specifically, it adds the additional condition of
violent actions directed at civilians to both of the Presidential
determinations.
By contrast the Broomfield-Byron amendment applies only to
FY 1991. Additionally, it authorizes the President to provide
assistance based on determinations made in reports due November
1990 and May 1991. Based on these Presidential reports, up to 25
percent must be withheld if the El Salvador Government is not:
(1) progressing on human rights; (2) conducting a serious
investigation of the Jesuit case; (3) separating police from
military control; (4) taking steps toward judicial reform; and
(5) reducing the size of the Salvadorian military, if a
negotiated settlement is reached. The amendment provides a
waiver of any withholding based on FMLN actions. The scope of
the waiver also covers acts of terrorism and economic sabotage
and consideration of FMLN investigation into human rights abuses.
With respect to terminating aid, only three of the conditions in
H.R. 4636 are specified -- i.e., that the Government (1) is not
negotiating in good faith, (2) is not supporting a UN role, or
(3) is deposed by military coup. The amendment also authorizes
$100 million of Economic Support Funds (ESF) to be used for
monitoring, verification, demobilization, repatriation,
retraining, and reconstruction, if the President determines and
reports that the Government and FMLN have reached a settlement of
the conflict.
In addition, both amendments require that all FY 1991 military
assistance funds be provided only with the approval of the
President of El Salvador.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
5/21/90
OFFICE EDUCATION PRESIDENT UNITED 1
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
May 3, 1990
(House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4636 - Supplemental Assistance for Emerging
Democracies Act of 1990
(Fascell (D) Florida)
The Administration supports enactment of legislation to promote
democracy in Nicaragua and Panama. H.R. 4636 authorizes programs
and activities requested by the Administration, including the
repeal of section 614 of P.L. 101-162 which would make available
the total amount appropriated for State and USIA for FY 1990.
However, H.R. 4636 includes objectionable provisions that raise
serious policy concerns and impinge significantly on the ability
of the President to conduct foreign policy. Without
modifications to take into account the Administration's concerns
regarding the bill's restrictions on military aid to El Salvador,
the President's senior advisers would recommend that H.R. 4636 be
vetoed. These restrictions would greatly hinder the
Administration's ability to work towards peace in El Salvador.
H.R. 4636 also contains provisions that limit the President's
flexibility to respond to changing conditions and to provide for
an effective foreign assistance program. Accordingly, the
Administration will seek to delete or modify those provisions
that:
-- Impose numerous conditions, restrictions, and earmarks
on regional assistance programs -- i.e., particularly
the separate policy and program requirements for the
Caribbean. These requirements would limit the
flexibility needed by the Administration to implement
development assistance programs, and are contrary to
the recommendations in the House Foreign Affairs
Committee Task Force Report on Foreign Assistance.
-- Require the President to negotiate certain agreements
with the government of Panama or otherwise prescribe
the conduct of foreign negotiations.
-- Require prior notification or certification to Congress
before certain foreign assistance funds could be
obligated or expended for specified purposes.
2
-- Earmark funds for the establishment of an Agency for
International Development (AID) mission in Namibia,
thereby encroaching on the President's authority to
conduct diplomatic relations with foreign governments.
-- Earmark the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
Fund, especially the earmarks for domestic
refugee/migrant assistance, thereby precluding the
flexibility required to administer such emergency
assistance effectively.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Rooney) in consultation
with IAD (DuSault), GC (Rettman), NSC (National Security Advisor
Scowcroft), State (Secretary Baker), AID (Lester), USIA
(Johnston), Justice (DeSanctis), Treasury (Levy), Commerce (Van
Hanswyk), ONDCP (Ketter), HHS (White), DOD (Brick), Trade and
Development Program (Desoto), and White House Counsel
(Rademaker).
H.R. 4636 was ordered reported by the House Foreign Affairs
Committee (HFAC) on April 26, 1990. Although the reported
version of the bill is not available, State has provided OMB with
a copy of the bill to be reported.
Major Provisions of H.R. 4636
H.R. 4636 authorizes FY 1990 appropriations for assistance to
Panama and Nicaragua, similar to the Administration's proposal.
The bill also increases the FY 1990 appropriations authorization
for refugees (but by $20 million more than requested) and
repeals, as requested, section 614 of P.L. 101-162, which would
release $188 million of State and USIA 1990 appropriations.
However, it also includes restrictions on obligating authorized
funds to Panama, Nicaragua, and El Salvador; an appropriation
authorization for sub-saharan Africa, as well as policy language
for the Development Fund for Africa; and development assistance
policy language for the Caribbean. These and other provisions
are discussed below.
El Salvador Restrictions
-- Requires that half of FY 1990 unexpended military
assistance funds be withheld until the President makes
a determination that: (1) the Farabundo Marti National
Liberation Front (FMLF) is not negotiating in good
faith or is not supporting the UN role in the
negotiations; (2) the FMLF is still acquiring or
receiving significant lethal equipment; or (3) that the
3
military actions of the FMLF jeopardizes the survival
of the government of El Salvador. If such a
determination is not made by the end of the fiscal
year, withheld funds would be transferred to
development assistance for El Salvador for use without
fiscal year limitation.
-- Stipulates a maximum level of $85 million for FY 1991
military assistance and requires one-half of these
funds to be withheld until the above Presidential
determination is made. Only 25 percent of the $85
million could be obligated prior to March 1, 1991.
This would allow for congressional review of a required
Presidential report on the situation in El Salvador.
-- Requires that all FYs 1990 and 1991 military assistance
be terminated if the President determines that:
(1) the duly-elected head of government is deposed;
(2) the government is not negotiating in good faith for
a cease-fire and permanent settlement; or (3) the
government is failing to conduct a "thorough and
professional investigation into, and prosecution of
those responsible" for the November 1989 slayings of
six Jesuit priests in El Salvador. If terminated,
military assistance could be resumed if the President
subsequently determines that the above conditions no
longer exists.
Panama and Nicaragua FY 1990 Authorizations and Limitations
-- Authorizes appropriations of $470 million for Panama
($30 million less than requested) to support Panama's
efforts to restructure its economy, restore relations
with international financial institutions, address
specific development problems, and strengthen
democratic institutions. The kinds of activities that
may be undertaken and the funding levels for such
activities are specified. The activities and funding
levels are generally consistent with the
Administration's proposal.
-- Authorizes appropriations of $340 million for Nicaragua
($40 million more than requested to cover increased
funding for displaced persons) to support democracy,
long-term development, and economic growth in
Nicaragua. The kinds of activities that may be
undertaken and the funding levels for such activities
are specified and generally consistent with the
Administration's proposal.
4
-- Waives the Brooke-Alexander amendment which prohibits
foreign aid for any country which is delinquent one
year or more in debt repayment to the U.S. Government.
This would permit the provision of assistance to Panama
and Nicaragua authorized by this bill.
-- Authorizes reallocation of the Panama and Nicaragua
funds between authorized activities if Congress is
notified by the President 15 days prior to the
reallocation.
-- Limits expenditure of appropriations for Panama, as
authorized by this bill, to 50 percent pending the
Secretary of the Treasury reporting that: (1) the
United States and Panama have reached agreement for
exchanging records on international currency
transactions; or (2) Panama is negotiating in good
faith to do so.
-- Requires the President, as a condition of providing
bilateral and multilateral assistance to Panama in
FY 1991, to certify that Panama is cooperating fully
with the United States, or taking adequate steps on its
own, to control narcotics production, trafficking, and
money laundering. H.R. 4636 further stipulates that
the President's certification for FY 1991 may be made
only if the United States and Panama have signed an
agreement that provides for mutual access to financial
transaction records (relating to drug investigations).
-- Imposes a 15-day congressional report and wait
requirement before each obligation of funds for Panama
or Nicaragua.
Regional Assistance
-- Authorizes a Development Fund for Africa, which has
been included in Appropriation Acts for fiscal years
1988, 1989, and 1990. Although the Administration has
supported special treatment for Africa, the bill
reduces flexibility in designing assistance programs
for African countries. The bill mandates 10 percent
funding targets for each of three priority sectors:
health; family planning; and the environment. It also
requires detailed programming and accountability for
local currency proceeds, thereby reducing the
effectiveness of U.S. assistance in supporting economic
policy reforms. Five percent of the program funds may
be transferred to supplement AID operating expenses.
-- Specifies U.S. policies, priorities, and prohibitions
for providing economic assistance to the Caribbean.
5
Generally, these provisions constitute intrusive and overly
prescriptive policy guidance for implementing economic
assistance programs, particularly for the Caribbean.
Other Authorizations
-- Authorizes supplemental FY 1990 appropriations of $20
million each for assistance to: (1) Haiti, of which $5
million is for election assistance; and (2) the
Caribbean, of which $5 million is for only the Eastern
Caribbean.
-- Authorizes supplemental FY 1990 appropriations of
$30 million for sub-saharan Africa, including $10
million for Namibia and $20 million for other
sub-saharan Africa developmental assistance activities.
This "repays" the earlier shift of Africa
appropriations to Panama under the "Urgent Assistance
for Democracy in Panama Act of 1990" (P.L. 101-243).
-- Amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 1990 and 1991, to authorize a total of $458.4
million for Migration and Refugee Assistance for
FY 1990. This authorizes $20 million more than the
President's $70 million supplemental request.
H.R. 4636 also increases the FY 1990 authorization for
the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund
from $50 million to $125 million, with a specified
distribution of the increase, including a one-third
minimum for State and local migrant impact assistance.
-- Authorizes the President to issue guarantees for
Israeli housing project loans made for newly arrived
immigrants. The total principal amount of guarantees
outstanding at any one time would be limited to $400
million and an initial servicing fee of one-quarter of
one percent of the principal amount of the loan may be
charged. This loan guarantee authority was not
requested by the Administration, but AID and State have
no objection to providing these guarantees. The
agencies are concerned about the fee limitation and its
$150,000 annual cap.
-- Authorizes $200,000 for travel to Washington, D.C., by
foreign students in the United States to study the
workings of democratic government -- the Claude and
Mildred Pepper Scholarship program.
-- Authorizes continuation of USIA-designated au pair
programs, until another agency is authorized to
implement such programs. This pilot program would
otherwise expire on September 30, 1990.
6
-- Authorizes appropriations of $3.5 million for each of
FYs 1991, 1992, and 1993 for a U.S. voluntary
contribution to the Pan American Health Organization to
provide continued support for the Gorgas Memorial
Institute of Tropical and Preventive Medicine. This
Institute was established to conduct research and
related activities in tropical medicine. However, due
to the lack of necessary personnel, the Institute has
been ineffective.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
5/2/90
Bayden
warner told
said no way, Jose
Hatch
Kasten - troubles
w/ unions
- won't
support.
-mECain?
DEPARTMENT OFFICE PRESIDENT STATES UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
April 27, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4637 Employment of Federal Retirees for the 1990 Census
(Sawyer (D) OH)
The Administration supports enactment of H.R. 4637.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft of a position was developed by LRD (Schreiber) in
consultation with TCJ (Edwards) and GO (Seidl). The Department
of Commerce (Bird) and the Office of Personnel Management
(Woodruff) concur in this position.
H.R. 4637 is expected to be reported by the House Post Office and
Civil Service Committee. The report is not yet available.
H.R. 4637 would amend Public Law 101-66, approved August 16,
1989, to remove the six-month limit on the Census Bureau's
authority to employ Federal civilian and military annuitants and
to waive the offsets against pay otherwise required for
reemployed annuitants. Because permanent Census law already
limits temporary employment for any census to one year, the
effect of the bill is to allow use of annuitants, with waiver of
offsets, for one year.
Census advises that, nationwide, almost 5 percent of temporary
census jobs are filled by government retirees.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
4/27/90
EDUCATION OFFECE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 22, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4638 Orphan Drug Amendments of 1990
(Waxman (D) CA)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 4638. The current
Orphan Drug Act has been successful in stimulating the
development of drugs for rare diseases. Questions have been
raised about the appropriateness of a few specific drugs
receiving benefits under the Orphan Drug Act. However, the
Administration believes that the provisions of H.R. 4638 would
jeopardize the incentives provided by the Act for research and
development of orphan drugs.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft of a position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) in
consultation with HIMD (Clendenin/Blickstein), OIRA (Antonelli),
and the Office of the Vice President (Kristol/Hubbard/McIntosh) .
HHS (per Roger McClung, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Legislation) has no objection to the draft position.
The proposed position is consistent with an August 1990 SAP to
the House and an HHS letter to the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce on June 27, 1990, on H.R. 4638.
Background
The Orphan Drug Act of 1983 created incentives for drug companies
to treat diseases that occur so infrequently that additional
incentives are needed in order to stimulate the investment needed
to bring the drug on the market. Drugs that qualify as orphan
drugs are eligible for grants, tax credits, and seven years of
market exclusivity. Under current law, these benefits are
available to drugs for any disease or condition that affects
fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.
An unlimited number of companies may obtain an orphan drug
designation, which makes them eligible for the grant program to
fund research. An unlimited number of companies also may apply
for approval of an orphan drug, but only one company (the first
to receive approval for its drug) actually gets the seven years
of market exclusivity. The remaining companies must wait until
the end of the seven-year period before they can market their
drug.
2
Summary of H.R. 4638
H.R. 4638 authorizes $20 million for FY 1991, $25 million for
FY 1992, and $30 million for FY 1993 for the Orphan Drug Grant
program, to assist drug companies in developing drugs to treat
rare diseases. The bill also establishes an Office for Orphan
Drugs within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.
H.R. 4638 would also amend the provision of current law that
gives to one company -- the first to gets its drug approved --
the exclusive right to market its orphan drug for seven years.
Under the bill, two or more companies would be given the right to
market their drugs if they developed them simultaneously.
In order to obtain this right to market during the seven-year
period, a company must show that it:
Requested its drug be designated an orphan drug within six
months of the time the holder of the exclusive marketing
right received its designation;
Initiated its human clinical trials within 12 months after
the holder of the marketing right initiated its human
clinical trials; and
Submitted its application for approval (including the
results of the required clinical and animal studies) less
than one year after the holder of the exclusive marketing
right submitted its application for approval.
These simultaneous development provisions would apply only to
future orphan drugs. They would not apply to any drug approved
before August 15, 1990, or which was in clinical trials before
August 15, 1990, and for which a request for orphan drug
designation was submitted by the date of the bill's enactment.
The bill requires HHS to begin, within two years, a study of the
impact of the simultaneous development provisions on the
development of drugs for rare diseases.
Finally, the bill requires that a company demonstrate not only
that fewer than 200,000 people in the United States are affected
by the disease at the time of the request for the designation of
a drug as an orphan drug, but also that fewer than 200,000 people
will be affected three years after the request for the
designation. It also permits HHS to lift the prohibition on
marketing for seven years if it can demonstrate that the patient
population exceeds 200,000. (This is the only provision that
affects currently designated orphan drugs.)
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
10/18/90
PTM STATE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
June 4, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4653 - Export Facilitation Act of 1990
(Gejdenson (D) Connecticut and 28 others)
H.R. 4653 contains provisions that raise serious constitutional
or policy concerns and impinge significantly on the President's
flexibility to respond rapidly to evolving national security and
foreign policy needs. If the bill were presented to the
President in its current form, his senior advisers would
recommend that he veto it.
The Administration shares the goal of modernizing the export
control system in recognition of recent political and economic
developments in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. However,
H.R. 4653 is severely flawed because it:
-- constrains and impermissibly infringes upon the
President's authority to negotiate effectively
multilateral controls that would permit legitimate
civil exports while safeguarding strategic security
concerns;
-- is incompatible with policy decisions by the President
and undermines critical negotiations with our allies
beginning with the June High Level COCOM meeting;
-- requires disclosure of U.S. proposals to COCOM which is
inconsistent with the secrecy with which the President
may wish to conduct negotiations;
-- introduces administrative rigidities into the export
control system;
-- dictates internal Executive branch procedures and
decision processes, including setting a time limit on
Presidential resolution of inter-agency disputes. Such
provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution's
grant of authority to the President to manage the
internal operations of the Executive branch;
2
-- equates the U.S. Munitions List with the COCOM
International Munitions List, thereby reducing
Presidential discretion to determine what items should
be considered "munitions" and whether certain items or
technologies should be exported to unstable regions,
such as the Middle East;
-- makes the provisions of the EAA self-executing which
denies the responsible agencies the ability to
implement the EAA in a balanced, effective, and
integrated way. This limits the President's ability to
balance competing national security and foreign affairs
concerns; and
-- unnecessarily expands judicial review to all actions
relating to the administration of the EAA. The courts
can already consider actions relating to any illegal
administration of the EAA. However, the bill
inappropriately substitutes the courts for the
Executive in resolving export control issues which
require the evaluation and balancing of complex foreign
affairs concerns.
The Administration urges Congress to enact only a simple one-year
extension of the Export Administration Act.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Rooney) in consultation
with IAD (DuSault), NRD (Gibbons, Jacobi, and Beard), OIRA
(Mills), NSC (National Security Adviser Scowcroft), State
(Barry), DOD (Potuk/Popovich), Justice (Pestal), Agriculture
(Askins), Interior (Somers), USTR (Morrissy), Treasury (Levy),
and White House Council (Rademaker). Although Commerce (Dalmut),
has no objection to issuing this position, it questions whether
the problems in the bill are of a sufficient magnitude to warrant
a veto threat.
Administration Position to Date
On May 2, 1990, National Security Adviser Scowcroft wrote to the
House Foreign Affairs Committee expressing strong opposition to
the subcommittee version of H.R. 4653, which is virtually
identical to the reported bill. The Administration issued a
Statement of Administration Policy on May 23, 1990, for the House
Rules Committee stating that the Scowcroft letter set forth the
Administration's position on H.R. 4653. This SAP will be the
first veto threat issued on H.R. 4653. It reflects the concerns
expressed in the Scowcroft letter and in a May 3, 1990, Justice
letter.
3
Major Provisions of H.R. 4653
H.R. 4653 contains major revisions to the Export Administration
Act (EAA). It also authorizes a one-year extension of the EAA as
sought by the Administration. Specifically, the bill:
-- Creates a "license free zone," " with some exceptions,
for exports or reexports to COCOM countries or
countries that have export control systems that are
comparable to COCOM countries, effective September 30,
1991. (COCOM is a multilateral group of most NATO
countries plus Japan and Australia that maintains an
export control system. The intent is to deprive
Eastern European and certain other countries of
technology that could be detrimental to COCOM members'
national security.)
-- Requires the U.S. to submit to COCOM a proposal to
(1) decontrol exports worldwide that are below the "PRC
green line" level of technological sophistication
(i.e., items which if exported to the People's Republic
of China would require only notification to COCOM) ;
(2) adopt a "favorable consideration" policy for civil
end use exports to a Eastern European country, for
items or technology above the PRC green line, if
adequate safeguards are established; and (3) liberalize
controls on telecommunications goods and technology.
-- Limits the U.S. Munitions List (i.e., items controlled
by the Department of State under the Arms Export
Control Act) to items on COCOM's International
Munitions List. Other items may be controlled as
dual-use items on the Commodity Control List by
Commerce under the EAA. Both agencies would publish
revised lists within 3 months. H.R. 4653 sets a
procedure to resolve disputes between Commerce and
State regarding items on the Munitions List and the
Commodity Control List. The procedure provides for
ultimate resolution of any disputes by the President.
-- Adds a "sunset" provision that requires national
security controls on exports to noncontrolled countries
(i.e., Free World countries) to expire automatically on
September 30, 1992. Under this provision, all items
controlled for national security reasons would be
removed from the Commodity Control List unless
reinstated with justification by the Secretary of
Commerce.
-- Provides that all EAA provisions are self-executing
(i.e., the provisions would become effective on the
stipulated dates, whether or not implementing
regulations have been issued).
4
-- Amends the EAA to clarify when the Secretary of
Commerce must consult with the Secretary of Defense in
the export licensing process. Generally, such
consultation would be required only for licenses for
exports to certain countries, such as the Soviet Union
or a communist country for a non-civil end use.
-- Grants Commerce overseas enforcement authority. An
amendment adopted by full Committee also authorizes
Commerce to engage in "sting-type" export enforcement
operations.
-- Provides for judicial review of all actions relating to
the administration of the EAA (as opposed to just
enforcement actions, as under current law). The
discretionary determination of whether an item should
or should not be controlled would not be subject to
judicial review.
-- Increases the criminal penalties for willful violations
of the law, from 10 years to 20 years, and fines from
$1 million to $2 million.
-- Extends the EAA for one year and authorizes FY 1991
appropriations of $46,707,000, which is $2.3 million
more than requested, for the Bureau of Export
Administration within Commerce.
In addition, H.R. 4653 contains provisions relating to exports of
unprocessed timber. Specifically, Title II:
-- Makes permanent the current Federal ban on the export
of unprocessed timber from Federal lands west of the
100th meridian. The ban would not apply to timber that
the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture determine
to be in surplus. With certain exceptions, the
substitution of unprocessed Federal timber for
unprocessed timber exported from private lands is
prohibited.
-- Directs the Secretary of Commerce to issue an order to
prohibit the export from the United States of
unprocessed timber harvested from lands owned or
administered by a State.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
5/31/90
OFFICE OFFICE PRESIDENT UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
o
May 23, 1990
(House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4653 - - Export Facilitation Act of 1990
(Gejdenson (D) CT and 28 others)
On May 2, 1990, National Security Adviser Scowcroft sent a letter
to Chairman Fascell setting forth the Administration's position
on H.R. 4653. A copy of the letter is attached.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Peterson) in
consultation with IAD (DuSault), NSC (Coulson), State (Kakesako),
Commerce (Levitt), Defense (Brick), USTR (Bolten), and Justice
(DeSanctis).
Attachment
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
UNITED OFFICE
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. 4736 Defense Reports Reduction Act of 1990
(Aspin (D) Wisconsin and 17 others)
The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 4736, but will
work in the Senate to delete the provision repealing section
602 (c) of the Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986.
The repeal of section 602 (c) could inadvertently reinstate
certain defense reporting requirements.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was prepared by LRD (Rooney) in consultation
with NSD (Schuhart and Gessaman), OIRA (Sprehe), Defense (Brick),
NSC (Hayden), Justice (DeSanctis), Transportation (Donelan), and
Energy (Connolly).
Background
As part of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-433), two-thirds of the more
than 400 recurring defense reports required by Congress were
eliminated. In addition, Defense was required to conduct a
comprehensive review of all reporting requirements then in
effect. This review was to include an assessment of the
administrative burden imposed by each report and a recommendation
on retaining, modifying, or deleting each report.
Pursuant to this requirement, on February 6, 1990, Defense
transmitted to Congress a legislative proposal that repealed or
modified numerous reporting requirements.
Provisions of H.R. 4736
H.R. 4736 would eliminate 59 of the recurring reports that the
Department of Defense is required by law to submit to Congress.
The bill also modifies 11 reports to reduce their reporting
frequency and administrative burden.
2
Many of the reports that would be terminated or modified by
H.R. 4736 are the same as those recommended in the Defense
legislative proposal submitted in February.
However, H.R. 4736 repeals section 602 (c) of the Goldwater-
Nichols Act which terminated all previously required reporting
provisions except those listed in the Act. This repeal could
inadvertently reinstate other reporting provisions that were
enacted in Defense related authorization or appropriations acts.
H.R. 4736 also contains two unrelated provisions that provide:
-- a two and one-half year extension for fully
integrating fixed-wing aircraft into the
range instrumentation system at the National
Training Center in Fort Irwin, California
(Air Force requested such an extension) ; and
-- clarification of the procedures for
transferring obsolete naval vessels. A
60-day congressional notification period
would remain in effect, but the subsection
that allowed Congress to halt a transfer by
use of a concurrent resolution would be
deleted.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION
June 14, 1990 - 5:10 PM
B
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
September 10, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4739 - National Defense Authorization Act
For Fiscal Year 1991
(Aspin D-Wisconsin and Dickinson R-Alabama)
The Administration submitted a fiscal year 1991 budget designed
to ensure strong and capable military forces prepared to protect
and advance American interests around the globe. That budget
would maintain the U.S. capability to respond effectively to
regional crises which threaten American interests, such as the
current crisis in the Persian Gulf, and it takes account of the
changes in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.
In contrast, H.R. 4739 provides (1) insufficient funding for
crucial strategic and conventional modernization programs; (2)
insufficient funding and flexibility to pursue effectively the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) ; (3) insufficient troop levels
to defend American interests; (4) insufficient flexibility for
management of the reshaping of the armed forces, the defense
civilian work force, and the defense base infrastructure; and (5)
funding for items not needed for the national defense. The
President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill
if it is presented to him in its current form.
The bill eliminates or underfunds crucial strategic and
conventional weapon systems and the SDI. of particular concern,
the bill:
-- Terminates the B-2 Stealth bomber program,
despite its value in a retaliatory force
shaped by the limits in the START Treaty, and
underfunds the strategic missile
modernization programs that remain essential
to deter the use of nuclear weapons.
-- Underfunds the SDI which holds promise of a
future defense against nuclear weapons. As
ballistic missiles capable of delivering
nuclear, chemical, biological or high
explosive warheads proliferate, the
importance of SDI continues to grow.
2
Underfunds the A-12 Avenger carrier-based
attack aircraft program that is essential to
replacing the aging A-6 aircraft that provide
the striking power for aircraft carrier
battle groups.
--
Underfunds and over-restricts the C-17 cargo
aircraft program that is crucial to
maintaining the strategic airlift capability
upon which America's ability to respond to
regional crises substantially depends.
--
Underfunds and over-restricts the Advanced
Tactical Fighter program that is essential to
ensuring that the United States maintains air
superiority in future conflicts.
The bill requires excessive cuts in military personnel. The
Administration plans to carefully reshape the armed forces.
However, the bill's single-year cut of 92,000 people, in addition
to the Administration's reduction of 38,000, is inconsistent with
the effective reshaping of the armed forces. So too is the
arbitrary reduction of the number of general and flag officer
positions. Moreover, the cut of 130,000 military personnel may
create unforeseen risks during a period in which the United
States has been forced to undertake substantial new overseas
deployments to defend vital American interests in and around the
Arabian Peninsula.
H.R. 4739 restricts the authority of the Secretary of Defense to
reshape the armed forces, the Defense civilian work force and the
defense base infrastructure. As the resources available for the
national defense shrink, the Department of Defense's need for
flexibility in administering the reduced resources becomes
paramount. Enactment of the Administration's proposed "Defense
Management Improvement Act," "Military Personnel Transition
Assistance Act,' and "Defense Base Consolidation Act" would
provide that essential flexibility.
The Administration strongly opposes statutory micro-management of
the Department's allocation of its scarce resources, such as the
bill's certification and prior reporting requirements related to
various procurement programs, and its restrictions on personnel
and on the closure or realignment of unneeded bases.
Congressional restrictions, such as the requirement to more than
double the size of the Special Operations oversight staff, denies
needed flexibility. As the reshaping of the force structure
occurs, it is imperative that the Department of Defense has the
flexibility to close or realign under-utilized or unneeded bases.
H.R. 4739 would purport to require the Secretary of Defense to
submit legislative proposals dealing with base closures. The
Constitution confers on the President the power to submit such
3
legislative proposals as the President judges necessary and
expedient. Thus, Congress may not require him to submit proposed
bills.
It is critical that Congress not add low-priority or unneeded
items to the defense budget. Thus, for example, the bill should
not include funding for the V-22 Osprey aircraft program and for
items which were not requested for National Guard and Reserve
programs.
The bill would impose ill-advised, and in some cases
constitutionally suspect, provisions that purport to limit the
authority of the Executive Branch to deploy the armed forces.
These include geographic and numerical restrictions on the
deployment of personnel and equipment. Two provisions are of
particular concern. First is the prohibition on fulfillment of
the U.S. commitment to the NATO Alliance to base the 401st
Tactical Fighter Wing at Crotone, Italy. Second is the
requirement for "dual basing" of forces by assigning them within
the United States and rotating them on a short-term basis through
overseas deployments.
The Administration objects to sections 2811 through 2823 which
grant the Department of Defense authorities for the disposition
of Federally-owned real property. The provisions are at variance
with existing law, particularly the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. of special
concern is Section 2822 which would authorize the non-
reimbursable transfer of property known as Barracks "K" in
Arlington, Virginia. GSA's transfer of this property to the Navy
was the subject of intense litigation. Changing the conditions
of the transfer, as this section would, could be viewed as
circumventing the underlying facts upon which the U.S. District
Court based its decisions and could possibly result in additional
litigation.
The Administration also objects to the provisions of H.R. 4739
which (1) require an unnecessary study of the safety of removing
obsolete chemical weapons from the Aberdeen Proving Ground and
Lexington Bluegrass Arsenal; (2) limit the discretion of the
Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, to direct
programs with state and local law enforcement officials; and (3)
limit the Secretary's ability to make resource allocations and
contract policy decisions by transferring the decision whether or
not to implement OMB Circular A-76 to local installation
commanders.
Additionally, the Administration strongly objects to the
following amendments:
--
The AuCoin-Machtley amendment which would
require medical facilities of the uniformed
4
services outside the United States to perform
abortions.
:
The Gilman amendment which includes the text
of H.R. 2544 that allows Federal agencies to
make Federal student loan payments on behalf
of certain employees. The Department of
Education has previously recommended that
this provision be vetoed. Studies have
indicated that forgiveness of loans has not
been effective in inducing individuals to
enter a particular profession. The Gilman
amendment would set a dangerous and very
costly precedent by allowing forgiveness for
Federal civil servants in the Guaranteed
Student Loan (GSL) programs, and it would
lead to pressure for forgiveness for many
other meritorious activities. Given the size
of the GSL program, with $52 billion in loans
outstanding, the potential cost to the
Government is substantial. Also, the Federal
Government should not be in a position of
"rewarding" students who finance their
education through student loans, and
effectively penalizing students who choose
work or savings to finance their post-
secondary education.
The Bennett amendment which limits post-
government employment opportunities. The
amendment is unwarranted and inconsistent
with the Ethics Reform Act principles of
uniform treatment of employees in all
agencies and is a prejudicial deterrent to
the ability of the Administration to attract
capable defense managers and administrators.
--
The Wyden amendment which would preclude the
addition of any waste to single and double-
shelled tanks at Hanford until two oversight
boards certify that the risk of tank
explosions is not credible. The Department
of Energy (DOE) has already initiated
detailed reviews related to tank safety. Use
of certain double-shelled tanks is required
for necessary waste processing. This
provision is an improper use of the boards'
statutorily-defined roles and functions, and
it reduces their potential objectivity.
--
The second Wyden amendment under which the
DOE would be required to reimburse local,
5
State and Federal environmental agencies for
expenses related to the environmental
oversight activities conducted pursuant to
the Comprehensive Environmental Recovery,
Conservation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Local governments do not have oversight
authority under CERCLA, and under current law
and Federal Facility Compliance Agreements,
DOE provides for reimbursement of State
oversight. The Administration believes that
it would be inappropriate for another Federal
agency to be required to augment
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
appropriations for EPA's activities; the
authority already exists. The Administration
is also opposed to similar requirements for
EPA reimbursement in the Bustamante
Amendment.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft report was prepared by LRD (Goad) in consultation with
ESD (Palmieri), FM (Brown), GO (Kelly), LVE (Grams, Jacobs), NRD
(Watts), NSD (Gessaman, Schuhart), OFPP (Baker), PRIV (Clark),
White House Counsel (Rademaker), ACDA (Westby), CIA (Pepper),
Commerce (Dalmut), Defense (Addington, 'Donnell), Education
(Riddle), Energy (Connolly), EPA (Bassuser), EXIM (Cantz), FEMA
(Levy), GSA (Brady and Neale), HHS (White, Calvin), Interior
(West), Justice (DeSanctis), Labor (Warren), NSC (Scrowcroft),
ONDCP (Carnavella), OPM (Woodruff), OSTP (Phillips), State
(Davis), Transportation (Bronner), Treasury (Levy), USTR (Malan),
VA (Gallin).
Authorization of Appropriations
H.R. 4739 authorizes $282.8 billion in budget authority for
Fiscal Year 1991 for national defense programs, $23.8 billion
less than requested by the Administration.
Budget Authority
($ in billions)
FY 91
Net
Request
HASC
Change
DOD-Military
Military Personnel
$ 79.1
$ 78.2
$- 0.9
O&M
90.0
83.8
- 6.2
6
Procurement
77.9
63.8
- 14.1
RDT&E
38.0
36.0
- 2.0
Construction
5.5
4.8
- 0.7
Housing
3.5
3.6
+ 0.1
Revolving Funds
2.2
1.7
- 0.5
Other
-1,2
-0.8
+ 0.3
DOD-Military
295.0
271.1
- 23.9
DOE
10.9
11.0
+ 0.1
Other
0.8
0.8
0.0
Total for National
Defense
$ 306.6
$ 282.8
$- 23.8
Strategic and Conventional Investment Programs
H.R. 4739 reduces authorizations for strategic weapon systems by
$6.7 billion through program reductions and eliminations.
Major Strategic Investment Programs ($ in Millions)
FY 91
Net
Request
HASC
Change
B-2 Bomber
$4,648
$1,867
$-2,781
ICBM Modernization
2,365
662*
-1,743
Trident Submarine
1,425
1,183
- 242
Trident II Missile
1,746
1,546
- 200
SDI
4,663
2,911
-1,752
Total for Major
Strategic Programs
$14,847
$8,129
$-6,718
* Includes $610 million in undistributed funds
for Rail-Garrison and/or Small ICBM
H.R. 4739 reduces the Administration's request of $4.6 billion
for SDI to $2.9 billion which will cause cancellation or delay
experiments needed to prove SDI feasibility. The Committee
eliminated the Department of Energy's $192 million request for
new Nuclear Directed Energy Weapons (NDEW) and denied funds for
full scale development of the Boost Surveillance and Tracking
System (BSTS) in FY 1991. The Administration requested $265
million for BSTS, the first element of the SDI program to reach
full scale development. The Committee authorized $137 million
for continuing advanced development of BSTS and instructed the
Secretary of Defense to transfer BSTS to the Air Force to replace
the aging Defense Support Program satellites.
7
The bill eliminates all procurement funds for the B-2 Bomber and
would place undue restrictions on the President's ability to
obligate funds for the Trident II (D-5) missile.
H.R. 4739 eliminates all funds, $1.615 billion, for procurement
and military construction for Rail Garrison MX, but authorizes
$610 million for R&D on ICBM modernization and requires that the
President report to Congress on how he proposes to allocate the
funds.
H.R. 4739 reduces authorizations below the requested level for
the following conventional weapon systems (in millions of $).
FY 91
Net
Request
HASC
Change
C-17
$1,681
$ 554
$-1,127
A-12
(Classified)
CH/MH-53 Helicopter
479
45
- 434
P-7A ASW Aircraft
255
235
- 20
F-15
1,840
1,614
- 226
F-16
2,973
2,391
- 582
ATF R&D
1,047
864
- 183
AMRAMM Missile
1,345
29
-1,316
SSN-21 Submarine
4,016
2,640
-1,376
LH Helicopter
411
300
- 111
Ml Tank
838
789
- 49
M2 Fighting Vehicle
695
437
- 258
Total for Conventional
Programs
$15,580
$9,898
$-5,682
H.R. 4739 severely disrupts essential procurement programs by
deleting all requested FY 1991 quantities of the A-12 attack
aircraft, the CH-53 helicopter, the T-45TS training aircraft, the
AMRAAM air-to-air missile and the KC-135 tanker re-engining
modifications. Initiation of full-scale development of the Air
Force's Advanced Tactical Fighter is delayed past 1991. The
JSTARS radar program and the ATACMS missile program are
terminated.
As well, the bill would severely disrupt the C-17 program. It
would limit funding for 2 aircraft in 1991 to $350 million rather
than the $1.7 billion requested and would delay obligation of
these funds until after a production aircraft has flown
(scheduled for September 1991). This would effectively eliminate
procurement of these two aircraft for 1991 -- at a time when C-
141 replacement is becoming more critical as a result of
Operation Desert Shield. The bill also directs the Navy to
construct "commercially viable" fast sealift ships for charter by
U.S. ship operators when not needed by the Navy. This is a
8
flawed concept of operation that would undermine military
readiness.
The bill requires the Army to conduct a study of the safety of
removing obsolete chemical weapons from Aberdeen Proving Ground
and Lexington Bluegrass army depot. Given prior studies on the
safety of chemical demilitarization, such a study is unnecessary
and would delay the chemical demilitarization program.
Personnel-Related Provisions
H.R. 3479 reduces active duty military end strengths by 4.5% from
the FY 1991 request. Authorized active forces end strengths for
FY 1991 are:
FY 1990
FY 1991
FY 1991
Program
Request
Committee
Recommendation
Army
744,169
727,500
675,669
Navy
590,501
584,800
570,501
Marine Corps
196,735
196,500
192,235
Air Force
545,000
530,000
508,500
Total
2,076,405
2,038,800
1,946,905
The bill authorizes the following separation and benefit packages
for involuntarily separated military personnel:
--
Separation pay calculated at 10 percent of
annual base pay for each full year of service
for involuntarily separated officers and
enlisted personnel with six or more years of
service. H.R. 4739 removes the current
$30,000 cap on separation payments and
contains provisions which grandfather
eligibility of current officers with five
years of service. Under current law only
officers with five years or more of service
are eligible for separation pay and payments
are limited to $30,000.
--
Comprehensive medical transition assistance
for involuntarily separated military
personnel and their dependents. Coverage
would be extended 60 days for involuntarily
separated individuals with less than six
years of service, 120 for those with more
than six years. After the expiration date,
individuals would be eligible to buy a
9
Defense Department-negotiated conversion
health policy from a private insurance
carrier.
-- Transition counseling would be available to
every separating service member. Programs
offering information on financial,
educational and vocational benefits would be
provided. H.R. 4739 requires that the
Secretary of Labor establish a program
offering counseling, employment, training and
other information and services to military
personnel and their families within 180 days
of departure from active duty.
-- Job certification/verification programs for
military personnel.
-- Relocation and job search information and
assistance for overseas personnel.
-- Retention of dependent family members in
Department of Defense Schools through the end
of the school year; juniors would be allowed
to stay through the senior year.
-- Government housing privileges for up to 180
days after the separation date would be
extended to involuntarily separated service
members and their families.
-- Commissary and exchange privileges would be
extended to service personnel and their
families for two years following their
separation.
-- Participation in the Montgomery GI Bill or
Veteran's Educational Assistance programs
would be extended, prior to separation, to
service members who originally elected not to
participate.
Environmental Provisions
H.R. 4739 increases the authorization for the Defense
Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) from the
Administration's request of $817 million to $1 billion. DERA
consolidated and expanded Department of Defense programs for the
clean-up of hazardous waste and related issues at active and
former Defense sites.
10
Land Transactions
The General Services Administration opposes sections 2811 through
2823 which contain numerous provisions granting the Department of
Defense authority for the disposition of Federally-owned real
property in a manner which is at variance with existing law,
particularly the Property Act. GSA has recommended that the
sections be deleted from the bill and that any Defense property
that is found to be unneeded by the agency be reported to GSA for
disposition. of particular concern is section 2822 which would
authorize the non-reimbursable transfer of property known as
Barracks "K" in Arlington, Virginia. On June 30, 1989, GSA
transferred the property to the Navy. Navy agreed to pay, and
the transfer was conditioned on a reimbursement in the amount of
$6 million. The transfer became the subject of litigation in
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty V. U.S.
Department of Veteran's Affairs, Civil Action No. 88-2503-OG.
Based in part on the government's representation that the
transfer required a $6 million reimbursement by the Navy, the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
sustained GSA's decision to transfer the property to the Navy in
lieu of making it available to assist the homeless under the
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. GSA asserts that changing the
conditions of the transfer could be viewed as circumventing the
facts upon which the court based its decisions and could possibly
result in additional litigation.
Procurement and Financial Systems
The Administration opposes section 1011 of H.R. 4739 which limits
the authority of the Secretary of Defense to make resource
allocation and contracting policy decisions. The section
transfers decisions on whether or not to implement OMB Circular
A-76 away from the Secretary of Defense to local military
installation commanders.
Section 109 prohibits the obligation of advance procurement funds
until 30 days after submission to Congress of the five year
defense program. This provision would undermine the orderly
execution of major procurement programs. The bill also contains
a provision preventing the obligation of funds to procure
aircraft for the Army from a firm in Northern Ireland unless that
firm institutes an equal opportunity program. This is
unjustified interference in the internal affairs of another
nation.
The administration, however, supports the following provisions:
-- Section 802 (similar to Section 204 of the
Defense Management Improvement Act (DMIA)
which amends the Competition in Contracting
11
Act (CICA) to authorize an award to other
than the low cost offeror without conducting
further negotiations;
-- Section 803 (similar to Section 208 of the
DMIA) which allows contracting officers to
waive the cost and pricing data requirements
of the Truth in Negotiations Act for
contracts or subcontracts between $100,000
and $500,000;
-- Section 804 (similar to Section 203 of the
DMIA) which repeals commercial pricing
certificate requirements;
-- Section 805 (similar to Section 207 of the
DMIA) which would provide the Department of
Defense with greater discretion with regard
to dual sourcing;
-- Section 813 which requires certification by
subcontractors regarding their debarment
status; and
-- Title X (Part A) which provides the
Department of Defense Comptroller explicit
authority to direct and manage all Defense
financial management activities and
operations.
General Provisions
The Administration objects to the following sections:
-- Section 243 which authorizes a $10 million grant for an
Institute for Advanced Science and Technology.
Although designated as a "competitive" award, only the
University of Pennsylvania meets all the qualifications
stipulated. The provision runs counter to the
Administration's policy of making such awards on the
basis of peer review and in the context of funding
requirements for science and technology as a whole.
-- Section 313 mandates the continuation of hurricane
reconnaissance flights by the Air Force. These
aircraft, which perform a civilian mission, should be
funded in the budget of an appropriate civilian agency.
-- Section 1302 ("M" Accounts) which limits obligation
adjustments to a two year period for all programs
without exception.
12
:
Section 1324 which authorizes the charter,
but not the sale, of fast sealift vessels to
United States ship operators.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 10:15 AM
OFFICE EDUCATION wish PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
October 5, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4765 - Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act
(DeLugo (D) Virgin Islands and 20 others)
The President has urged Congress to pass legislation this year
that would grant the people of Puerto Rico, at the earliest
possible time, the right to determine their political future.
*******
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Jukes/Ratliff) in
consultation with the Departments of Justice (Pestal), Health and
Human Services (Burnett), Defense (Byron), State (Davis), USTR
(Ives), HIM (Haskins), SS/EG (Schwartz), HTF (Parrish), EP
(Jacobson), OA Counsel (Overton), and the White House
(Untermeyer).
Treasury, Agriculture, the Interior, Transportation, and NSC did
not respond to our request for views.
Background
In his February 9, 1989, address to Congress, the President asked
Congress to "take the necessary steps" to allow the people of
Puerto Rico to determine their political future through a
referendum. The President also stated his personal preference
for statehood.
The Department of Justice has advised OMB informally that
congressional action is not required to authorize a referendum.
H.R. 4765
H.R. 4765, as reported by the House Interior and Rules Committees
on October 2nd, is not available for review. This SAP is based
on a typescript provided by Justice (Pestal).
H.R. 4765 would authorize appropriations of $13.5 million to the
Executive Office of the President for grants to Puerto Rico's
elections commission for a referendum to be held on or about
September 16, 1991. Of this amount, $7.5 million would be for
the cost of conducting the referendum, including $1.5 million to
facilitate the participation of Puerto Ricans not resident in
2
Puerto Rico. The remaining $6 million would be disbursed to a
"Dialogue Committee," to be divided equally among Puerto Rico's
principal parties, to inform the public of the status options
described below. (The Dialogue Committee on the Status of Puerto
Rico was established by the Governor in 1989.)
The question to be put in the referendum would be:
"Which political status do you favor for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on terms to be
consented to by the people of Puerto Rico and
the Congress of the United States?
independence;
statehood;
a new commonwealth relationship; or
none of the above statuses."
The bill provides that the referendum would be conducted under
the election laws of Puerto Rico and "appropriate" Federal laws
that apply to the election of the Resident Commissioner of Puerto
Rico.
H.R. 4765 authorizes Puerto Rico to enable certain Puerto Ricans
not resident in Puerto Rico to vote in the referendum, subject to
approval by the Puerto Rican Legislative Assembly of a plan for
such voting approved by a majority of the Dialogue Committee.
The bill provides that if the referendum results in a majority
for one of the three status options, expedited procedures shall
apply for the drafting and consideration of Federal implementing
legislation. Specifically, House and Senate bills would be
introduced by the appropriate committee chairmen by
March 6, 1992. The bills would be in order for floor action 195
calendar days after introduction. H.R. 4765 states that its
enactment:
"constitutes a commitment that the United
States Congress will vote on legislation
establishing appropriate mechanisms and
procedures to implement the political status
selected by the people of Puerto Rico."
H.R. 4765 provides that, if Congress approves legislation to
implement the result of the referendum, it shall be submitted to
the people of Puerto Rico for ratification. Appropriations of
"such sums as may be necessary" are authorized for the
ratification vote and for consultations with the Puerto Rican
parties in the drafting of the legislation.
3
Comparison with Senate-Reported Bill
S. 712, a related Senate bill, has been reported by the
Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and Finance. The
principal difference between the House and Senate bills is that
the Senate bill is self-executing. The Senate bill sets forth
the changes in Federal law that would result under each of the
status options. It provides that those changes in law would take
effect automatically upon approval of a status option by a
majority of Puerto Ricans.
Administration Position to Date
In May 1990, the President wrote to Representative Lagomarsino, a
proponent of H.R. 4765, in support of legislation to allow a
referendum. (The President did not cite a specific bill.)
Justice worked informally with the House Interior Committee to
address its concerns with the introduced version of the bill, and
is satisfied with the reported version.
The Administration has testified on several occasions in support
of S. 712. The Administration has, however, expressed numerous
concerns with the Senate bill. Some of these have been addressed
by the Senate committees; others would be need to be addressed on
the floor if the Senate takes up S. 712.
Justice (Pestal) advises informally that the Senate is not likely
to act on S. 712, but may take up H.R. 4765 if it passes the
House.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
10/4/90 -- 5:30 p.m.
MINTER PRESIDENT THE UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 7, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4773 - White House Conference on Small Business
Authorization Act
(LaFalce (D) New York and 16 others)
The Administration opposes enactment of H.R. 4773.
H.R. 4773 would require the President to call a National White
House Conference on Small Business in 1994, to be preceded by
conferences in each State. The Small Business Administration is
already engaged in extensive and ongoing efforts to facilitate
communications among owners of small businesses. In the absence
of compelling national small business issues, H.R. 4773 would
impose unnecessary costs on the Federal Government and on small
businesses.
*****
(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 Small Business Administration (Shane) and HTP (Rhinesmith and
Criscitello).
Provisions of H.R. 4773
The principal provisions of H.R. 4773, as reported by the House
Small Business Committee, would:
-- require the President to call a National White House
Conference on Small Business between January 1 and
April 1, 1994;
-- require that this Conference be preceded by at least one
conference in each State, and two conferences in each
State with a population exceeding 10,000,000;
-- prohibit fees or charges for attendees other than amounts
necessary to cover the costs of meals and a registration
fee not to exceed $10;
-- establish a White House Conference on Small Business
Commission to oversee preparation of the Conference, to be
composed of 11 members appointed by the President;
2
-- authorize the appropriation of $5,000,000 for FY 1992, to
remain available until expended, for conference-related
purposes; and
-- specify that no funds appropriated to the Small Business
Administration shall be used for the Conference unless
those funds were appropriated for that purpose.
Administration Position To Date
ln a July 24, 1990, letter to the House Small Business Committee,
the Small Business Administration stated that it opposed
H.R. 4773.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/7/90 - 3:00 P.M.
THE SERVIS UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
June 13, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4785 - AIDS Prevention Act of 1990
(Waxman (D) CA)
The Administration strongly supports efforts to help needy
Americans afflicted with AIDS and other diseases gain access to
health care. The Administration also strongly supports efforts
to provide assistance to areas disproportionately affected by
AIDS and other diseases.
The Administration, however, opposes passage of H.R. 4785 for the
following reasons:
-- The bill's narrow disease-specific approach sets a dangerous
precedent, inviting treatment of other diseases through
similar ad hoc arrangements. This approach also runs
counter to the government's existing health care financing
system, which will provide more than $870 million in Federal
Medicaid payments for HIV disease in 1991. Additionally,
this approach could encourage existing health care payors
(e.g., States, insurance companies, and localities) to limit
or reduce coverage for the disease being given special
treatment. Enactment of this bill could thus bring results
that are counter to the goal we all seek to achieve.
-- The bill's authorization levels are excessive. According to
cBo, the authorizations would total $978 million in FY 1991
and at least $5 billion over FYs 1991-95. These large
authorizations could drain appropriations from the Federal
government's highest priorities in battling HIV/AIDS. Those
priorities are finding therapies and vaccines through
biomedical research, and reducing the spread of infection
through prevention and education. The President requested
$1.7 billion for these activities in his FY 1991 Budget.
-- The bill does not target funds to assist financially needy
individuals first, a primary principle of Federal health
care treatment financing. Because the bill does not target
assistance according to financial need, it runs the risk of
providing assistance to persons with independent resources
at the expense of those in financial need.
-- The bill lacks an adequate maintenance-of-effort provision
to ensure that grantees continue current investments in
fighting HIV. Federal resources could simply substitute for
current State, local, and private spending. Further, the
2
bill does not leverage Federal resources efficiently through
dollar-for-dollar matching provisions.
-- The bill's $500 million State formula grants exceed by over
$200 million the funding for all other Federal formula
grants for prevention.
H.R. 4785 would create administrative bottlenecks that would
seriously impede delivery of services. For example:
-- Individual health care providers (such as sexually
transmitted disease clinics) would be eligible for both
direct funding from the Federal government and formula
funding from States. Bypassing State health departments
through this unorthodox financing mechanism could lead to
confusion regarding which activities are being supported
with categorical funds versus formula funds and State funds
versus local funds. This would reduce the Public Health
Service's ability to properly monitor program expenses.
H.R. 4785 would be improved by Rep. Madigan's amendments. Those
amendments would: (1) impose State matching requirements for
titles I and IV of the bill; (2) add an income-related sliding
fee schedule for individuals receiving preventive services;
(3) require grantees to agree to maintain their current effort in
combatting AIDS; and (4) reduce the authorization levels in the
bill by $125 million in FY 1991 (from $978 million to
$853 million), and by $625 million over FYs 1991-95 (from
$5.1 billion to $4.5 billion).
The bill would also be improved if modified to encourage States
to allow individuals to be informed of their possible infection
and to take appropriate actions to seek treatment and prevent
future spread of the virus.
Although these amendments would improve H.R. 4785, they do not go
far enough to remedy the basic flaws in the bill.
********
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft position was developed by LRD (Pellicci) and HIMD
(Clendenin/Turman). The White House Office of Policy Development
(Kuttner) and the Domestic Policy Counsel (Heimbach) have no
objection to the proposed position. HHS (per Jim Riccuiti)
concurs in the proposed position.
The proposed position is similar to one sent to the House Rules
Committee on June 6, 1990. The Administration did not take a
position on a similar Senate bill, S. 2240 (Kennedy (D) MA),
which passed the Senate on May 16, 1990, by a vote of 95-4.
3
H.R. 4785's major provisions would:
-- Authorize $500 million for each of FYs 1991 through 1995 for
HHS to make grants for AIDS preventive health services,
including counseling, testing, and therapeutic measures.
Formula grants would be made to the States, and categorical
grants would be made to certain public and nonprofit
entities.
-- Authorize $300 million for each of FYs 1991 and 1992 and
"such sums" for FYs 1993-95 for HHS' Health Resources and
Services Administration to make grants to improve health
services for low-income individuals with HIV disease.
Grants would be made to the chief elected official of a
city, urban county, or other political subdivision with a
high concentration of AIDS cases.
The bill would also:
-- Authorize "such sums" in FYs 1991-95 for grants to
"hard-hit" hospitals to provide certain inpatient preventive
services. The bill also includes a "such sums"
authorization for state matching grants for HIV testing and
preventive services in state prisons.
-- Authorize $5 million for each of FYs 1991-95 in State grants
to implement plans for reducing workplace exposure to HIV.
-- Authorize $30 million in FY91 and "such sums" in FY92-95 for
comprehensive health care demonstration grants. Also
authorized is $30 million for FYs 1991-93 for grants to
assist "indigent individuals" in acquiring HIV drugs. Title
IV also authorizes $20 million in FY91 and "such sums" in
FYs 1992-95 for pediatric AIDS demonstration grants.
CBO estimates that the authorizations would total $978 million in
FY 1991 and $5,085 million during FYs 1991-1995.
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
6/13/90
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
DEL STATE UNITED
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. 4790 Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality
Prevention Act of 1990
(Waxman (D) CA and 48 others)
The Administration has no objection to enactment of H.R. 4790.
********
(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/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 April 23, 1990. Marilyn Quayle, whose mother died
of breast cancer, also appeared at this hearing to highlight the
importance of breast and cervical cancer screening.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee report on H.R. 4790 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.
H.R. 4790 would create a new program of grants to States to help
pay for mammograms and for Pap smears and other examinations to
detect cervical cancer. The bill would authorize $50 million in
FY 1991 and "such sums as necessary" in FYs 1992 and 1993 for
grants to States to establish preventive health screening and
referral services for low-income women. To receive funds, States
would be required to match $1 for each $3 of Federal funds
provided under the program.
As a condition of the grant, the bill would require States to
have in place specified quality-assurance standards, including
standards for laboratory technicians and others who interpret the
mammograms and pap smears.
Senators Kassebaum (R) KS and Mikulski (D) MD have introduced
companion legislation (S. 2283).
LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE DIVISION DRAFT
6/14/90
OFFICE PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 14, 1990
(House Rules)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4793 - Small Business Reauthorization and Amendments Act of
1990
(LaFalce (D) New York and 42 others)
If H.R. 4793 is presented to the President containing Title II in
its current form, the Secretary of the Treasury will recommend a
veto. The Administration also opposes enactment of H.R. 4793
because it contains unrealistically high authorization levels and
unnecessarily costly programs and requirements.
Title II of H.R. 4793 would permit certain SBA borrowers to
prepay their borrowings from the Federal Financing Bank at
substantially reduced premiums, and to finance up to $150 million
per year of such prepayments with new loans fully guaranteed by
the Government. The effect of Title II would be to allow a
borrower to change the borrowing terms to which it had agreed
when it is favorable to the borrower -- and therefore unfavorable
to the Bank and American taxpayers -- to do so.
H.R. 4793 should be amended to authorize FY 1991 program levels
consistent with the President's Budget. Specifically, the
Administration recommends program levels of $5 million for 8 (a)
direct loans (with no authorization for other forms of direct
loans); $3.83 billion for guaranteed loans; and $1.5 billion for
surety bond guarantees. The FY 1991 authorization levels in H.R.
4793 exceed these amounts by $96 million, $440 million, and $300
million, respectively. H.R. 4793 also contains authorization
levels for these programs for FYs 1992-94 at levels increasingly
greater than those for FY 1991. The Administration recommends
that these FY 1992-94 authorizations be deleted.
For the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) program, the
Administration recommends authorization levels of $30 million for
FY 1991 and $15 million for FY 1992. The Administration
recommends deletion of section 103, which would extend the SBDC
program beyond FY 1992. This program has attracted substantial
funding from non-Federal sources and should be permitted to
become independent of Federal funding at the end of FY 1992.
H.R. 4793 should also be amended to delete:
-- section 104, which would involve the Small Business
Administration (SBA) in reforestation activities more
properly administered by the Department of Agriculture;
-- section 108, which would require that the Deputy SBA
Administrator, currently appointed by the SBA
Administrator, be appointed by the President;
-- sections 109 and 118, which would impose unnecessary
delays on the Federal procurement process; and
-- Title III, which contains several costly and
unnecessary mandates regarding small businesses in
rural areas.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Brown), in consultation with
the Departments of Agriculture (McAndrew), Commerce (Dalmut),
Defense (Potuk), Interior (Poling), Justice (Dulmage), and the
Treasury (Carro and Levy), GSA (Robinson), NASA (Costanza), and
SBA (Shane), OIRA (Waxman), OFPP (Coleman), NR (Beard), and HTF
(Ryder, Rhinesmith, and Crisatello).
Provisions of H.R. 4793
-- Appropriations Authorizations
H.R. 4793, as reported by the House Small Business Committee,
would authorize appropriations as shown in the table below.
Fiscal Years
($ in millions)
Pres. Bud.
H.R. 4793
1991
1991
1992
1993
1994
Direct loans
5
101
105
110
105
Loan guarantees
3,830
4,270
4,754
4,992
5,137
Surety bond
guarantees
1,500
1,800
1,890
1,985 2,084
In addition, H.R. 4793 would authorize "such sums" for SBDCs and
for SBA administrative expenses for FYs 1991-94.
-- Prepayment of Borrowings from the Federal Financing Bank
Title II of H.R. 4793 would permit small business investment
companies and certified development companies to prepay their
borrowings from the Federal Financing Bank at substantially
reduced premiums, and to finance up to $150 million per year of
such prepayments with new loans fully guaranteed by the
2
Government. These provisions are similar to S. 437 of the 100th
Congress, which President Reagan disapproved on October 31, 1990.
-- Other Substantive Provisions
In addition to Title II (described above), H.R. 4793 would:
-- eliminate the provision of current law "sunsetting"
the Small Business Development Center Program at the
end of FY 1991 and change the formula for allocating
grants under the program;
-- establish a program of grants designed to involve small
businesses in reforestation activities, with
authorizations of $30 million for FY 1991 and $50
million for "each fiscal year thereafter" (section
104) i
-- extend, from October 1, 1990 to October 1, 1994,
statutory provisions allowing the SBA to (1) override
State usury laws for private sector financing of Small
Business Development Companies, and (2) cooperate with
for-profit businesses in providing training and
seminars for small firms;
-- provide that future SBA Deputy Administrators shall be
appointed by the President, rather than by the SBA
Administrator as is currently the case (section 108) i
-- establish special procedures to be followed where
agencies propose to consolidate contracts currently
being performed by small businesses (section 109) ;
--
authorize the SBA to allow an 8 (a) contractor to
furnish a product manufactured or processed by other
than a small business under certain circumstances
(section 118) ;
-- limit to $35 million the value of debentures which may
be issued by small business investment companies which
are determined by the SBA to be commonly controlled;
-- repeal an existing requirement that international trade
loans be sold by the lender in the secondary market;
--
extend the maximum term of export revolving lines of
credit under the Small Business Act from 18 months to 3
years;
--
modify the terms under which firms owned by Indian
tribes may participate in SBA programs; and
-- establish in Title III a new program of SBA technical
assistance, loans, loan guarantees, and grants to small
3
businesses located in rural areas. This program would
be subject to appropriations.
Administration Position To Date
In June 14, 1990, testimony before the House Small Business
Committee, the SBA Administrator stated that she opposed H.R.
4793. As noted above, President Reagan disapproved S. 437 of the
100th Congress on October 31, 1990, because it contained
provisions similar to those in Title II of H.R. 4793.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/13/90 -- 7:00 P.M.
4
OF PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
September 21, 1990
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 4793 - Small Business Reauthorization and Amendments Act of
1990
(LaFalce (D) New York and 42 others)
If H.R. 4793 is presented to the President containing Title II in
its current form, the Secretary of the Treasury will recommend a
veto. The Administration also opposes enactment of H.R. 4793
because it contains unrealistically high authorization levels and
unnecessarily costly programs and requirements.
Title II of H.R. 4793 would permit certain SBA borrowers to
prepay their borrowings from the Federal Financing Bank at
substantially reduced premiums, and to finance up to $150 million
per year of such prepayments with new loans fully guaranteed by
the Government. The effect of Title II would be to allow a
borrower to change the borrowing terms to which it had agreed
when it is favorable to the borrower -- and therefore unfavorable
to the Bank and American taxpayers -- to do so.
H.R. 4793 should be amended to authorize FY 1991 program levels
consistent with the President's Budget. Specifically, the
Administration recommends program levels of $5 million for 8 (a)
direct loans (with no authorization for other forms of direct
loans); $3.83 billion for guaranteed loans; and $1.5 billion for
surety bond guarantees. The FY 1991 authorization levels in H.R.
4793 exceed these amounts by $96 million, $440 million, and $300
million, respectively. H.R. 4793 also contains authorization
levels for these programs for FYs 1992-94 at levels increasingly
greater than those for FY 1991. The Administration recommends
that these FY 1992-94 authorizations be deleted.
For the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) program, the
Administration recommends authorization levels of $30 million for
FY 1991 and $15 million for FY 1992. The Administration
recommends deletion of section 103, which would extend the SBDC
program beyond FY 1992. This program has attracted substantial
funding from non-Federal sources and should be permitted to
become independent of Federal funding at the end of FY 1992.
H.R. 4793 should also be amended to delete:
-- section 104, which would involve the Small Business
Administration (SBA) in reforestation activities more
properly administered by the Department of Agriculture;
-- section 108, which would require that the Deputy SBA
Administrator, currently appointed by the SBA
Administrator, be appointed by the President;
-- sections 109 and 118, which would impose unnecessary
delays on the Federal procurement process; and
-- Title III, which contains several costly and
unnecessary mandates regarding small businesses in
rural areas.
*****
(Not to be Distributed Outside Executive Office of the President)
This draft Statement of Administration Policy was developed by
the Legislative Reference Division (Brown), in consultation with
the Departments of Agriculture (McAndrew), Commerce (Dalmut),
Defense (Potuk), Interior (Poling), Justice (Dulmage), and the
Treasury (Carro and Levy), GSA (Robinson), NASA (Costanza), and
SBA (Shane), OIRA (Waxman), OFPP (Coleman), NR (Beard), and HTF
(Ryder, Rhinesmith, and Crisatello).
Provisions of H.R. 4793
-- Appropriations Authorizations
H.R. 4793, as reported by the House Small Business Committee,
would authorize appropriations as shown in the table below.
Fiscal Years
($ in millions)
Pres. Bud.
H.R. 4793
1991
1991
1992
1993
1994
Direct loans
5
101
105
110
105
Loan guarantees
3,830
4,270
4,754
4,992
5,137
Surety bond
guarantees
1,500
1,800
1,890
1,985 2,084
In addition, H.R. 4793 would authorize "such sums" for SBDCs and
for SBA administrative expenses for FYs 1991-94.
-- Prepayment of Borrowings from the Federal Financing Bank
Title II of H.R. 4793 would permit small business investment
companies and certified development companies to prepay their
borrowings from the Federal Financing Bank at substantially
reduced premiums, and to finance up to $150 million per year of
such prepayments with new loans fully guaranteed by the
Government. These provisions are similar to S. 437 of the 100th
Congress, which President Reagan disapproved on October 31, 1990.
-- Other Substantive Provisions
In addition to Title II (described above), H.R. 4793 would:
-- eliminate the provision of current law "sunsetting"
the Small Business Development Center Program at the
end of FY 1991 and change the formula for allocating
grants under the program;
-- establish a program of grants designed to involve small
businesses in reforestation activities, with
authorizations of $30 million for FY 1991 and $50
million for "each fiscal year thereafter" (section
104) ;
-- extend, from October 1, 1990 to October 1, 1994,
statutory provisions allowing the SBA to (1) override
State usury laws for private sector financing of Small
Business Development Companies, and (2) cooperate with
for-profit businesses in providing training and
seminars for small firms;
-- provide that future SBA Deputy Administrators shall be
appointed by the President, rather than by the SBA
Administrator as is currently the case (section 108) i
-- establish special procedures to be followed where
agencies propose to consolidate contracts currently
being performed by small businesses (section 109) ;
-- authorize the SBA to allow an 8 (a) contractor to
furnish a product manufactured or processed by other
than a small business under certain circumstances
(section 118) ;
-- limit to $35 million the value of debentures which may
be issued by small business investment companies which
are determined by the SBA to be commonly controlled;
-- repeal an existing requirement that international trade
loans be sold by the lender in the secondary market;
-- extend the maximum term of export revolving lines of
credit under the Small Business Act from 18 months to 3
years;
-- modify the terms under which firms owned by Indian
tribes may participate in SBA programs; and
-- establish in Title III a new program of SBA technical
assistance, loans, loan guarantees, and grants to small
businesses located in rural areas. This program would
be subject to appropriations.
Administration Position To Date
In June 14, 1990, testimony before the House Small Business
Committee, the SBA Administrator stated that she opposed H.R.
4793. As noted above, President Reagan disapproved S. 437 of the
100th Congress on October 31, 1990, because it contained
provisions similar to those in Title II of H.R. 4793.
Legislative Reference Division Draft
9/13/90 -- 7:00 P.M. .